Continue with onX Maps
Sign in with Facebook
Top climbers aren't as skinny as they used to be, Why?
The Stoned Master wrote:Another fascinating point is the human element: maybe those early 90s elite climbers THOUGHT they were doing the best thing by becoming skinnier and skinnier, hungrier and hungrier.Absolutely; the cultural factor is huge. In particular, I think that the role-model component was important; the actions and body types of just a few famous climbers probably has a greater influence than most of us admit. Probably all it took to initiate the ultra-skinny craze was a handful of really skinny top climbers. The community was smaller then, too, so the impact of a few people would be greater. When the best climber at the crag looked like a skeleton, everyone else thought "If I can look like that, I'll climb hard too." People follow thier role models, and when the best climber(s) in the sport is ultra-skinny, this will influence a lot of people to try the same thing. For the modern era, the rise to prominence of some more muscular top climbers ~15 years ago is likely the driver of the trend toward less emaciated. Notably, Chris Sharma in the US, and perhaps Dani Andrada in Spain. The interesting thing about Sharma is that he's been at the top of the game so long that he has fully bridged the gap from the Jim Karn, Boone Speed, etc (emaciated) era to the modern Daniel Woods et al. (more muscular) group of top-end climbers. I think that the appearance of Sharma on the scene was an incredibly influential thing, since his style was so dramatically different than that of his forebears. They (the older generation of sport climbers) were skinny, control freaks who starved themselves, climbed in a static style, timed their rests to the minute, took humidity sensors to the crag, and threw legendary wobblers. People saw that and thought that that is what you have to do to climb at the top level, and soon all of the top climbers followed such a pattern; it was a self perpetuating mode of thought. When Sharma rose to prominence, he was clearly a sport climber of a dramatically different mold; this perhaps is easy to forget since his influence has become so pervasive now, but at the time he offered a totally different image of what a top climber could be: relaxed, muscular, and with a dynamic style. Plus, he was so much better than the old guard that it was obvious that what he was doing was working. People started to see this new way of climbing as the way to emulate the top climber, setting forth a chain reaction that really shifted how people approach hard climbing. Of course, before someone calls me out, I should note that this is not all Sharma's influence; I have primarily used him here as an example for simplified argument. There were various other top climbers of more-muscular build who had similar influence; Todd Skinner perhaps most notable among them. |
John Peters wrote:Like others in the thread, I would dispute the premise:that photo also displays that top sport climbers now are more nervous and awkward than they were in the 90's. |
John Peters wrote:Like others in the thread, I would dispute the premise:What makes this image look really silly is that they had Ondra and Ramonet stand next to each other; Ramonet looks so short (because he is)... While your point made with that World Cup photo is well taken, I still think the original premise had merit. Yes, top climbers are still skinny, and they always will be. That is just the nature of this sport. Just because climbers don't look like football players now does not mean that there has not been a shift; there are multiple gradations within the range of skinny climber. This shift has not been from "skinny" to "muscle bound", but rather from "emaciated" to "skinny and fit". |
|
I think you bring some very interesting points JCM, I'm going to ponder this for some time. I love studying humans and their societies/environments! Killer topic man, it has my mind running. |
Charles Kinbote wrote:I'll defer the Samet and Moffatt's experience on climbers BITD vs now. But, some of today's top climbers are still seriously freakin' skinny. It's also kinda funny that Sharma is everyone's go to "big" climber...dude is, what, 160-165 lbs and 6 ft. tall? If he was a fighter he'd cut to lightweight (155). That's not big.He's big compared to most elite climbers today, and would be even bigger compared to elite climbers of 20 years ago. |
|
two words: Double. Down. |
Ryan Williams wrote:I look a lot like the guys in that photo, an I eat 4000 calories a day.Do you actually count? |
|
climbers are also shrinking: |
Charles Kinbote wrote:If he was a fighter he'd cut to lightweight (155). That's not big.Since when does UFC weight classes count? 155 is just a hair over light middleweight in boxing. |
|
i wonder what 155 is in sumo wrestling? |
John Peters wrote:Like others in the thread, I would dispute the premise:Me too. I wasn't a high level climber then or now, but as someone who has at least sorta followed the exploits of our intrepid rock masters for 20 years and read about (and seen pictures) of earlier ones, here's my take: I'd guess average weight of top level climbers is, if anything, lower than in the past. We can pick out isolated examples of top-level climbers who are extra-skinny from any era (Moffat's a good example); average weights of top-level climbers are way below average for every era and obviously always will be. But there used to be some genuinely big guys (not just big-by-climber standards) who at least flirted with the top levels (John Long, John Dunne) and successful guys with weight-lifter type builds; you don't see guys like that anymore as elite climbers. |
|
" But there used to be some genuinely big guys (not just big-by-climber standards) who at least flirted with the top levels (John Long, John Dunne) and successful guys with weight-lifter type builds; you don't see guys like that anymore as elite climbers." |
reboot wrote: Since when does UFC weight classes count? 155 is just a hair over light middleweight in boxing.They've been official since a couple hours ago, when I realized they illustrated my point better ;) Anyway, the point is that a 6 ft tall, 160 pound man is not a big guy outside of the climbing world...yet he's the go-to "big" guy in every discussion about pro climbers and weight. It gives one a sense of how skewed the scale is within the sport. |
Charles Kinbote wrote: Anyway, the point is that a 6 ft tall, 160 pound man is not a big guy outside of the climbing world...yet he's the go-to "big" guy in every discussion about pro climbers and weight. It gives one a sense of how skewed the scale is within the sport.I don't think Sharma is a particularly big guy for his height, but using his 160 lbs weight is a bit misleading. The guy has the average muscle mass of somebody ~180 lbs (tag on extra 10-15% body fat to his frame), which would put such person's BMI at 25, borderline between normal and overweight. But like others say, Sharma's kind of an exception. Still, if you look at the top competition boulders, they do tend to be quite muscular (won't even talk about Alex Puccio; she's the female exception). |
|
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. |
JCM wrote:What makes this image look really silly is that they had Ondra and Ramonet stand next to each other; Ramonet looks so short (because he is)...Yeah, I hate standing next to my tall girl friends!! We both end up looking like freaks. Brendan Blanchard wrote: Here's another oddity: most of the hardest women climbers right now are quite short. I was blown away when I found out that Sasha Dijulian was 5' 2". Beth Rodden is 5' 1", and obviously Ashima is, well, short...LOL yah Ashima is short, while she is probably still growing I doubt too much because her mom is pretty short. Regardless, she is super short and sending grades I can't even fathom. She went to the Red River Gorge this past October 2012, and sent 2 5.14s - vimeo.com/55184231 but... check out this pic. I met her and her parents while she was on the trip in the video above,... I cut most of me out because I'm trying to remain anonymous, but even with the owl hat you can see I am actually taller than Ashima, and I am 4'10"(147 cm), so you can see Ashima is less than 4'10". Before Ashima I was thinking as a female climber it's best to be 5'1" and was always wishing for those extra 3". As for the weight aspect, Ashima appears to weigh 40lbs less than me, much skinnier, and has longer arms. I don't think it is all about weight though, or muscle, but also how your body harnesses the power from your muscle. These things are not measurable such as efficiency of the circulatory system (flowing lactic acid away), respitory system, and neural pathways (more electrical impulses from the brain to contract the muscle fibers). At the extreme a paralyzed person has muscle but can't use it. I still think height matters to some degree, if you hear the guy in the video say, "if Ashima can reach it, she has endless endurance" or something to that effect, because some are just not possible (esp at the gym, when they are created for a person about 5'6"-5'10"). I think different routes are graded at the same grade but for different reasons. |
freezeus wrote:Sharma is nowhere near 6' maybe 5'6"-5'8" and I doubt he's 165.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:  |
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...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). To the OP, I don't think your observation specific only to the sport of climbing. Take tennis for example, Rafael Nadal looks like he spends as much time in the weight room as on the court... I also think our perceptions of beauty have changed. Muscles are sexy, so the media and ads would actually accentuate them instead of airbrushing them over. It is especially true for women athletes. Think Mia Hamm, Misty May, Alex Puccio... Cool name aside, Misty May used to get more media play than her lankier teammate Kerri Walsh for some reason. |
|
Wow maybe Sharma is elastic, people have pics of him being a few inches taller than a person who is 5'10" yet several inches shorter than freezeus, who is 6'. Being elastic would help w/ climbing for sure. |
|
I think the photo with the world cup climbers is a little misleading. They all look pretty skinny there. Ondra, Amma, and Paul Robinson do seem genuinely like stick figures. But check out a few photos of the others. For the sizes of their frames they are carrying a fair amount of muscle. Magnus is pretty far from a string bean. I think the original post is correct. Elite climbers are more yoked, and less focused on starvation. Of course, theres plenty of exceptions. Gullich was the top climber of that era and he was pretty beefcake.  |
