being tall is a distinct advantage most of the time. Or do you also disagree with that?
Quotebeing tall is a distinct advantage most of the time. Or do you also disagree with that?If this were true all the best climbers would be tall, and short people would never reach the elite. Like basketball. And yet I can name brilliant midgets more easily than tall ones. Top ten tall climbers: ?
Weight scales with volume but strength with cross section (roughly), so if you're IIRC someone did the stats a few years ago on the top 8a.nu rankings and found, fairly unsurprisingly, that the average height of the top 20 or whatever ranked climbers was very similar to the average height for European men.
Is there really actually much to say about height?Women are certainly on average smaller than men. It makes a lot of climbs harder, has virtually no effect on a few (eg a parallel crack) and is very occasionally an advantage. I don’t think any of that is a matter of debate, is it? It’s not correct to say that it doesn’t apply to men, just that it applies less on average. As far as outdoor climbing goes I don’t think it is particularly fertile ground for debate. It is a real effect but what’s to do about it? Short of chipping holds climbs are what they are, so no room there. It’s a fool’s game making grades specific to groups/individuals, so I doubt anyone of sound mind would give that more than the briefest consideration. All that’s left is acknowledging that the world isn't fair, dealing with the rock and your body as it is. Where's the debate?
Is there really actually much to say about height?
Quote from: abarro81 on September 18, 2014, 11:20:01 amWeight scales with volume but strength with cross section (roughly), so if you're IIRC someone did the stats a few years ago on the top 8a.nu rankings and found, fairly unsurprisingly, that the average height of the top 20 or whatever ranked climbers was very similar to the average height for European men.I think it's a fair assumption that 8a.nu's largest demographic is european males, if that is the case then you would pretty much expect that result even if height had zero effect surely?
Quote from: Bonjoy on September 18, 2014, 11:24:52 amIs there really actually much to say about height?Certainly not a symposium's worth.
Quote from: Bonjoy on September 18, 2014, 11:24:52 amIs there really actually much to say about height?Women are certainly on average smaller than men. It makes a lot of climbs harder, has virtually no effect on a few (eg a parallel crack) and is very occasionally an advantage. I don’t think any of that is a matter of debate, is it? It’s not correct to say that it doesn’t apply to men, just that it applies less on average. As far as outdoor climbing goes I don’t think it is particularly fertile ground for debate. It is a real effect but what’s to do about it? Short of chipping holds climbs are what they are, so no room there. It’s a fool’s game making grades specific to groups/individuals, so I doubt anyone of sound mind would give that more than the briefest consideration. All that’s left is acknowledging that the world isn't fair, dealing with the rock and your body as it is. Where's the debate?But climbs are ostensibly graded for the average climber - and currently, that means one that's 5'10" ish.Whilst it's true that "It’s a fool’s game making grades specific to groups/individuals" I guess it might have a non trivial effect on the motivation/participation of a group whose average height means a large proportion of climbs are harder for them than the grade suggests? Obviously if this can be overcome then the "average climber" would change, and so (should) grades to reflect this, but in the interim I suspect this might be considered a barrier?
No, that doesn't follow. T_B said "most of the time" - he's talking about average climbers. For most average climbers a tiny little bit of height is much more useful than a tiny little bit more skill.
As far as I can see there is absolutely no evidence that being tall is in any way confers a significant advantage in climbing beyond a possible initial period when starting out on easy/non steep routes.
I think it's a fair assumption that 8a.nu's largest demographic is european males, if that is the case then you would pretty much expect that result even if height had zero effect surely?
Quote from: Duma on September 18, 2014, 11:44:44 amQuote from: Bonjoy on September 18, 2014, 11:24:52 amIs there really actually much to say about height?Women are certainly on average smaller than men. It makes a lot of climbs harder, has virtually no effect on a few (eg a parallel crack) and is very occasionally an advantage. I don’t think any of that is a matter of debate, is it? It’s not correct to say that it doesn’t apply to men, just that it applies less on average. As far as outdoor climbing goes I don’t think it is particularly fertile ground for debate. It is a real effect but what’s to do about it? Short of chipping holds climbs are what they are, so no room there. It’s a fool’s game making grades specific to groups/individuals, so I doubt anyone of sound mind would give that more than the briefest consideration. All that’s left is acknowledging that the world isn't fair, dealing with the rock and your body as it is. Where's the debate?But climbs are ostensibly graded for the average climber - and currently, that means one that's 5'10" ish.Whilst it's true that "It’s a fool’s game making grades specific to groups/individuals" I guess it might have a non trivial effect on the motivation/participation of a group whose average height means a large proportion of climbs are harder for them than the grade suggests? Obviously if this can be overcome then the "average climber" would change, and so (should) grades to reflect this, but in the interim I suspect this might be considered a barrier?Until such time as all guides are digital it's a non starter trying to simultaneously re-grade the world. But what is more important, such a regrade in seeking to cater for the short (in practice this would mean upgrading a lot of reachy things) you would just succeed in making tall climbers CV's look more impressive.
Where the hell is all this the top female climbers are unusually attractive from? Forgive me for being no oil painting but what...? Now I think people are starting to tread into very murky waters indeed.
Quote from: a dense loner on September 18, 2014, 01:01:08 pmWhere the hell is all this the top female climbers are unusually attractive from? Forgive me for being no oil painting but what...? Now I think people are starting to tread into very murky waters indeed.Unusual as in 'than would be expected by chance', not as in 'extremely'. And no one said 'all'. In the interests of equality I should point out I have had this debate in the past about male climbers - would Sharma have been as successful if he'd looked like you?