[Pebblespanker]

Or typing badly ...

Using my science light high tech depth gauge (childs plastic school ruler) it is about 11mm but then adjusting for the blank bit at the start of the scale its amazingly about 8mm!

[Sasquatch]

For info the smallest edge was that on a BM 1K (guessed at 8mm)

Really?  I measured the smallest edge on my 2k and it's 11mm

I don't think that's right.  The interesting part about the BM 2K small bottom outside crimps is the added slope at the end.  They're dead flat for about 1cm, then slope and round out to finish at about 18mm.  (leastways on mine they do)

[nai]

You're right, I was reading off the inches side of the tape  Didn't think that sounded quite right 

Mine are 14mm from back to front.

That's quite a lot of tolerance still vs 18mm, ~20%

[Sasquatch]

You're right, I was reading off the inches side of the tape  Didn't think that sounded quite right 

Mine are 14mm from back to front.

That's quite a lot of tolerance still vs 18mm, ~20%

I could very well have measured mine wrong as well.  Is the 14mm covering the full curve?

[nai]

Yes, tape measure pushed to the back, 14mm to the very lip of the hold

[Sasquatch]

I'll recheck mine later today. 

[Muenchener]

So what's the official depth of the BM2000 small edge then? Just the flat bit, or the whole thing including the curve?

Strangely I forgot to bring a ruler to the wall today  but it doesn't look anywhere near 18mm to me.

[Sasquatch]

Hard to say exactly(not the best measuring device), but 14-15ish is what mine measured, so I'd go with the 14mm.

[rich d]

Hard to say exactly(not the best measuring device), but 14-15ish is what mine measured, so I'd go with the 14mm.

What the fuck are you measuring it with? Is this some sort of American pie beastmaker?

[IS2]

Are we near to n >= 30 yet ?

[slackline]

Are we near to n >= 30 yet ?

Currently some 74 respondents, I started writing some scripts to summarise the results over the weekend, not masses of time to spend on it, but will post some stuff up when its ready.

[Sasquatch]

Hard to say exactly(not the best measuring device), but 14-15ish is what mine measured, so I'd go with the 14mm.

What the fuck are you measuring it with? Is this some sort of American pie beastmaker?

The only ruler I have is imperial, so I have to translate to metric which comes out to aroudn 14-15ish...
Stupid Americans....

[lagerstarfish]

I started writing some scripts to summarise the results over the weekend, not masses of time to spend on it, but will post some stuff up when its ready.

Slackers

can you present the results in a way that either makes me look like a better athlete than everyone else, or so that it looks like I'm having the most fun? whatever's easiest

thanks

[Sasquatch]

There's something seriously wrong with me.  I'm giddy with excitement to see the results.....

I wonder if any significant correlations will show up??

[Nibile]

I've sent mine with a few missing data and some others not so up to date. As soon as I can I'll try and get more precise ones. Thanks Slackers.
Oh, and the max indoor bouldering grade is quite a guess, since it's surely some problem on my board that noone else has ever tried or seen. I put a value that could be somehow true, but only because it was an obligatory field. If you want you can skip that value.
Thanks again.

[mark s]

There's something seriously wrong with me.  I'm giddy with excitement to see the results.....

I wonder if any significant correlations will show up??

My results will show strength and climbing prowess are not related

[Stubbs]

Don't your results show that an increase in strength due to a large increase in muscle mass (caused by not climbing a lot and going to the gym loads) does not lead to higher climbing grades?  There's a difference there!

[TobyD]

Don't your results show that an increase in strength due to a large increase in muscle mass (caused by not climbing a lot and going to the gym loads) does not lead to higher climbing grades?  There's a difference there!

I agree;  the crucial thing there i think, is not climbing a lot. Climbing is ultimately a movement based sport. There are moves which you can only overcome with base strength, but I would have thought (and this is practically unprovable) that on the vast majority of moves, the quality of movement is more of a determinant / limiting factor on completion than base strength level. Thus, if you don't climb much, you don't tend to climb as well, though you may be pumping iron for England, or Bulgaria, or where ever you like to pump iron for.

Though perhaps slacker's results will prove me wrong, when everyone who can bench 3x their body weight is climbing twelve grades more than me. 

[slackline]

Though perhaps slacker's results will prove me wrong, when everyone who can bench 3x their body weight is climbing twelve grades more than me. 

I doubt it since this is purely "observational" and any analyses will reveal only correlations, which do not imply....

Whats more likely if there is an association between bench pressing and climbing performance is that there is a third factor that correlates with these two....the amount of time spent climbing.

Anyway, got some figures sorted nicely last night, here's a sampler...a box-plot of pull-up repetitions by outdoor bouldering grade....

...which shows that there is trend (no claim as to significance yet) between the maximum number of pull-ups and outdoor bouldering grade (but if you want to do more pull-ups you shouldn't bother bouldering, see the grey "NA" box which represents the pull-ups done by people who didn't enter bouldering grades).

[Jaspersharpe]

Finally the answer to why Stevie thinks boulderers are cunts while being the best in the world at pull ups.

[Dexter]

Though perhaps slacker's results will prove me wrong, when everyone who can bench 3x their body weight is climbing twelve grades more than me. 

I doubt it since this is purely "observational" and any analyses will reveal only correlations, which do not imply....

Whats more likely if there is an association between bench pressing and climbing performance is that there is a third factor that correlates with these two....the amount of time spent climbing.

Anyway, got some figures sorted nicely last night, here's a sampler...a box-plot of pull-up repetitions by outdoor bouldering grade....

...which shows that there is trend (no claim as to significance yet) between the maximum number of pull-ups and outdoor bouldering grade (but if you want to do more pull-ups you shouldn't bother bouldering, see the grey "NA" box which represents the pull-ups done by people who didn't enter bouldering grades).

would a scatter plot with correlation co-efficient work better for that and give a more accurate quantifyable level of correlation (maybe needs grade converting into a single number so 6B=1 6B+=2 etc)

[slackline]

would a scatter plot with correlation co-efficient work better for that and give a more accurate quantifyable level of correlation (maybe needs grade converting into a single number so 6B=1 6B+=2 etc)

It could be drawn as a scatter plot, but bouldering grades are an ordinal data type (even with the grade conversion you are proposing, which is how the data is stored anyway, its just the x-axis is labelled with something meaningful) rather than a continuous one and the advantage of a box plot is that it shows the median and inter-quartile range within each category.  If it were drawn as a scatter plot you would have a series of dots in columns above each bouldering grade showing the spread of pull-ups within each category. 

Plotting like this would not facilitate the calculation of any correlation metric which is done independent of plotting any graphs, but would mean that no information is conveyed as to any measure of centrality (i.e. average which in this case is the median) or dispersion (in this case the inter-quartile range shown by the boxes).  I could conceivably calculate the correlation co-efficient and have it as added text to the plot, but I'm not sure that would particularly useful as the intention is to perform multivariate analyses.

Also the original question as proposed by rich d was along the lines of  "how many pull-ups can the 'average' 7b climber do", and these graphs convey that by showing one measure of 'average' and the spread around that measurement within the category (scatter plots would only show the spread but provide no quantification). This is why I opted for box-plots instead of a scatter plot.

[Stubbs]

Awesome I'm the very bottom of one of those little sticks!  Does this mean I should do more pull ups?!

[Muenchener]

but if you want to do more pull-ups you shouldn't bother bouldering, see the grey "NA" box which represents the pull-ups done by people who didn't enter bouldering grades. but if you do too many pull-ups your shoulders will be so f*cked you won't be able to boulder any more

[tomtom]

Awesome I'm the very bottom of one of those little sticks!  Does this mean I should do more pull ups?!

Me too!