Is 195 too heavy to climb "hard?"

Part of me feels like we need an internet literacy course folks can take so they can recognize obvious trolling, but part of me finds it so entertaining that I want the status quo to continue lol

Camdon Kay wrote:

Part of me feels like we need an internet literacy course folks can take so they can recognize obvious trolling, but part of me finds it so entertaining that I want the status quo to continue lol

Absolutely not 

Luke M wrote:

Lots of examples of elite 190+ climbers sending v14 and harder but that might not be the most relatable.

Who are they?

Some stats of elite climbers:

1. † Wolfgang Gullich

178 cm (5 ft 10 in) 68 kg (150 lb).

His weight was a lot lower when we sent "Action Directe" (9a).

2. † Patrick Edlinger. I don't have his stats but he was a skinny man. Eg.: odcvldjm.wordpress.com/2016…

3. Ben Moon

178 cm (5 ft 10 in) 64 kg (141 lb).

4. Chris Sharma

183 cm (6 ft) 75 kg (165 lb)

5. Adam Ondra

186 cm (6 ft 1 in) 70 kg (154 lb)

6. Alex Megos

173 cm (5 ft 8 in) 57 kg (126 lb)

7. Dani Andrada

177 cm (5.9 ft) 65 kg (143 lb)

8. Seb Bouin

180 cm (5 ft 11) 69 kg (152 lb)

9. Dave Graham

179 cm ( 5 ft 10 in)   63 kg (139 lb)

Far from carrying a heavy mass. It wouldn't make any sense at that level. 

Camdon Kay wrote:

Part of me feels like we need an internet literacy course folks can take so they can recognize obvious trolling, but part of me finds it so entertaining that I want the status quo to continue lol

Sorry if the reality of hard climbing upsets you.

giraud b wrote:

Who are they?

Some stats of elite climbers:

1. † Wolfgang Gullich

178 cm (5 ft 10 in) 68 kg (150 lb).

His weight was a lot lower when we sent "Action Directe" (9a).

2. † Patrick Edlinger. I don't have his stats but he was a skinny man. Eg.: odcvldjm.wordpress.com/2016…

3. Ben Moon

178 cm (5 ft 10 in) 64 kg (141 lb).

4. Chris Sharma

183 cm (6 ft) 75 kg (165 lb)

5. Adam Ondra

186 cm (6 ft 1 in) 70 kg (154 lb)

6. Alex Megos

173 cm (5 ft 8 in) 57 kg (126 lb)

7. Dani Andrada

177 cm (5.9 ft) 65 kg (143 lb)

8. Seb Bouin

180 cm (5 ft 11) 69 kg (152 lb)

9. Dave Graham

179 cm ( 5 ft 10 in)   63 kg (139 lb)

Far from carrying a heavy mass. It wouldn't make any sense at that level. 

Total agree. Heavy strong climbers are the Loch Ness monster. In the old time, when there is only word of mouth,  and no cellphone and social media to "snap" the proof, what people say "becomes" the proof. 

Notice how the sightings of "Loch Ness monster" become less and less frequent, pretty much nonexistent, in modern time? You would surmise it would be the opposite - prevalance of cellphone camera would lead to more sightings. Hmmm, I wonder why? Becauase Nessie is a BS, similar to super heavy climbers who can climb the super hard leading edge routes are BS. Just like how super heavy strong climbers who can climb the hardest grades in the world become nonexistent in modern time. Just name one current professional climber. I just need one name.

People often points out John Dunne as the "proof". Hate to break to you buddy. He is the Loch Ness Monster, the myth perpetuated by "word of mouth". Have you ever seen any video evidence of him climbing HARD at heavy weight. NO. I have only seen him climbing a v7 boulder while being heavy. Dave Macleod also talked about this on page 64 of his 9 Out of 10 Climbers Make the Same Mistakes book. Here is the paragraph:

There are some heavier climbers, but they are ALL boulderers. Bouldering is a different discipline. You only need to perform a few moves, so the weight tax on metabolic performance isn't an issue. There is not a SINGLE sport climber who is heavy. Not a single one.

Jake Foster wrote:

If you have a copy of that book on hand, it does mention Sharma as an exception to the rule re: weight - what's the weight given for him (circa I think 2009?) I thought it was a bit more than 165. 

Long Ranger wrote:

If you have a copy of that book on hand, it does mention Sharma as an exception to the rule re: weight - what's the weight given for him (circa I think 2009?) I thought it was a bit more than 165. 

The book doesn't say what Sharma's weight was.

Sharma is currently listed at 165, which is very light for his height at 6ft. He has never looked super heavy in the past, even in his earliest bouldering days, even in his video "Rampage" that he strictly bouldered, with no sport climbing,  that you can find on Youtube. There is no information on how heavy he was.

When I first started climbing,  I tabulated EVERY SINGLE professional climbers, around my height, their weight. Professional climbers know the best. They do this for living. They have experimented with different weight. The have already done the work for me. I don't need to reinvent the wheel. They have determined what the optimal weight should be for their height. That is the weight range I go by.

Chris Sharma is currently 165. There is a reason for it. That is his optimal weight.

6’3” 230+lbs, my only training is going climbing.

On a good day I can chuff my way up 5.12 trad /5.13 sport/v8+ish…while im not ‘hard’, I am having fun? 

Also +1 to the ohm, that thing saved my marriage.

Jake Foster wrote:

When I first started climbing,  I tabulated EVERY SINGLE professional climbers, around my height, their weight.

That doesn't seem like a super great and healthy thing to do tbh. Especially since it's questionable where these weight measurements are coming from. 

I dunno about you, but I've swung +/- 5lbs in a single day. 

Anyways we've now entered, "here's what the 99th percentile do, so we must blindly follow this template, or all our hopes and dreams and goals will certainly be crushed", territory as is natural to do. 

195kg is way too heavy to rock climb all the important  holds will break

6'2", 188# ish right now, 36 years old. I cut to 175 late last summer and was SMASHING multi-year projects. I don't climb hard but went from climbing 12b once or twice a season (when climbing obsessively) to climbing that grade in a few tries with a much lower commitment level to the sport.

 That wasn't a sustainable weight for me but it was fun. If you want to climb harder routes you can get better at climbing movement, get better tactics, got stronger, or lose weight. If you've never tried to improve in one of those areas, you've got a good chance to improve a lot with just a little effort (beginner gains). With a finite amount of effort to apply, where you'll get the greatest benefit depends on your training history, climbing experience, and body composition. Improving body composition/weight loss also has benefits outside of climbing, and the other things don't. My chronic back pain went away. I could hike a lot faster with a heavy pack during hunting season. I felt more confident and comfortable with my body. It was great.

In training media and literature of the day, it seems the pendulum has swung away from dieting as a result of increasing awareness of eating disorders (which is good) and fat acceptance (which is also good I guess, for fat people, but maybe not so good for athletes). It was weird...dieting made my life way better in and out of climbing but I got a lot of pushback about it from friends, especially women (even climbers). You gotta be careful with it, climbing attracts obsessive people and if that's you, getting obsessed with your weight could be super negative. Still, I think, as an athlete it makes sense to eat in a way that will optimize your body for what you want it to do. Where that weight is for you, you'll have to experiment and figure out, no one from the internet can tell you what that is. But if you've never dieted and aren't naturally super lean, it's likely your optimal climbing weight is lighter than you are now.

There is a lot you can gain by dieting, especially if you've never tried. And as someone staring down the barrel of middle age, I'd rather lose weight now and try to keep it off as long as I can vs battle my way back to fitness when I'm older and it'll be harder to do.

I’m at 140, and I’ve never done hard climbs. Go figure….

Noodle Dude wrote:

6’3” 230+lbs, my only training is going climbing.

On a good day I can chuff my way up 5.12 trad /5.13 sport/v8+ish…while im not ‘hard’, I am having fun? 

Also +1 to the ohm, that thing saved my marriage.

Electrical resistance saved your marriage?

Sorry couldn’t resist lol

Long Ranger wrote:

Especially since it's questionable where these weight measurements are coming from. 

Well, most likely an input by the climbers themselves. I have met some elite climbers back in the 80s & 90s when sport climbing was my main hobby and let me tell you: they all looked light and thin. I'm talking about Dani Andrada, Yuji Hirajama (173 cm/5 ft 8 & 65 kg/143 lb) & Alex Huber (176 cm/5 ft 9 & 62 kg/137 lb).

Many other climbers I know which I have climbed with and ten times stronger than myself. They all had an on sight level of 7c+/8a (back in the late 80s) and they were all skinny climbers. 

abandon moderation wrote:

Dean Potter was big, 6'5” and 190lbs.

At that height his weight was normal, far from what the subject of this thread is about: being a heavy climber and clipping 8a and above routes. 

Not quite right:

Weight is a measure of how much gravity pulls on a mass or object. The more mass the more weight hence stronger the pull of gravity; therefore the more force you need to climb a rope to counteract that force.

I wasn't using "euphemism." Purely from the physics point of view; lighter climbers climb better than heavier ones but there are also other factors that need to be taken into account when it comes to climbing at progressively higher grades in sport climbing. 

And certainly †Dean Potter was a bit of an outlier. 

giraud b wrote:

I wasn't using "euphemism." Purely from the physics point of view; lighter climbers climb better than heavier ones but there are also other factors that need to be taken into account when it comes to climbing at progressively higher grades in sport climbing. 

You’re not wrong, but you’re also only kinda right. Lighter climbers do not always climb better than heavier climbers as often times they lack the strength. This has been pointed out by all the strong climbers mentioned here who weigh what most climbers would call “heavy”. Obviously a climber’s strength to weight ratio matters far more than solely mass/weight. 

Long Ranger wrote:

That doesn't seem like a super great and healthy thing to do tbh. Especially since it's questionable where these weight measurements are coming from. 

I dunno about you, but I've swung +/- 5lbs in a single day. 

Anyways we've now entered, "here's what the 99th percentile do, so we must blindly follow this template, or all our hopes and dreams and goals will certainly be crushed", territory as is natural to do.

It is the opposite actually. I feel fantastic. I have focused extensively on what I eat. I eat super healthy now. I have packed on climbing-useful muscles and I am actually 10.6lbs heavier than when I was the lightest.

I said "range of weight" The operative word is RANGE. The data serves only as a reference.

"here's what the 99th percentile do, so we must blindly follow this template, or all our hopes and dreams and goals will certainly be crushed", territory as is natural to do. "

Of course, 99th percentiles of the people are mediocre and below. They settle for being mediocre and, even worse, being shitty. How many people are elite? Of course, that 1%. I would rather be elite and pursue perfect than living in mediocrety. You can do whatever you want. That is your choice. I choose to be that 1%.

abandon moderation wrote:

I meant larger than most elite climber in both height and weight, maybe big was the wrong word.

To me the weight problem comes in that at a certain body weight your fingers/tendons just aren't going to be strong enough to support it on small holds. Generally being taller/bigger/larger/whatever doesn't give you heavy-duty fingers so there is some limiting point where weight is all that matters.

I'm not sure why weight distribution would matter? Arguably a tall 190lb climber is getting some reach advantage that the shorter climber isn't, but I'd wager that the shorter 190lb climber has significantly more strength in reserve, assuming we're talking all other things being equal (including body fat percentages). You mention mobility, which is a fair point, but our bodybuilder climber should still crush a lot of styles of climbing.

You are about as clueless as they come. I bet you have never even TRIED to climbed hard. This is like a coach who cannot even climb a V5 trying to teach how to climb hard. You have never studied the material to even know what you are talking about.

There is a huge distinction between sport climber and boulder regarding weight. You must separate the two group when you talk about their weight. As said before, boulderers only execute a few moves, much less than sport climbers, therefore the weight tax is a lot less important, almost an non-issue. The OP, bryans, is a sport climber. You need to talk sport climber examples in this case.

Dean Potter was never cutting edge, doing the hardest routes in the world. What was the hardest grade he ever climbed? 5.13D, yup, you read that right, 5.13d. 5.13d is dime a dozen. Plenty of kids in my gym can climb harder than that. Dean Potter was famous because he was a climbing "personality" for all of the stunts he pulled. He was the poor man's Alex Honnold of the day, good, but not great, much worse than Honnold. Btw, Honnold has never climbed 5.15. His hardest send is 5.14d.

Of course gravity doesn't care how tall you are. It is YOU, not the gravity, what cares how tall you are and how much you weight. Gravity doesn't climb. YOU, the climber, is the entity that climbs. Being taller equates to longer bones and more body tissues, so being taller means carrying more weight. However, being taller, USUALLY, is much more advantageous for climbing, particularly at bouldering. Being taller allows you to reach longer and skip moves that a shorter person must execute. Exception being if being taller puts the climber outside the allowable box that is operable.

Stop blurting out someone so and so is of certain weight, without taking height into account, that is just plain asinine. In fact, it doesn't even make sense to talk about how strong, how tall, how much weight a climber is in isolation. Climbing is all about two ratios: weight-to-height ratio and strength-weight ratio.

Weight-to-Height ratio is an indication of how much of a weight burden that is being placed on a particular height. That are many ways to measure it. The most common is BMI(Body Mass Index). Here are the BMI of some of the climbers. Notice how boulderers have higher BMI. BTW, the OP bryans' BMI is 26.6, if you are wondering.