[Fiend]

Been thinking about this recently. In particular those poor heavy 6-footers, who on paper would seem to have an advantage with their massive reaches but quite rightly point out how hampered they are by excess limb weight etc. They need some justice, as do those seemingly-fortunate crimp waifs who are equally hampered by their diminutive size.

Thus needing an equation that takes into account height but also weight, along with a bit ape index, all rationalised towards a handy multiplier handicap. After some meditating, I came up with this (subject to some tweaking):

Multiplier is:

(2 x weight in kg) / ((height in cm + (5 x ape index)) - 25).

Then apply this to your V-grade and translate back to Font grades if so desired, this is the grade you actually get.

To take a couple of examples....

5'8" +1 AI 80kg climber:
(2 x 80) / ((173 + (12.5)) - 25) = 0.99, thus V6 = V6

5'10" +2 AI 69kg climber:
(2 x 69) / ((180 + (25)) - 25) = 0.76, thus V6 = V4.5

This is now seeming a lot fairer. If you're a heavy 6 footer it's going to average out, and if you're a tiny 60kger it's also going to average out. Of course it's still WIP and subject to tweaking, but the core principle of height/weight in some form is irrefutable.

Edit: there may be outliers. Still no idea what to do about moose, bless him.

Edit 2: reduced the AI multiplier.

[sdm]

As advantageous as I think a positive ape index is, changing mine from -1 to +1 would change my grade multiplier from 1.12 to 0.78. That's a pretty huge difference!

Think the ape index multiplier needs reducing.

[lemony]

My -2 ape index and paunch pretty much turns me into Nalle so this is clearly 100% science.

(2*85)/((185+10 *-2)-40) = 1.36

[Fiend]

Will work on that. I hadn't considered tyrannosaurs as much as I should.

[Will Hunt]

As advantageous as I think a positive ape index is, changing mine from -1 to +1 would change my grade multiplier from 1.12 to 0.78. That's a pretty huge difference!

Think the ape index multiplier needs reducing.

I think you've misunderstood the point. The aim is not to try and do anything fair or scientific, it's just a way for Fiend to reassure himself that he's not as shit as his puny grades would seem to suggest.

[36chambers]

As advantageous as I think a positive ape index is, changing mine from -1 to +1 would change my grade multiplier from 1.12 to 0.78. That's a pretty huge difference!

Think the ape index multiplier needs reducing.

I think you've misunderstood the point. The aim is not to try and do anything fair or scientific, it's just a way for Fiend to reassure himself that he's not as shit as his puny grades would seem to suggest.

says the V4 climber disguised as a V6 climber.

[Fiend]

Oi that's not fair to poor Will. He's a V11 (V9) climber, currently underperforming on V9s (V7s).

Lemony hmmm even reduced the AI multiplier is still a spanner in the works. Maybe I should remove it altogether and factor height in even more....

[jwi]

But neither height nor ape-index is correlated with maximum bouldering grade.

[yetix]

Need to consider wide/narrow shoulders and ape surely Matt. Narrow shoulders and a massive ape have massive vertical reach vs those with wide shoulders

[Fiend]

Ugh. Complicated. I did try to test this on FB first but it was mostly giants and waifs moaning about it so I thought fuck it.

[fatneck]

(2*94)/((181+0)-25) = 1.20

Does that mean for Font 6b+ my friend who I'm asking for would get Font 6c?

[danm]

Grimer thinks that this still won't stop the little people complaining when he burns them off so it's a pointless exercise.

[HarryBD]

it's a pointless exercise.

Agreed

[nai]

FFS, always thought I was 167cm with a negative 3cm ape index 

That gave me a 1.17 score to backup my excuses

But I decided to measure again and found I'm 169cm with a positive 4cm AI.

Now my score is .67

Don't like this game anymore

[yetix]

(2 x weight in kg) / ((height in cm + (5 x ape index)) - 25).

130/(175+50-25)=0.65

so v6=v3.9 for me?

[Fultonius]

Erm... Wait a minute here. I've always though ape index was +1 = 1" more reach than height. But this is metric, so would that be 2.5?

Assuming it's all metric, then I'm getting penalised massively at 0.8. I'd say I'm the default "average" climbers build for my height...

183cm 73kg +5cm ape.

[HarryBD]

You've forgotten to factor in how many years you've been climbing and the unfair advantage you therefore get from having developed technique.

[SA Chris]

And flexibility index.

[Will Hunt]

Erm... Wait a minute here. I've always though ape index was +1 = 1" more reach than height. But this is metric, so would that be 2.5?

Assuming it's all metric, then I'm getting penalised massively at 0.8. I'd say I'm the default "average" climbers build for my height...

183cm 73kg +5cm ape.

You're missing the point of it. I suspect that most climbers would be hard pushed to get a favourable result. I suspect that the equation is calibrated such that Fiend himself has a multiplier of 1 or slightly more than 1.

Basically. Fiend is not a very good boulderer, so instead of trying to become a better boulderer he has decided to make his own achievements mean more by devaluing everyone else's. Classic short person stuff.

[dunnyg]

I thought you were a shorty Will? 

[HarryBD]

I thought you were a shorty Will? 

Depends what you're measuring

[galpinos]

You're missing the point of it. I suspect that most climbers would be hard pushed to get a favourable result.

What?! I got 1.03 (assuming I have a 2.5cm +ve AI, I've no idea in reality). You saying I'm fat!

[lemony]

Wait, hold on, are we taking a metric ape index because if so my stumpy arms are really coming into their own.

[Coops_13]

(2 x weight in kg) / ((height in cm + (5 x ape index)) - 25).

130/(175+50-25)=0.65

so v6=v3.9 for me?

always thought you’ve been a bit too floaty...

[Duma]

Core principle aside, this has clearly been set up to your stats. Grades are nominally for the average climber, and 5' 8" / 80kg is def on the heavy side of average (for climbers) and thus if you're going down this road it should come out well over 1.
Reach would be better than a height/AI combo anyway.
Plus height/reach/AI is linear, and weight is (roughly) volumetric, so if there isn't a cube or cube root in there somewhere it's nonsense.