This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
So I got curious. The majority of climbs that are at the edge of what is currently considered possible are set by men. Is this merely down to there being more male climbers or do physical factors come onto play as well? While it is widely accepted that men are stronger than women that doesn't count for so much when climbing. What does is strength to weight ratio of which there isn't much difference between the sexes, flexibility (women generally come up tops there) and technique.
I don't intend to cause any offence with this post, I'm merely looking to better educate my self.
I don't intend to cause any offence with this post, I'm merely looking to better educate my self.
9
1
In reply to Tigger:
I think the numbers of participant could be a factor and men also generally have a longer reach. But given some of the recent repeat ascents by women, especially on sports routes I wouldn't mind betting that a woman will put up one of the hardest climbs in the world within the next decade. But then Lynn Hill's free ascent of The Nose might be that already?
I think the numbers of participant could be a factor and men also generally have a longer reach. But given some of the recent repeat ascents by women, especially on sports routes I wouldn't mind betting that a woman will put up one of the hardest climbs in the world within the next decade. But then Lynn Hill's free ascent of The Nose might be that already?
10
In reply to Hugh J:
Don't want to open a can of worms but I'm not sure reach is that important (Adam Ondra is 5"10 , Alex Megos is 5"8 and Shauna Coxsey 5"4). I would have thought if reach was an advantage then all the top climbers would be really talk like swimmers. But anyway I definitely agree that a woman could put up a real game changing route in the next few years.
I've often wondered if small hands might be an advantage? Perhaps having small fingers might let you get more out of tiny crimps?
Don't want to open a can of worms but I'm not sure reach is that important (Adam Ondra is 5"10 , Alex Megos is 5"8 and Shauna Coxsey 5"4). I would have thought if reach was an advantage then all the top climbers would be really talk like swimmers. But anyway I definitely agree that a woman could put up a real game changing route in the next few years.
I've often wondered if small hands might be an advantage? Perhaps having small fingers might let you get more out of tiny crimps?
7
In reply to Tigger:
I've got a sneaking suspicion that the biggest difference between the genders is the mean ego size: this factoid alone would be enough to account for the greater number of new routes being put up by men
I've got a sneaking suspicion that the biggest difference between the genders is the mean ego size: this factoid alone would be enough to account for the greater number of new routes being put up by men
16
1
In reply to Andy Hardy:
Yes, mentality could be something to do with it. I think it was Steve Davis who said a women would never be World Snooker Champion because they simply don't have the dedication to something as stupid as knock around some balls with a stick for hours on end. Snooker like climbing is something that takes a lot of dedication and pure hard work to become really good at, for what are essentially meaningless goals. Even Ronnie loves running more than snooker.
Yes, mentality could be something to do with it. I think it was Steve Davis who said a women would never be World Snooker Champion because they simply don't have the dedication to something as stupid as knock around some balls with a stick for hours on end. Snooker like climbing is something that takes a lot of dedication and pure hard work to become really good at, for what are essentially meaningless goals. Even Ronnie loves running more than snooker.
9
In reply to Greasy Prusiks:
Yes good points. Johnny Dawes isn't exactly tall either.
Wasn't it Lynn Hill's small fingers that enabled her to do The Nose clean?
Edit: And her amazing ability too.
Yes good points. Johnny Dawes isn't exactly tall either.
Wasn't it Lynn Hill's small fingers that enabled her to do The Nose clean?
Edit: And her amazing ability too.
Post edited at 22:49
5
4
In reply to Tigger:
From the woman herself:
"I think that's part of a difference in temperament between men and women. Women are - I think - happier to just see progress and enjoy working hard routes and problems and I think men feel that they have to be leaders. There's so much more pride and satisfaction if they do first ascents and they don't mind all the work involved. I think if women had more pressure maybe, or felt that they should do it, then they might start doing more, but there aren't that many women doing new routes at the moment, especially in the mountains. I think that'll come over time."
https://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=9151
Great article.
From the woman herself:
"I think that's part of a difference in temperament between men and women. Women are - I think - happier to just see progress and enjoy working hard routes and problems and I think men feel that they have to be leaders. There's so much more pride and satisfaction if they do first ascents and they don't mind all the work involved. I think if women had more pressure maybe, or felt that they should do it, then they might start doing more, but there aren't that many women doing new routes at the moment, especially in the mountains. I think that'll come over time."
https://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=9151
Great article.
8
In reply to Tigger:
In the first instance it is probably a numbers game, though that is changing. When I started climbing 24 years ago there were not so many woman climbing as now, but still more than the 20 years before that.
In the second place there may be cultural aspects (again changing) that keep women, in general, from the top slot. Alison Hargreaves drew criticism about climbing when pregnant or by the fact she was a mother. One could not imagine a man drawing the same level of criticism. There is a general (emphasis on general) thing that in mixed groups women do not always put themselves forward and may be regarded as out spoken if they do. This also may be cultural and changing
Thirdly there are physical differences but these are not nearly as important as one might think. Take height for instance. Men are generally taller than women. The tallest person in the world is probably a man. But in a mixed group there will be some women taller than some men. My wife is 5' 11" taller than me and most of my male friends but not as tall as my tallest male friends. And as has been pointed out height is not always a factor in climbing (J Dawes).
In the first instance it is probably a numbers game, though that is changing. When I started climbing 24 years ago there were not so many woman climbing as now, but still more than the 20 years before that.
In the second place there may be cultural aspects (again changing) that keep women, in general, from the top slot. Alison Hargreaves drew criticism about climbing when pregnant or by the fact she was a mother. One could not imagine a man drawing the same level of criticism. There is a general (emphasis on general) thing that in mixed groups women do not always put themselves forward and may be regarded as out spoken if they do. This also may be cultural and changing
Thirdly there are physical differences but these are not nearly as important as one might think. Take height for instance. Men are generally taller than women. The tallest person in the world is probably a man. But in a mixed group there will be some women taller than some men. My wife is 5' 11" taller than me and most of my male friends but not as tall as my tallest male friends. And as has been pointed out height is not always a factor in climbing (J Dawes).
5
1
In reply to Tigger:
I think there are 2 very distinct factors at play here, which are the opportunity and the desire for new routing.
There's no denying that at the very top level the overwhelming majority of climbers operating at a given grade are male. This applies both globally and in my experience also in virtually every local climbing community I've come across. If a very hard route is there in full view and hasn't been done yet it's not surprising it's usually a man that ends up climbing it first. Opportunity therefore is very heavily weighted in favour of the biggest fish in the pond at the time. The very hardest routes in any area at any time will usually be in this category.
Desire for new routing itself comes increasingly into play when there's more to it than simply very hard climbing. Routes may first need time and effort to be found, may need extensive cleaning, may be hard to access or to equip. This is where the desire to be first - whether for the experience or for the bragging rights - increasingly becomes the driving factor. This is also where any psychological differences between the sexes is likely to play a much bigger part in motivating first ascents, but I'll leave it to others to speculate on whether or what those differences may be.
I think there are 2 very distinct factors at play here, which are the opportunity and the desire for new routing.
There's no denying that at the very top level the overwhelming majority of climbers operating at a given grade are male. This applies both globally and in my experience also in virtually every local climbing community I've come across. If a very hard route is there in full view and hasn't been done yet it's not surprising it's usually a man that ends up climbing it first. Opportunity therefore is very heavily weighted in favour of the biggest fish in the pond at the time. The very hardest routes in any area at any time will usually be in this category.
Desire for new routing itself comes increasingly into play when there's more to it than simply very hard climbing. Routes may first need time and effort to be found, may need extensive cleaning, may be hard to access or to equip. This is where the desire to be first - whether for the experience or for the bragging rights - increasingly becomes the driving factor. This is also where any psychological differences between the sexes is likely to play a much bigger part in motivating first ascents, but I'll leave it to others to speculate on whether or what those differences may be.
3
In reply to Hugh J:
My guess is that if he were a runner he'd prefer snooker.
> Even Ronnie loves running more than snooker.
My guess is that if he were a runner he'd prefer snooker.
1
In reply to Hugh J:
I can certainly imagine small fingers being an advantage on some of those tiny cracks.
I've also got a theory that women are under additional selection pressure when big companies are looking for people to sponsor. I think that womens looks come into the decision much more than they would with men. Surely this limits the development of top female climbers by removing some excellent climbers from sponsorship in favour of women who look a certain way?
That's my theory anyway.
I can certainly imagine small fingers being an advantage on some of those tiny cracks.
I've also got a theory that women are under additional selection pressure when big companies are looking for people to sponsor. I think that womens looks come into the decision much more than they would with men. Surely this limits the development of top female climbers by removing some excellent climbers from sponsorship in favour of women who look a certain way?
That's my theory anyway.
1
In reply to Tigger:
How much is 'not much'?
> What does is strength to weight ratio of which there isn't much difference between the sexes
How much is 'not much'?
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
Wow. Assuming you are also 5' something thats a big advantage.
> My wife is 5' 11" taller than me and most of my male friends.
Wow. Assuming you are also 5' something thats a big advantage.
Post edited at 09:42
11
In reply to Tigger:
Possibly a more significant factor could be arm length and therefore reach? Taller climbers will tend to have a longer reach, successful shorter climbers may have a high ape index which naturally assists them with their climbing.
Interestingly it hasn't yet been shown that this is statistically significant : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape_index#Statistical_significance_in_rock_cl...
Like any and all sports, though, physical characteristics will contribute massively to someone's capability in a particular field. There's a reason that all high-jumpers are tall (they have less distance to lift their shoulders to get them over the bar), and that tall people aren't weightlifters (you've got further to lift the weight).
The beautiful thing about climbing is its non-competitive nature; just because someone else made it up a 7a+ doesn't take anything away from the fact that you're struggling on a 6b lead.
That said - I think that sometimes climbing gyms can get a bit complacent with their route setting by just making things more difficult by putting holds further apart. So shorter climbers just don't get things completed and are less likely to progress through their grades. Bitter, me ...?
And to Greasy Prusik's point about female climbers and sponsorship ... I think you're totally right; although Shauna does have a bit of a to-hell-with-how-I-look attitude when she's training.
Possibly a more significant factor could be arm length and therefore reach? Taller climbers will tend to have a longer reach, successful shorter climbers may have a high ape index which naturally assists them with their climbing.
Interestingly it hasn't yet been shown that this is statistically significant : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape_index#Statistical_significance_in_rock_cl...
Like any and all sports, though, physical characteristics will contribute massively to someone's capability in a particular field. There's a reason that all high-jumpers are tall (they have less distance to lift their shoulders to get them over the bar), and that tall people aren't weightlifters (you've got further to lift the weight).
The beautiful thing about climbing is its non-competitive nature; just because someone else made it up a 7a+ doesn't take anything away from the fact that you're struggling on a 6b lead.
That said - I think that sometimes climbing gyms can get a bit complacent with their route setting by just making things more difficult by putting holds further apart. So shorter climbers just don't get things completed and are less likely to progress through their grades. Bitter, me ...?
And to Greasy Prusik's point about female climbers and sponsorship ... I think you're totally right; although Shauna does have a bit of a to-hell-with-how-I-look attitude when she's training.
Post edited at 10:37
2
1
In reply to Tyler:
I would argue that it is quite significant. The reason why the very best male athletes are around 9% faster than the very best female athletes is testosterone, which relates to there ability to build muscle. Whilst there are more factors in climbing, this will still be one of the most significant.
> How much is 'not much'?
I would argue that it is quite significant. The reason why the very best male athletes are around 9% faster than the very best female athletes is testosterone, which relates to there ability to build muscle. Whilst there are more factors in climbing, this will still be one of the most significant.
2
In reply to The New NickB:
I may be wrong but pound for pound women preform better at rhythmic sports, running etc... as they perform in a more efficient manner. And muscle just means more weight to haul up the rock, I climb with people we are physically stronger than me however that doesn't seem to be of much help. Excess muscle can also affect flexibility.
I may be wrong but pound for pound women preform better at rhythmic sports, running etc... as they perform in a more efficient manner. And muscle just means more weight to haul up the rock, I climb with people we are physically stronger than me however that doesn't seem to be of much help. Excess muscle can also affect flexibility.
1
1
In reply to Tigger:
Don't confuse excess muscle with optimum muscle. Do you know how Mo Farah went from a good athlete to a world beater? He got stronger. Remember the fuss about Caster Semenya, testosterone.
Don't confuse excess muscle with optimum muscle. Do you know how Mo Farah went from a good athlete to a world beater? He got stronger. Remember the fuss about Caster Semenya, testosterone.
3
In reply to Tigger:
This is a myth.
You are partially correct on the limitations of muscle mass and 'more weight to haul up the rock'. As I recall, and as a rough guide, if you double a muscle's size, you only get a 70% increase in strength. Muscle quality is important in strength.
A good example is Tom Platz - a 1980's bodybuilder who had the biggest wheels in the business. He went head to head with Fred Hatfield (1st guy to squat 1000lbs) in squats. Fred crushed Tom in a 1RM, but once the weight came down to around 70%RM, Tom smoked Fred with 23 reps to 11.
> Excess muscle can also affect flexibility.
This is a myth.
You are partially correct on the limitations of muscle mass and 'more weight to haul up the rock'. As I recall, and as a rough guide, if you double a muscle's size, you only get a 70% increase in strength. Muscle quality is important in strength.
A good example is Tom Platz - a 1980's bodybuilder who had the biggest wheels in the business. He went head to head with Fred Hatfield (1st guy to squat 1000lbs) in squats. Fred crushed Tom in a 1RM, but once the weight came down to around 70%RM, Tom smoked Fred with 23 reps to 11.
Post edited at 13:11
In reply to Tigger:
What does pound for pound mean from a running point of view? When it comes to strength to weigh men seem to have better ratios than women if you look at Olympic weight lifting records for similar weight categories. If you compare climbing related bodywieght exercises men perform better than women at the highest level (and probably on an average). This might not mean that the best women can't climb as hard as the best men but you did make a specific statement about strength to weight ratios and then seemed to repeat it when questioned.
> I may be wrong but pound for pound women preform better at rhythmic sports, running etc... as they perform in a more efficient manner. And muscle just means more weight to haul up the rock, I climb with people we are physically stronger than me however that doesn't seem to be of much help. Excess muscle can also affect flexibility.
What does pound for pound mean from a running point of view? When it comes to strength to weigh men seem to have better ratios than women if you look at Olympic weight lifting records for similar weight categories. If you compare climbing related bodywieght exercises men perform better than women at the highest level (and probably on an average). This might not mean that the best women can't climb as hard as the best men but you did make a specific statement about strength to weight ratios and then seemed to repeat it when questioned.
1
In reply to The New NickB:
Running is however a very different sport to climbing as far as muscle use goes, a sprinter is trying to propel themselves 100 meters as fast as they can. Climbing is very different in that strength to weight and stamina are more desirable attributes.
Running is however a very different sport to climbing as far as muscle use goes, a sprinter is trying to propel themselves 100 meters as fast as they can. Climbing is very different in that strength to weight and stamina are more desirable attributes.
2
2
2
In reply to Tigger:
I'm talking about strength to weight and stamina, I'm only using athletics as an example because it is measurable in a way that climbing isn't.
> Running is however a very different sport to climbing as far as muscle use goes, a sprinter is trying to propel themselves 100 meters as fast as they can. Climbing is very different in that strength to weight and stamina are more desirable attributes.
I'm talking about strength to weight and stamina, I'm only using athletics as an example because it is measurable in a way that climbing isn't.
3
In reply to The New NickB:
I would think that overall weight is important as well as strength-to-weight ratio. A heavy person is going to put more force onto their points of contact than a light person regardless of strength-to-weight.
I would think that overall weight is important as well as strength-to-weight ratio. A heavy person is going to put more force onto their points of contact than a light person regardless of strength-to-weight.
1
In reply to The New NickB:
Yes understood. But regardless of strength a 12st man is going to need more friction to keep him on a smear than an 8st woman.
Of course strength to weight is important but i would think that take two climbers of the same strength-to-weight ratio but different weights, the lighter would be the better (all else being equal of course).
Yes understood. But regardless of strength a 12st man is going to need more friction to keep him on a smear than an 8st woman.
Of course strength to weight is important but i would think that take two climbers of the same strength-to-weight ratio but different weights, the lighter would be the better (all else being equal of course).
2
In reply to Bob Hughes:
This is totally ignoring tendon strength, which will clearly make a huge difference. Is there any difference here between men and women?
This is totally ignoring tendon strength, which will clearly make a huge difference. Is there any difference here between men and women?
In reply to zebidee:
Height is a disadvantage with a lot of bouldery climbs - when you are holding low underclings or tiny holds close to your midriff on steep ground. Makes some moves harder - although I guess it 's different to not being able to reach which perhaps makes some things (near) impossible.
Height is a disadvantage with a lot of bouldery climbs - when you are holding low underclings or tiny holds close to your midriff on steep ground. Makes some moves harder - although I guess it 's different to not being able to reach which perhaps makes some things (near) impossible.
In reply to Malarkey:
Agreed that some bouldery climbs height can be a disadvantage.
I suspect that the climbs that people notice are the ones which they find difficult as opposed to the ones they find easy.
For the tall that'll be those that you describe; however they'll completely fail to spot that their long leg makes that high foot about thigh height and that they just rock over onto really easy, whereas a shortie has their foot above their hip which makes getting any downward power more difficult.
My suspicion is that there are fewer climbs found difficult by the tall than by the short.
I've regularly seen talk guys simply reach through cruxes, which is fine until they tell you that that's how someone 3 or 4" shorter should climb it, "you just reach across for the crimp over here ..."
> Height is a disadvantage with a lot of bouldery climbs - when you are holding low underclings or tiny holds close to your midriff on steep ground. Makes some moves harder - although I guess it 's different to not being able to reach which perhaps makes some things (near) impossible.
Agreed that some bouldery climbs height can be a disadvantage.
I suspect that the climbs that people notice are the ones which they find difficult as opposed to the ones they find easy.
For the tall that'll be those that you describe; however they'll completely fail to spot that their long leg makes that high foot about thigh height and that they just rock over onto really easy, whereas a shortie has their foot above their hip which makes getting any downward power more difficult.
My suspicion is that there are fewer climbs found difficult by the tall than by the short.
I've regularly seen talk guys simply reach through cruxes, which is fine until they tell you that that's how someone 3 or 4" shorter should climb it, "you just reach across for the crimp over here ..."
Post edited at 15:27
3
2
In reply to Bob Hughes:
At the risk of getting into a "treadmill" style debate, static friction depends on the coefficient of friction and the normal reaction, a 12 stone man will have proportionally more normal reaction and will therefore produce proportionally more friction, assuming they both wear the same make of boot rubber.
> Yes understood. But regardless of strength a 12st man is going to need more friction to keep him on a smear than an 8st woman. Of course strength to weight is important but i would think that take two climbers of the same strength-to-weight ratio but different weights, the lighter would be the better (all else being equal of course).
At the risk of getting into a "treadmill" style debate, static friction depends on the coefficient of friction and the normal reaction, a 12 stone man will have proportionally more normal reaction and will therefore produce proportionally more friction, assuming they both wear the same make of boot rubber.
1
In reply to Hugh J:
I watched the womans' world cup superfinal in Birmingham back in the day, between Lynn and Robyn on the men's final routes. From memory Lynn would have been 3rd or 4th.
I watched the womans' world cup superfinal in Birmingham back in the day, between Lynn and Robyn on the men's final routes. From memory Lynn would have been 3rd or 4th.
In reply to zebidee:
Only a moment's thought is needed to realise that this argument is bollocks.
You have completely failed to spot that the whinging dwarf's short body makes that foothold below thigh height and that they can just step up without really having to do a rockover at all.
> However they'll completely fail to spot that their long leg makes that high foot about thigh height and that they just rock over onto really easy, whereas a shortie has their foot above their hip which makes getting any downward power more difficult.
Only a moment's thought is needed to realise that this argument is bollocks.
You have completely failed to spot that the whinging dwarf's short body makes that foothold below thigh height and that they can just step up without really having to do a rockover at all.
Post edited at 16:59
1
1
In reply to Tigger:
What do you mean by setting cutting edge routes. The best female sports climbers are about a half to one grade behind male climbers. Different question why. So anyway they're not going to be opening 9b/ 9b+
As for new routing in general I'd be interested what the current rates are between genders, no idea. Would be a more interesting question as much more representative. Most of the climbs I do were climbed 50 years ago when there were hardly any female climbers
There are not many ladies replying to this thread. Maybe part of the answer lies there?
What do you mean by setting cutting edge routes. The best female sports climbers are about a half to one grade behind male climbers. Different question why. So anyway they're not going to be opening 9b/ 9b+
As for new routing in general I'd be interested what the current rates are between genders, no idea. Would be a more interesting question as much more representative. Most of the climbs I do were climbed 50 years ago when there were hardly any female climbers
There are not many ladies replying to this thread. Maybe part of the answer lies there?
In reply to Robert Durran:
You mean if they are hanging from their hands???
> the whinging dwarf's short body makes that foothold below thigh height and that they can just step up without really having to do a rockover at all.
You mean if they are hanging from their hands???
In reply to trouserburp:
What else do you think they are hanging from?
> You mean if they are hanging from their hands???
What else do you think they are hanging from?
In reply to trouserburp:
If the point you are making is that the whinging dwarf can't reach the same handholds off the same footholds as a normal person, then that is a reach issue. Nothing to do with rockovers, which are easier for the short assuming the same set of holds.
> Mostly I am not hanging when I climb
If the point you are making is that the whinging dwarf can't reach the same handholds off the same footholds as a normal person, then that is a reach issue. Nothing to do with rockovers, which are easier for the short assuming the same set of holds.
2
In reply to Robert Durran:
No they can't reach the same footholds! You're being deliberately obtuse forget about it
No they can't reach the same footholds! You're being deliberately obtuse forget about it
1
In reply to Robert Durran:
If you're rocking onto your right foot, wouldn't you be stood on your left foot?
> What else do you think they are hanging from?
If you're rocking onto your right foot, wouldn't you be stood on your left foot?
In reply to trouserburp:
No I'm not. If they can't reach the handholds for the rockover from the footholds before the rockover, then that is a reach problem. If they can reach them, then, assuming the same footholds for the actual rockover, it is easier for the whinging dwarf.
> No they can't reach the same footholds! You're being deliberately obtuse forget about it
No I'm not. If they can't reach the handholds for the rockover from the footholds before the rockover, then that is a reach problem. If they can reach them, then, assuming the same footholds for the actual rockover, it is easier for the whinging dwarf.
1
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
You would be transferring from your left to you right foot.
> If you're rocking onto your right foot, wouldn't you be stood on your left foot?
You would be transferring from your left to you right foot.
In reply to Robert Durran:
Wasn't sure what you meant previously, but rock-overs for me get progressively harder as the respective heights of the left/right footholds increases. So leg length and flexibility would be key factors.
> You would be transferring from your left to you right foot.
Wasn't sure what you meant previously, but rock-overs for me get progressively harder as the respective heights of the left/right footholds increases. So leg length and flexibility would be key factors.
1
In reply to Hugh J:
Lynn Hill was only 5' 2", but she held national weightlifting records. Power to weight has also got something to do with it.
Lynn Hill was only 5' 2", but she held national weightlifting records. Power to weight has also got something to do with it.
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
But the key factor in a rockover is the ratio of the height difference between handholds and foothold being rocked onto and size of the climber. For the same such holds, more power and flexibility is needed by a tall climber.
> Wasn't sure what you meant previously, but rock-overs for me get progressively harder as the respective heights of the left/right footholds increases. So leg length and flexibility would be key factors.
But the key factor in a rockover is the ratio of the height difference between handholds and foothold being rocked onto and size of the climber. For the same such holds, more power and flexibility is needed by a tall climber.
In reply to Robert Durran:
Not sure if you're being serious.
> But the key factor in a rockover is the ratio of the height difference between handholds and foothold being rocked onto and size of the climber.
Not sure if you're being serious.
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
Of course I'm serious. I'm surprised we're even discussing this its so blindingly obvious.
You said yourself that leg length and flexibility were factors - height and leg length obviously make it harder and a tall climber will obviously need to be more flexible.
> Not sure if you're being serious.
Of course I'm serious. I'm surprised we're even discussing this its so blindingly obvious.
You said yourself that leg length and flexibility were factors - height and leg length obviously make it harder and a tall climber will obviously need to be more flexible.
Post edited at 19:39
In reply to Robert Durran:
Bathangs must be harder for tall people! Surely we can agree on that?
> What else do you think they are hanging from?
Bathangs must be harder for tall people! Surely we can agree on that?
In reply to Robert Durran:
Just been reading about cognitive dissonance.
> I'm surprised we're even discussing this its so blindingly obvious.
Just been reading about cognitive dissonance.
1
1
In reply to The New NickB:
That needs lots of qualification, surely?
Wouldn't muscle just be muscle? A given weight of male muscle would have the same strength/power/etc as the same of female. But physiologically men tend to have a higher overall % for their total mass.
> Men are stronger than women pound for pound
That needs lots of qualification, surely?
Wouldn't muscle just be muscle? A given weight of male muscle would have the same strength/power/etc as the same of female. But physiologically men tend to have a higher overall % for their total mass.
2
In reply to nufkin:
The qualification being that men have a higher percentage of muscle because higher levels of testosterone are linked to muscle growth and fat loss.
The best male climbers will have a higher percentage of muscle and lower percentage of fat than the best female climbers.
The qualification being that men have a higher percentage of muscle because higher levels of testosterone are linked to muscle growth and fat loss.
The best male climbers will have a higher percentage of muscle and lower percentage of fat than the best female climbers.
2
In reply to Tigger:
Not sure if any of the respondents so far have been female; it would be interesting to hear a balanced discussion on the topic. Whilst I do not consider myself to be limited by being female (this is a big factor - it's easy to think "oh I'm not as strong as that man" or "I'm not tall enough, I can 't reach" and not bother trying because of a perceived disadvantage!), I do recognise that there are differences between men and women that impact climbing performance. It would also be interesting to hear the perspective of trans and intersex people.
It is first important to distinguish between "gender" and "sex". Gender is a social construct based on how humans are raised and behavioural norms, whilst sex describes the biological differences between men and women. I believe that both sex and gender factor into climbing performance; I explain this below.
There are likely a number of factors at play, and ultimately nobody has "the answer" to such a complex topic. However, it is very interesting to discuss nonetheless! Very clever Mike505 in getting everyone to do the research for you! Excellent delegation skills.
I would group these factors into physiological, psychological and social. I appreciate that some of these have already been mentioned, and to some extent there is a level of speculation as I am assuming that nobody here is a sports science expert and only has access to the best that Google can offer (or at worst, dangerous assumptions based on social stereotypes!).
Physiological:
Men generally have a lower body fat percentage than women. Fat is metabolically inactive whilst muscle is not, i.e. fat comes for the ride, muscle helps get you there.
Men have higher levels of testosterone and in turn higher levels of aggression and drive.
Women may handle stress better due to the combination of higher levels of oestrogen and oxytocin.
Women have more hormonal fluctuations and are generally more prone to depression and anxiety than men, which can reduce motivation.
Women generally have a lower centre of balance than men.
Women generally have better aerobic endurance (in relative terms) than men, this is likely to be of limited benefit in climbing however.
Strength to weight ratio difference favours men by a small margin.
Men are generally taller and have a longer reach thus making it easier to reach the holds - this is usually but not always beneficial. As has been mentioned already, indoor walls do seem to make some routes harder by simply increasing the distance between holds.
Psychological:
Men generally have better spatial abilities than women
Studies have shown that men generally score higher than women for machiavellianism (i.e. emotional coolness & focus on self interest), narcissism, sense of authority and pride.
Men have also shown greater tendency towards sensation seeking behaviour than women. This suggests that they are more likely to take risks. After all, women are also physiologically predisposed to self-preservation - they have a limited number of eggs and have to be more selective than men when choosing a mate, and so perhaps that is also a factor in approach to risk.
Social:
Men are generally socialised to be dominant, whilst girls are socialised to be more passive. I can already hear people saying that this is just a stereotype, but there is truth to it whether we like to admit it or not. I can say this of my own upbringing and of those around me - it's difficult to change perceptions of what is 'male' and 'female', and these beliefs are passed down the generations. I think that this is slowly changing, but there is a long way to go, for instance in the toys male and female children are given, or the clothing options available to boys and girls - these all send subtle messages about expected norms of behaviour. The dominance factor also links back to the hormone factor and aggression/drive.
Additionally, people, particularly women, are usually met with criticism and social 'punishment' of sorts for differing from the social norm, i.e. dominant women are seen as pushy and unlikable. Obviously this can be an issue for men too, but I am working on the assumption that dominance/aggression rather than passivity is the key factor in terms of climbing.
As climbing is a male dominated sport, there are few women to be found at local walls and crags, which to some could cause discomfort, feeling like everyone is looking at them, etc. It could also indicate to a new climber that there is little support for women (we tend to help people who are like us - this has been shown for example in the business world by 'old boys networks' - i.e. men help other men, so there are fewer opportunities for women to get help, particularly from other women. The other aspect of this is the perception that men only want to hang out with women they want to sleep with!).
Some of the social factors can be altered by life experiences, and of course gender is a spectrum - most of us have 'male' and 'female' characteristics.
So in summary - physiological, psychological and social factors are at play.
> So I got curious. The majority of climbs that are at the edge of what is currently considered possible are set by men. Is this merely down to there being more male climbers or do physical factors come onto play as well? While it is widely accepted that men are stronger than women that doesn't count for so much when climbing. What does is strength to weight ratio of which there isn't much difference between the sexes, flexibility (women generally come up tops there) and technique.I don't intend to cause any offence with this post, I'm merely looking to better educate my self.
Not sure if any of the respondents so far have been female; it would be interesting to hear a balanced discussion on the topic. Whilst I do not consider myself to be limited by being female (this is a big factor - it's easy to think "oh I'm not as strong as that man" or "I'm not tall enough, I can 't reach" and not bother trying because of a perceived disadvantage!), I do recognise that there are differences between men and women that impact climbing performance. It would also be interesting to hear the perspective of trans and intersex people.
It is first important to distinguish between "gender" and "sex". Gender is a social construct based on how humans are raised and behavioural norms, whilst sex describes the biological differences between men and women. I believe that both sex and gender factor into climbing performance; I explain this below.
There are likely a number of factors at play, and ultimately nobody has "the answer" to such a complex topic. However, it is very interesting to discuss nonetheless! Very clever Mike505 in getting everyone to do the research for you! Excellent delegation skills.
I would group these factors into physiological, psychological and social. I appreciate that some of these have already been mentioned, and to some extent there is a level of speculation as I am assuming that nobody here is a sports science expert and only has access to the best that Google can offer (or at worst, dangerous assumptions based on social stereotypes!).
Physiological:
Men generally have a lower body fat percentage than women. Fat is metabolically inactive whilst muscle is not, i.e. fat comes for the ride, muscle helps get you there.
Men have higher levels of testosterone and in turn higher levels of aggression and drive.
Women may handle stress better due to the combination of higher levels of oestrogen and oxytocin.
Women have more hormonal fluctuations and are generally more prone to depression and anxiety than men, which can reduce motivation.
Women generally have a lower centre of balance than men.
Women generally have better aerobic endurance (in relative terms) than men, this is likely to be of limited benefit in climbing however.
Strength to weight ratio difference favours men by a small margin.
Men are generally taller and have a longer reach thus making it easier to reach the holds - this is usually but not always beneficial. As has been mentioned already, indoor walls do seem to make some routes harder by simply increasing the distance between holds.
Psychological:
Men generally have better spatial abilities than women
Studies have shown that men generally score higher than women for machiavellianism (i.e. emotional coolness & focus on self interest), narcissism, sense of authority and pride.
Men have also shown greater tendency towards sensation seeking behaviour than women. This suggests that they are more likely to take risks. After all, women are also physiologically predisposed to self-preservation - they have a limited number of eggs and have to be more selective than men when choosing a mate, and so perhaps that is also a factor in approach to risk.
Social:
Men are generally socialised to be dominant, whilst girls are socialised to be more passive. I can already hear people saying that this is just a stereotype, but there is truth to it whether we like to admit it or not. I can say this of my own upbringing and of those around me - it's difficult to change perceptions of what is 'male' and 'female', and these beliefs are passed down the generations. I think that this is slowly changing, but there is a long way to go, for instance in the toys male and female children are given, or the clothing options available to boys and girls - these all send subtle messages about expected norms of behaviour. The dominance factor also links back to the hormone factor and aggression/drive.
Additionally, people, particularly women, are usually met with criticism and social 'punishment' of sorts for differing from the social norm, i.e. dominant women are seen as pushy and unlikable. Obviously this can be an issue for men too, but I am working on the assumption that dominance/aggression rather than passivity is the key factor in terms of climbing.
As climbing is a male dominated sport, there are few women to be found at local walls and crags, which to some could cause discomfort, feeling like everyone is looking at them, etc. It could also indicate to a new climber that there is little support for women (we tend to help people who are like us - this has been shown for example in the business world by 'old boys networks' - i.e. men help other men, so there are fewer opportunities for women to get help, particularly from other women. The other aspect of this is the perception that men only want to hang out with women they want to sleep with!).
Some of the social factors can be altered by life experiences, and of course gender is a spectrum - most of us have 'male' and 'female' characteristics.
So in summary - physiological, psychological and social factors are at play.
2
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...