[Houdini]

(I wasn't sure if this should be in S The S?)



I have a theory, but to entertain it one has to overlook certain aspects such as how much training/clinging one does etc..

I think (maybe?) that those with "Divine Proportion" have a natural advantage on the rock.  By that I mean those that possess a neutral ape index.  The only boulderer I know with a neutral ape index is Mark Kratz, and he's very dedicated and trains hard.

Now remember, this isn't a question of height or lack of, it's proportion.  And how you are proportioned influences your technique, for example, my AI is +2.5" but I have somewhat short legs,  (I think this has something to do with my Mother having the odd sneaky fag when I was in the womb) and therefore find rockovers normally pretty piss (heel or toe) and generally ascend by working my feet up as high as I can and getting totally bunched before making the next hand move.  I doubt I would need to climb this way if my legs were longer.

The pic below should help explain a bit more about the body's proportions:



The Divine Proportion in the Body
The white line is the body's height.

The blue line, a golden section of the white line, defines the distance from the head to the finger tips

The yellow line, a golden section of the blue line, defines the distance from the head to the navel and the elbows.

The green line, a golden section of the yellow line, defines the distance from the head to the pectorals and inside top of the arms, the width of the shoulders, the length of the forearm and the shin bone.

The magenta line, a golden section of the green line, defines the distance from the head to the base of the skull and the width of the abdomen. The sectioned portions of the magenta line determine the position of the nose and the hairline.

Although not shown, the golden section of the magenta line (also the short section of the green line) defines the width of the head and half the width of the chest and the hips.



More can be read about phi or Divine Proportion here: http://goldennumber.net/

Does any of this makes sense?  Has anybody, say in the field of Sports Science, looked at this?  Do you think any of this bio-maths twaddle could be correllated against ability?

Your thoughts, please.

[andy popp]

I don't know about any of that but one thing that is obvious is that there is much less convergence in body shapes and sizes in climbing than in many other sports - e.g. virtually all track and field and gymnastics. No doubt that is partly due to the sheer variety inherent in climbing - ignoring his motivation for different aspects Dawes was obviously much more suited physically for hard grit than super hard limestone. We can always find a problem or sub-discipline that fits us best, witness who succeeds on what when you go out with a typically physically varied group of mates But some of this must also be down to the fact that climbing is further away from physical limits than other more mainstream sports. Discuss.

[Ru]

Interesting idea, shame there's no Journal of Renaissance Sports Science.

An interesting adjuct could be that the routes and problems that we perceive as classic/good etc, may be ones whose proportions and distributions of holds are in the same ratio as the golden section. Perhaps climber with divine proportion are not better at climbing per se, but are more suited to climbing problems/routes that also have the same proportions.

[andy popp]

Ru's idea is interesting but the trouble is we don't only vary in what we're good at climbing but also in what we enjoy climbing. Maybe problems we judge as classic are those that fit our own proportions rather than the golden section. Besides, there might be two effects going on here; kinaesthetics and visual aesthetics. Of course, the really wierd thing about the golden section is that although it definitely affects how we respond to things we never notice it doing so.

[account_inactive]

I think that proportion is less important than say attachment points, especially in the old ape index factor. 

I've never seen that great a coloration between AI and performace (apart from particular problems)

[JaseM]

Does any of this makes sense?  Has anybody, say in the field of Sports Science, looked at this?  Do you think any of this bio-maths twaddle could be correllated against ability?

Your thoughts, please.

When I was at uni in liverpool my tutor (a sports science proffessor called Dominic Doran) had looked into somatotyping in climbers. Which is similar to what you are discussing. I recall that he claimed that there were certain characterisitics that were more frequent in elite climbers, though I can't remember anything being mentioned about ratios. However you would be able to look up any results published if you have access to academic search facilities. Gut feeling for me is there won't be anything in it, as mentioned before people will go for the routes and problems that suit them and thus attain high levels of climbing that way.

[Houdini]

I've slept on it and figure it's time to call 'bull' - it seems more like wishful thinking

Though I do wonder if there is something in The 'Ru/Fibonnacci Sequence of Hold-Distribution' Theory.





I'm not a conspiracy theorist by-the-way!

(EDIT - Sorry Ru, It was you, Ru, that said it, not Poppers)

[andy popp]

Maybe it is bull but its provoked some interesting thoughts - for me at least. Why are we good at some things (science) and why do we enjoy some things (aesthetics) and the degree to which these are interlinked. I've always found the thing hardest to convey to non-climbers is that the movement involved might be physically pleasurable and I think this is largely because they dont get the idea of sequences. Its like they think we just put one foot in front of the other. That and because they think its all about 'risk-taking' - which I really, really hate.

[bigphil]

I like where your going with this Andy, and I agree that aesthetics plays a big part in why people get enjoyment from climbing.  For example it is very difficult to explain to a non climber the joy you can get from pulling on two small holds, changing body position slightly, perhaps dropping the left knee to stabilise the next move to another poor crimp before powering through to the finishing jug (hypothetical problem).  However, I don't think there is a divine body shape, I'm tall, my legs are long and I hate problems where you need to bunch your legs up and I usually just can't do them because I either don't have the strength to work around this problem or I don't have the technique to do it a different way.  Even training really hard wouldn't make that much difference for some problems.  I think genetics, re fingure strength, also is a factor in deciding who the 'best' climbers are.

[Houdini]

Why are we good at some things (science) and why do we enjoy some things (aesthetics) and the degree to which these are interlinked.

As a Libran, Andy, I'm flummoxed by this question, too.    I still don't know why I studied molecular biology (all I really wanted to do was read de Sade. . . )

As for your comment concerning "risk taking" - we are in agreement.

After climbing the 'Hourglass Pinch' problem @ Nesscliffe, Jason Porter exlaimed, "Now that's what I call a sexual problem!
"Why?" I asked.
"'Cos it feels gooooood!"


ps - Dominic Doran sounds like a Faith Healer, not a scientist!

[andy popp]

As a bit of a digression on the aesthetics thing, can anyone think of problems that look great but climb shit and vice versa?

[Paz]

Vice versa - that 8b problem at Raven Tor called Hubble ;-).

Seriously though, some people can't appreciate why that route is a classic given the rock in isolation's lack of immediate aesthetic appeal.  If they saw someone on it, trying the moves though then, I'm sure they'd understand why it's great or just that it looks cool.  When Big Ron saw someone on it, probably Ben, he said it was mindblowing how far ahead it was of the sort of stuff he was doing (which in its time was far ahead of most else) didn't he?

[Houdini]

As a bit of a digression on the aesthetics thing, can anyone think of problems that look great but climb shit and vice versa?

Ahh, Mr. Popp,  it's strikes me that you have now opened a really filthy can of worms - vive la difference; horses for courses; different strokes for different folks - how, when we are all so different, could we possibly agree on what looks great?  And that's without bringing the quality of movement into the equation.

Personally, I love the Hardcore wall, just left of the Roadside Face.  It will never turn me on visually, but I'm convinced my eliminate is the best on this micro wall.  Most people consider it a great-looking car parking space.

Everyone and their dog knows that the moves on Jerrys' Roof are boss.  But it makes me sick to look at it.  Controversial?  I refer you to my first paragraph.




EDIT - Midget Gem (Utopia, Pass) - A foul looking turd of a problem, but a great great move)

[andy popp]

I guess the whole of Pex might qualify; very scruffy, no real lines to speak of (on problems at least) yet loads of brilliant climbing

[Houdini]

I guess the whole of Pex might qualify; very scruffy, no real lines to speak of (on problems at least) yet loads of brilliant climbing

Taste is a funny thing: there's just no accounting for it.





I find Pex beautiful.





In the same way that I find many slate slabs beautiful.  And the climbing?  Cast adrift on an ocean of nothingness.  Just beautiful.