Author |
The biggest climber (viva fat climbers) |
|
|
28-Feb-2007 9:02:31 AM
|
dear fellow chockstoners
more important than the poll is the quest to find the fattest hardman.
i havent come up with a formula beliving that the stories should speak for themselves
so either about yourself or someone you know.
What is the hardest/fattest you have climbed.
maybe height should be factored in i will leave that up to the individual and may the fattest hardman or women win.
|
28-Feb-2007 9:08:28 AM
|
just getting the ball rolling i think the hardest i have climbed coincides with my mightiest girth and that would be Sharpville at summerday valley in the grampians grade 19 trad but not very long and i weighed in at about 87kg, for the record i am about 5'11.
|
28-Feb-2007 9:41:33 AM
|
Jone Dunne must be like 150Kgs ???
|
28-Feb-2007 12:27:37 PM
|
i hover around the high 80s and am on about 26 so there is hope for all.
p.s John Dunne rules lol
|
28-Feb-2007 1:44:35 PM
|
So now in addition to the "ape index" we have the "Clydesdale index"?
26/88 = 0.29 - impressive! Compared to my 0.32.
|
28-Feb-2007 1:48:04 PM
|
"i hover around the high 80s"
That makes u quite a big...ahem!...Dick! sorry mate couldnt resist.
|
28-Feb-2007 1:51:54 PM
|
Do you need to also perhaps factor in an age variable also just to add complexity to the calculation?
|
28-Feb-2007 1:54:19 PM
|
Big Mike is proud to make the first 100+ kilogram tick...
|
28-Feb-2007 2:01:39 PM
|
On 28/02/2007 dalai wrote:
>Do you need to also perhaps factor in an age variable also just to add
>complexity to the calculation?
The age factor is an interesting point, as with age comes experience, but also shifting priorities. Is
experience cancelled out by sore elbows and dodgy fingers, or is lack of experience a handicap for youth
to over come.
|
28-Feb-2007 3:26:19 PM
|
We had a previous qurank discussion about this. I even asked Johnny about his weight.
|
28-Feb-2007 4:01:48 PM
|
On 28/02/2007 manacubus wrote:
> I even asked Johnny
>about his weight.
Any chance he might have been exaggerating a teensy bit...? After being asked that question one too many times?
|
28-Feb-2007 11:45:29 PM
|
On 28/02/2007 master of drung wrote:
>maybe height should be factored
I reckon you've got to factor height somehow into it. Or else us short people are at a disadvantage. Maybe look at body mass index:
BMI = weight in kilograms/(height in metres x height in metres)
See who has a really high BMI and can still crank hard! Also what about pregnant ladies - that would be a lot of excess weight! I think I remember seeing a video clip once of a pretty far along pregnant woman who was cranking out some hard moves (on top rope though)
> Do you need to also perhaps factor in an age variable also just to add complexity to the calculation?
Age or maybe years of climbing instead? Hmm I think we could come up with one pretty complicated formula!
|
1-Mar-2007 12:49:13 PM
|
can't have pregnant in there it is a temporary condition brought about by not understanding rubber dynamics lol
|
1-Mar-2007 2:16:51 PM
|
On 28/02/2007 BigMike wrote:
>Big Mike is proud to make the first 100+ kilogram tick...
And having belayed him with my scrawny 66kg while he ticked a 22, I can attest that his ratio is 22/105 = 0.21. Soooo glad he didn't take a whipper.
|
1-Mar-2007 2:18:19 PM
|
Got to 107kg about 4years ago and still managed to haul my arse up a well rehearsed 24(junket pumper). Only 86kg and yet my hardest tick to date is 26??? But when I climbed packing a few kg I was puffing like a buffalo stuck in the mud! Bit less effort these days.
|
1-Mar-2007 2:47:34 PM
|
I think the grade/weight concept is flawed.
Consider a 60 kg person who can climb grade 14 would end up with the same score as a 120 kg person who can climb 28.
Should be the person with the highest weight x grade score.
|
1-Mar-2007 3:29:32 PM
|
where is Duckworth-Lewis when you need them?
|
1-Mar-2007 3:45:32 PM
|
BMI is a reasonably flawed concept. the military and other fitness experts tend to use it for categorising people as overweight underweight etc.
doesnt take into account. muscle, bone density, fat etc.
muscle is heavier than fat. maybe BMI works for normally proportioned people. I'm not one of those.
|
1-Mar-2007 5:11:09 PM
|
I did a fair bit of climbing with Hidetaka Suzuki when he was over here about 10 years ago, he had clearly been pulled up through the runners once too many times as every time he belayed he would set up some elaborate 5 way equalised anti-death system… to be honest it was pretty annoying as you’d be all geared up and ready to go and then you had to wait about 20 minutes for him to finish his bloody rigging. that was when I was (relatively) skinny, think he'd run a mile if i asked him to belay me now.
|
1-Mar-2007 5:19:29 PM
|
On 1/03/2007 sydneymatt wrote:
>Got to 107kg about 4years ago and still managed to haul my arse up a well
>rehearsed 24(junket pumper). Only 86kg
...which must make you at least 10kg lighter than a certain ex-Mexican relative of yours who, ever since this thread started, I have been trying desperately (but now unsuccessfully) not to slander
|