[rich d]

Surfers seem a bad example. Tanned, mainly blonde haired and athletic, spending their time in bikinis is a fairly mainstream definition of pretty/fit . It might be worth arguing that if you had a poor body image/was aware you weren't hit with the pretty stick that you may not start or spend enough time practicing a sport where you spend most of the day in a bikini surrounded by good looking people. - not saying this is how it should be, but it sounds logical.
On a similar note women's beach volley ball seems to have a higher than average attractiveness - despite it being an Olympic sport where looks should make no difference.

Wouldn't have thought that climbing was subject to the same selecting issues as either of those sports.

[Stu Littlefair]

C'mon Stu, point 1 is clear cut -  I thought women (and men) get an extra 2 marks on the out-of-10 system for partaking in the same activity of the observer.

I don't surf.

[Stu Littlefair]

"I'm not talking about sponsorship I'm talking about getting to the top of their sport" you're making no sense at all Stu. Are you saying the best women climbers, ie the women that are best at climbing, are prettier *on average* than normal women climbers?

Oh my holy fucking christ. YES. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. THAT'S WHY I WROTE EXACTLY THAT.
Are you doing this on purpose, just to fuck with me?

OK. Deep breath. Sorry about that dense. Just got off the phone having made an idiot of myself and your were first in line for the vent.

[Johnny Brown]

I didn't know Katie Holmes was a pro-surfer. It does seem that Stu is massively attracted to surf girls though.

I dunno about the same factors not applying to climbing, given the predominance of the indoors scene nowadays. They might not be in bikinis but it's a fairly crowded sweaty environment, and a more hanging around socialising than in other sports. Still not sure over-representation in the media equals over-representation in reality though.

[Stu Littlefair]

there are only two possibilities

Or, as I said at the start:

3) It's a coincidence.

Unless you (of all people) are suggesting that correlation must imply causation?

It may well be. That's fair. Time will tell I guess, since coincidences aren't sustained.

[Stu Littlefair]

It might be worth arguing that if you had a poor body image/was aware you weren't hit with the pretty stick that you may not start or spend enough time practicing a sport where you spend most of the day in a bikini surrounded by good looking people.

That's exactly what I thought I was saying. Although given how hard it is for dense to understand, I might have started speaking in latin without noticing.

I couldn't prove to you that climbing isn't going the same way, but I have my suspicions. These are based largely on my observations of the current female elite climbing population, not on any evidence I have that some women find climbing or comps unpleasant environments.

[Stu Littlefair]

BTW - I'm off home now. Talk amongst yourselves for a while

[Johnny Brown]

Time will tell I guess, since coincidences aren't sustained.

You can look backwards in time too. Which is what suggests to me that this is a coincidence.

[Stu Littlefair]

You can, but you're assuming the pressures and culture was the same in the past as it has been the last few years. I think that's demonstrably false.

[Stu Littlefair]

You can, but you're assuming the pressures and culture was the same in the past as it has been the last few years. I think that's demonstrably false.

[gme]

Are the women at the top of climbing really all super attractive as you describe them. I personally dont think so and also they all seam to have different body types, within reason.

Again, just like surfing some are attractive, some not.

Sorry but I really dont get what you are trying to say.

[Stu Littlefair]

I am saying that on average, they are more attractive than you'd expect if you took a sample of young athletic women.

I really can't say it any clearer than that, and I've explicitly said above that obviously this doesn't mean they're all supermodels.  Why is this so hard to understand?

[Ru]

Since everyone is getting massively confused about this (and without offering an opinion either way) here is what Stu is trying to say:

Thesis: Physical attractiveness seems to be a feature that pre-selects which female athletes apply themselves to certain sports and become leaders. This seems to be the case with surfing (based on looking at some pictures of the highly ranked athletes) and also seems to be the case with climbing (also based on looking at some pictures of the highly ranked athletes), but does not seem to be the case with sports such as athletics (again based on looking at some pictures of the highly ranked athletes).

Stu is not sure why this is the case, but notes that perhaps its to do with some overt or not so overt pressure to look good whilst being on display in those sports. He thinks that, if this is the case, it is an unfortunate state of affairs for the sport of climbing to find its self in and he would wish that talent, and not physical attractiveness was the primary driver for female success.

Carry on arguing.

[Stu Littlefair]

And, once again. It's not entirely about body types. It's more about prettiness.

[Stu Littlefair]

God bless you rupert. Can I employ you as a translator. What are your rates?

[Danny]

Interesting stuff. Stu, I like reading your blog - keep it up.

I have nothing of note to add to the discussion, other than to say that (I'm sure I'm half-quoting, can't remember who) climbing broadly suits all body types apart from fat (i.e. heavy) and weak. For this reason, most of the better taller climbers are streaks of piss, whilst amongst the better shorties there's a bit more diversity.

Well done to Jan Hojer for demonstrating that it's possible to combine lank with proper power, to some degree.

As far as the women stuff goes, with reference to their absence on these forums, this is perhaps worth a listen:

http://freakonomics.com/2013/02/24/women-are-not-men-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/

Women fall way behind men when it comes editing Wikipedia articles, and in essence this is because women are less inclined to be self-assured literal and metaphorical wankers. Online and in the real world. Its all about appetite for conflict, or lack thereof.

Not saying UKB is an overly tumultuous place, mind, just throwing it out there as an interesting observation.     

[abarro81]

I just spent a whole boring talk's worth of time pondering the attractiveness of top climbers. I'm currently not convinced that average attractiveness is higher, once favourable body shape is accounted for..

[a dense loner]

Josune

[Stu Littlefair]

Great post Danny. For what it's worth I think appetite for a conflict is a large part of why more women don't post in general, and haven't posted here specifically.

[Stu Littlefair]

Alex - you may be right. What convinced me I was onto something initially is that I once spent an evening discussing this with a mixed sex group of folk on a spanish trip. We all agreed that most of the women comp climbers were pretty, and we all agreed that the same thing was not true for the men.

This is a rough control for body type, although it's far from perfect.

[abarro81]

Since half the top girls go out with the top guys, clearly those being compared don't always agree with your survey!

[Sasquatch]

.02$

Perhaps its more to do with mentality while developing as youth.  more "attractive" children receive greater praise than less "attractive" children leading to higher levels of self confidence-on average.  They also tend to receive more 1-on-1 attention and do better in school.  This has long been one of the possible explanations for why successful people in general are also more attractive than the general population.  Knowing the importance of self belief and confidence in improving as a climber, or athletes in general, this could help to explain the change in averages...

No idea in reality though.

[Jaspersharpe]

This has long been one of the possible explanations for why successful people in general are also more attractive than the general population.

Interesting theory but how does this fit with most successful politicians?

[fried]

This has long been one of the possible explanations for why successful people in general are also more attractive than the general population.

Interesting theory but how does this fit with most successful politicians?

C'mon Sas, I know it's Friday night but that's so lazy.

[petejh]

This has long been one of the possible explanations for why successful people in general are also more attractive than the general population.

I was going to say this but Sasquatch beat me to it - there's plenty of theories and studies around with the premise that good-looking people are more successful in life overall.

If the above theory is true, you could then bolt on a specific 'what defines success in climbing' theory to the 'good-looking people are more successful in life, overall' theory. Mine would be along the lines of:
'good-looking people have been shown to be more successful on average, and the parameters for 'success' in climbing are more nebulous than in a sport with stricter parameters of success - such as athletics (where you either are or aren't the fastest runner), therefore good-looking people should be expected to be more 'successful' in climbing.'

If you were to take out climbing's poorly-defined parameters of success: soft-grades and unverified grades, in the UK trad v sport, self-reportage so that media report what they're told and miss out a lot of other stuff, grey areas around 'style', unverified ascents, etc. etc.... then you turn it into something where being good-looking 'should' be less important than pure performance.

(edit) - Tennis is an interesting example where looks and a degree of ability can only take somebody so far - Anna Kournikova being the obvious example of a hottie getting loads of media attention but in the end it didn't matter - we all know she achieved very little of real significance performance-wise. I'd say surfing has a similarly nebulous definition of what constitutes a successful performance as climbing (but needn't if we adopted the Jens approach), thus the 'Kournikova's' of surfing can thrive... perhaps...

Of course, if the 'looks' theory is bollocks than so is the above.

Apols if that's a bit of a tangent.


Oh... and I once told an ex who climbed and who had lovely muscly shoulders that she was 'chunky' - I meant it affectionately - and she took it really badly, she was well upset! So from my sample size of one I think there exists a higher sensitivity to body image in women than exists in men.