Fiend
Whut
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2004
- Messages
- 13,754
Yup, this dead horse again :tumble:
I've been thinking a bit more about power-to-weight again, and also about those occasional beasts who aren't actually crimp waifs and can still haul themselves up things.
It's occurred to me, in a blindingly obvious way, that the issue is not just about power-to-weight-per-height, but also about the distribution of that weight AND the functionality of that weight towards climbing. Crudely, any weight that is distributed towards climbing-relevant muscles is likely to be more beneficial and less inhibitive than weight distributed elsewhere (on anything except slabs). Equally crudely, that roughly corresponds to the upper body, upper torso, arms etc (again, on anything except slabs).
That distribution factor could be broadly tested thus:
Get a climber to lie on a pivot point (foam roller etc) with arms out-stretched above their head, and find the point along their body where they are finely balanced.
>> If that point is further UP their body, then they have more weight distribution towards their upper torso and arms, and for a typical physically progressive climber, this is likely to be in climbing-relevant muscles. Therefore their weight will be LESS of a handicap.
>> If that point is further DOWN their body, then they have more weight distribution towards the lower body, legs in particular, and, and that is likely to be in areas that are less useful for physically hard climbing. Therefore their weight will be MORE of a handicap.
(YES as always there are a million objections and potential nitpicks to this. What is someone has fat arms?? Really heavy bones in their hands?? What about The Dawes?? (spoiler, he didn't make a name for himself climbing the burliest board style problems around) What about weight around the midriff that will be finely balanced and also useless for climbing?? What about needing really beastly burly legs for those all-important rock-over moves you, errr, don't get in burly board style climbing?? (Another spoiler, look at Megos' legs, he does okay). Etc etc et-fucking-cetera. The general principle still seems sound to me).
TL,DR: Rejoice all you heavy climbers who have that bulk in shoulders, lats, traps, biceps and forearms - you're gonna do just fine. As for the not-quite-as-heavy climbers who have legs so heavy their pivot point is below their arse, GLHF, you're fucked.
I've been thinking a bit more about power-to-weight again, and also about those occasional beasts who aren't actually crimp waifs and can still haul themselves up things.
It's occurred to me, in a blindingly obvious way, that the issue is not just about power-to-weight-per-height, but also about the distribution of that weight AND the functionality of that weight towards climbing. Crudely, any weight that is distributed towards climbing-relevant muscles is likely to be more beneficial and less inhibitive than weight distributed elsewhere (on anything except slabs). Equally crudely, that roughly corresponds to the upper body, upper torso, arms etc (again, on anything except slabs).
That distribution factor could be broadly tested thus:
Get a climber to lie on a pivot point (foam roller etc) with arms out-stretched above their head, and find the point along their body where they are finely balanced.
>> If that point is further UP their body, then they have more weight distribution towards their upper torso and arms, and for a typical physically progressive climber, this is likely to be in climbing-relevant muscles. Therefore their weight will be LESS of a handicap.
>> If that point is further DOWN their body, then they have more weight distribution towards the lower body, legs in particular, and, and that is likely to be in areas that are less useful for physically hard climbing. Therefore their weight will be MORE of a handicap.
(YES as always there are a million objections and potential nitpicks to this. What is someone has fat arms?? Really heavy bones in their hands?? What about The Dawes?? (spoiler, he didn't make a name for himself climbing the burliest board style problems around) What about weight around the midriff that will be finely balanced and also useless for climbing?? What about needing really beastly burly legs for those all-important rock-over moves you, errr, don't get in burly board style climbing?? (Another spoiler, look at Megos' legs, he does okay). Etc etc et-fucking-cetera. The general principle still seems sound to me).
TL,DR: Rejoice all you heavy climbers who have that bulk in shoulders, lats, traps, biceps and forearms - you're gonna do just fine. As for the not-quite-as-heavy climbers who have legs so heavy their pivot point is below their arse, GLHF, you're fucked.
