Top climbers aren't as skinny as they used to be, Why?

frankstoneline wrote: that photo also displays that top sport climbers now are more nervous and awkward than they were in the 90's.

LOL they all look uncomfortable in their own skin! Maybe because back in the day climbing was less mainstream as a sport and climbers were of the chill laid back outdoor types, and nowadays the top climbers are very motivated and driven athletes.

This thread is making the burger I'm eating even more tastey

I'm 6ft, 155. Sharma is bigger and taller than me. Not sure by how much. But I am willing to bet every piece of climbing gear I own that he is not 5-6.

David Sahalie wrote:climbers are also shrinking: Average height is 5 foot 6 for the top ten climbers in the world Average weight is 124 pounds for the top ten climbers in the world so, the ideal build of gymnastics and climbing are the same.

Do you have a source for this? Thanks.

There are only two weight classes in men's climbing: UNDER 200lbs and OVER 200 lbs. (UNless your only 5'2" and weigh 180, then you can be in the Big-Little Man Class.) If your 5'6" and 130 you're a bean pole. If you're 6' and 165 you're still a bean pole.

I don't really agree with your generalization, but if it were true, it could be because the growing popularity of the sport has allowed its participants to live a somewhat normal life while training hard and pushing grades. In other words, pro-climbers don't necessarily have to live like hobos anymore. They can eat somewhat normally and have access to healthcare and a decent wage while climbing full-time. Not to say they were living like hobos back in the day though, as I am only pushing 30 and was not there.

But anyway, most of the good climbers these days still seem to be pretty "skinny"/lean, and still live like hobos. I really don't think that has changed. Long live the dirtbags.

Hendrixson wrote: Do you have a source for this? Thanks.

I was wondering if someone would ask. Not really, it came from here:

redriverclimbing.com/viewto…

I have heard these numbers before, so there must be data somewhere legit, but I can't find it.

I just watched Masters of Stone 3, which had top climbers in the early/mid 90's. Those guys definitely looked like they were carrying more body fat/bulk then the top climbers today. Today's top climbers looked ripped by comparison. Even Ondra looks like he's put on muscle in the past couple years, but not fat. Still very thin by normal people's body comparison though.

I have "death grip" but haven't read it yet; finishing Seven Summits first.

Do you think the anorexic scene in the book was localized to the area?

Timothy.Klein wrote:Technique is incredibly important. Strength and strength-to-weight ratio are of course very important, moreso perhaps as you get on desperate sport routes, but people underestimate technique.

That is spot-on. Everyone emphasizes strength but little talk about technique. Once I even heard a guy just breaking into .13a tell me that he thought his technique was perfect and thus he only needed to work on strength training. Well, this may come as a surprise but even 5.15 climbers could work on their technique. The video that comes with The Self-Coached Climber points out some technique flaws in Chris Lindner's attempts of the Big R, a mid .14 at Smith. The video shows that a mere inch of body positioning difference at the crux was the difference between falling or pulling the move.

camhead wrote: Uhhhhh... no. There is endless debate about Sharma's measurements (the only other climber who has gotten so misrepresented on climbing forums is Fred Rhouling), but he is NOT 5'6". Not a lot of definitive info since he does not maintain an 8a.spu profile, and there is endless speculation such as yours going around on climbing forums. However, Sharma's wikipedia puts him at an even 6 feet, as does this article at UK climbing. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris… ukclimbing.com/news/item.ph… So, yeah, not 5'6" or even 5'8". Dave Graham lists his own height at 5'10" (which is taller than I would have put him at), and here they are together:

Unless I'm growing in my mid forties(other than around my middle), Chris is not close to 6' and Dave who I've met on several occasions is not 5'10".

Next time I'll bring a tape measure and end this dispute once and for all...:)

Snakes have no technique, arms, or legs but they are great climbers, probably b/c of a low BMI and little body fat.

Snake free-soloing the roof, onsight, FA

Caprinae monkey wrote:Snakes have no technique, arms, or legs but they are great climbers, probably b/c of a low BMI and little body fat.

Or maybe because that snake weighs 4 lbs. Ants can climb harder than snakes, likely because they have six-wheel-drive and 100 of them weigh about as much as a Post-it note.

freezeus wrote:Sharma is nowhere near 6' maybe 5'6"-5'8" and I doubt he's 165. I'm 6' even and have chatted with Chris at a few events he was definitely at least 4-6" shorter than me. I think the differece boils down to bouldering, gym training, and many of the new harder sport routes being about power and crazy dynamic movement. Dean Potter is big, John Glassberg is huge...

Chris is certainly 5'10" or taller, likely 6'. No doubt that Dean and John are both taller since they are both over 6'.

doligo wrote: Maybe it's a perception, someone mentioned above that Digiulian was 5'2" - I was standing next to her at the World Cup event couple of years ago and I could've sworn she wasn't even 5' tall (I'm 5'4 and she looked super tiny)...

I kind of think that what it comes down to is that a lot of top climbers look small because they are, and I'm not talking height. If Chris or Sasha weighed 20% more than they do people would perceive them to be their actual height or possibly even taller. It could also have to do with the fact that media builds them up to be bigger than life and when they are not you just see them as small?

20 kN wrote: That is spot-on. Everyone emphasizes strength but little talk about technique. Once I even heard a guy just breaking into .13a tell me that he thought his technique was perfect and thus he only needed to work on strength training. Well, this may come as a surprise but even 5.15 climbers could work on their technique. The video that comes with The Self-Coached Climber points out some technique flaws in Chris Lindner's attempts of the Big R, a mid .14 at Smith. The video shows that a mere inch of body positioning difference at the crux was the difference between falling or pulling the move.

I would agree that everyone could work on their technique, it can NEVER be perfect. Just for comparison, cyclist and swimmers regularly work on their technique at the highest levels and it is pretty safe to say that what they have to do is far less complex than what a climber needs to. Though it is not hard to imagine that the technique of todays top climbers is better than that of those in the past, it still does not make it perfect.

20 kN wrote: Or maybe because that snake weighs 4 lbs. Ants can climb harder than snakes, likely because they have six-wheel-drive and 100 of them weigh about as much as a Post-it note.

It sucks to be beaten by an ant! Now i'm getting jealous, i'm gonna go kick over an anthill

When that picture was taken, there was a climber working a route a couple of lines over. The climber took a whipper, but the snake just kept going up.

I was blown away when I first met Dean Potter in Yosemite. His back is WIDE and about 2 inches thick. Looks more like a well-fed competitive rower.

I would say his body type supports the OPs thesis.

Cheers from Osaka,

john

Photos of Sharma standing next to other climbers suggests he is taller than 5'4" to 5'6"

kid sharma and caldwell taller than Hong (5'4'-5'6')

Sharma and Long

Sharma, Graham, Harrington (5'2")

My wife always laughs when I hang out with my really good climber friends. I'll see them at the store or something when I'm with her and she's always kinda chuckling about how little they are. She's 5'10" and 140 pounds - that's a size 4 or 6 and completely TOWERS over David Grahm!

Let's face it, those guys are super light and super strong.

David Sahalie wrote: I was wondering if someone would ask. Not really, it came from here: redriverclimbing.com/viewto… I have heard these numbers before, so there must be data somewhere legit, but I can't find it.

Someone with time on their hands could just go to 8a.nu and plug in the weight and height of the top 10, 20, or 50 climbers in the world. Not too difficult.

Casey Ryback wrote:Gullich was the top climber of that era and he was pretty beefcake.

Beefcake with twigs for legs.

tenesmus wrote:My wife always laughs when I hang out with my really good climber friends. I'll see them at the store or something when I'm with her and she's always kinda chuckling about how little they are. She's 5'10" and 140 pounds - that's a size 4 or 6 and completely TOWERS over David Grahm! Let's face it, those guys are super light and super strong.

I can believe there's some random guy named "David Grahm" that the wife TOWERS over, but the famous climber having a similar name is about 5'10''. Perhaps the wife is wearing 6'' stilettos or something?