Downrating good or bad?

Hot Henry downgraded everyone's shit everywhere; it wasn't personal, to Henry anyway...

went to a new gym the other day, flashed all their v6s, fell repeatedly on 2 v4s. such is climbing. who cares, just keep climbing

CrimpDaddy-WesP wrote: went to a new gym the other day, flashed all their v6s, fell repeatedly on 2 v4s. such is climbing. who cares, just keep climbing

It's not falling, it's down climbing expeditiously. That's how so many people maintain their "onsight" abilities.

JNE wrote:

If size of finger for friction does not increase as weight increase then you are pointing out that the larger climber is always more at a disadvantage than if all other factors remained constant.  

While on the topic of other variables, the thing which taller climbers use to compensate for being at an innate weight disadvantage is the fact that 95-99% of the time they are in a less extreme lockoff position in their pulling limbs compared to a shorter climber on the same move, they can often find lower feet so they can do moves in more advantageous body positions by being more under rather than more locked off and in front of holds, and on dynamic moves they don't have to jump as far so they don't generate the same degree of momentum that a smaller climber would.  All this (including the previously mentioned maths), in addition to different body proportions and varying personal strengths, makes grading not the kind of thing where one number can truly capture everyones experience for a given climbing challenge.  

Size of fingers is static. You can't change that. You can be 150 pounds today and a few years from now 220 pounds and your finger size is the same and friction will be the same. Height of the climber is static. It does not change once you are fully grown. You can however adjust the way you train your muscles and how they perform. Just like you can get fat and make climbing harder you can get skinnier and stronger muscles.

Static Variables: Hand size, ape index, height
Non-static Variables: Muscle strength / endurance, weight, mental ability, technique

So the only thing you are born with that has a very high affect on your climbing ability and you can't change are the static variables. So being short / tall does affect your climbing but has nothing to do with your weight for climbing overhangs.

Joe.  Hot henry also admitted to being a bit of an A hole. Regardless of how hard or easy it feels to you the nice and polite thing to do is tell them its a great climb. If it worked you extra points can be acumulated for elaborateing and acting out the spanking moves while praiseing them.    Dude  it was sooo sketch where you have that crazy layback over the #3 micro wire. The exposure up there is amazeing!  Thought I was peeling off there for certain!  The dick head move is to downgrade it.  
I once had the pleasure of having one of my climbs down graded by a guy who was dogging  it. hanging on gear telling us that it is 10a instead of the 10+ we had graded it.....   

Nick, "a bit"? Ask ​Rob Taylor​​​...

ViperScale . wrote:

Size of fingers is static. You can't change that. You can be 150 pounds today and a few years from now 220 pounds and your finger size is the same and friction will be the same. Height of the climber is static. It does not change once you are fully grown. You can however adjust the way you train your muscles and how they perform. Just like you can get fat and make climbing harder you can get skinnier and stronger muscles.

Static Variables: Hand size, ape index, height
Non-static Variables: Muscle strength / endurance, weight, mental ability, technique

So the only thing you are born with that has a very high affect on your climbing ability and you can't change are the static variables. So being short / tall does affect your climbing but has nothing to do with your weight for climbing overhangs.

You are correct about the first part, but you still appear to be having trouble understanding the maths I presented, and thus your last sentence is incorrect.  

Joe. I read both rob taylors book and henrys book.   interesting. Rob distinctly recalls sitting on the ledge with a badly broken leg looking up at the rope running through his screw.  henry writes in his book that the screw pulled and that Taylor was a pussy who should never have been a climber. henry also published a photo in his book of  taylor about to peel. I know a thing or two about ice climbing and it certainly looks like he is moments from peeling in that shot.  I seem to recall that it was pretty near impossible to run a manuel exposure, manual focus, manuel film advance SLR and give a decent belay at the same time...

JNE wrote:

You are correct about the first part, but you still appear to be having trouble understanding the maths I presented, and thus your last sentence is incorrect.  

Your math is just bad is all, well technically not the math the equation you are using it for.

Your trying to compare the friction of a cube to the weight of a cube. Humans aren't cubes and friction size of a hand compared to the weight of a hand as the size changes is pointless. You have to compare the entire weight of the human body to the size of the friction that the human can use. This also varies due to the fact a small hand with less friction is better when you can fit it into a space that a large hand cannot fit. It is also better for a larger hand on a slopper where the size can give more friction.

Also friction is only 1 small part of the equation and is worthless without the proper muscle makeup that is using it. We don't have suction cups for hands where the smaller ligher weight person can just stick to the wall and the taller heaver person doesn't have the sicking power and just falls off.

What you are trying to say is the weight of taller climber makes hanging upside down harder than a shorter lighter climber hanging upside down if both the shorter and taller climber has the exact same muscles in their body. This would be true if we are campusing the entire route but it just doesn't function that way in real life because we aren't campusing routes and differences in the weight of the climbers makes the muscles different if both were to train in climbing exactly the same.

Certainly the truth is somewhere between  Taylors and Barbers accounts though henry had such an abrasive personality at the time I tend to lean more twords Taylors account...

ViperScale . wrote: Static Variables: Hand size, ape index, height
Non-static Variables: Muscle strength / endurance, weight, mental ability, technique

There's a big difference between correlated and independent variables:

The practical range of one's weight very much depends on one's height: the taller you are, the heavier (range) you are going to be. The practical range of muscular strength very much depends on its weight: the stronger a muscle is, the heavier (range) it likely will be.

ViperScale . wrote: What you are trying to say is the weight of taller climber makes hanging upside down harder than a shorter lighter climber hanging upside down if both the shorter and taller climber has the exact same muscles in their body. This would be true if we are campusing the entire route but it just doesn't function that way in real life because we aren't campusing routes and differences in the weight of the climbers makes the muscles different if both were to train in climbing exactly the same.

Still struggling I see...

reboot wrote:

There's a big difference between correlated and independent variables:

The practical range of one's weight very much depends on one's height: the taller you are, the heavier (range) you are going to be. The practical range of muscular strength very much depends on its weight: the stronger a muscle is, the heavier (range) it likely will be.

Sure but remember endurance training will not create the weight that heavy weight lifting will so you can increase your endurance of climbing without increasing your weight. But sure height will play a role but your ability to hang onto a roof for a long time is determined alot more by your training than your height.

JNE wrote:

Still struggling I see...

It's ok one day you will realize the gym is not the same as climbing outdoors.

Not sure how anyone could square leaving Taylor under the circumstances no matter how the situation came about. Henry obviously could and did.

ViperScale . wrote:

Sure but remember endurance training will not create the weight that heavy weight lifting will so you can increase your endurance of climbing without increasing your weight. But sure height will play a role but your ability to hang onto a roof for a long time is determined alot more by your training than your height.

That's a straw man. For a reasonably good climber, how much you can gain w/ either endurance (especially w/o affecting strength/power) or flexibility/technique is fairly limited.

Btw, JNE is a way better outdoor climber than you and probably know a lot more math as well.

This was a couple years ago, but I remember reading that the average height of the top 100 climbers on 8a.nu was 5'6".  

New grade system proposal:
Super easy
Easy
Moderate
Difficult
Hard
Hard as fuck
Elite as fuck
Ondra

Mark Paulson wrote: This was a couple years ago, but I remember reading that the average height of the top 100 climbers on 8a.nu was 5'6".  

Should look into that data because it isn't the best. It didn't look at alot of data about the climber (ape index, hand size, amount of training, etc) and all it did from my understanding was grab the hardest single climb they said they finished. There are alot of easy 5.12s out there that only require 1 hard move at the start and some easy remaining climbing. If a climber only climbs that 1 "hard" route they are now in the 5.12 group even if they have never climbed any others and puts them in the same group as someone who has climb 100 5.12s. And it also I believe said +/1 6-8 cm which is a big range if you are trying to say average.