Is it easier for big guys to get hurt skiing?

**Samwich** · 05-12-2005, 08:00 PM

Watching phUnk toss that backflip (sickter off the richter) and seeing him pile into the flat landing made me think. If I tried something like that, I'd crumble. Not crumple. Crumble.
I was wondering about this in Whistler too. It seemed like all the big guys I met up there generally sustained injuries more commonly, or at least more serious injuries with the same frequency as the smaller guys.
If you look at the pro skiers, most of them are 5'10" or smaller (sometimes a lot smaller) but built. Micah Black, Jeremy Nobis, Philou Poirier, and Matt Sterbenz break the mold a little. I think Black is the shortest of that bunch at 6'1".
Do you think bigger guys get hurt more easily... or am I searching for excuses as to why I'm not as rad as phUnk?

**Redskea** · 05-12-2005, 08:07 PM

Bigger people = more force and more leverage?

**truth** · 05-12-2005, 08:10 PM

Originally Posted by Samwich

Do you think bigger guys get hurt more easily... or am I searching for excuses as to why I'm not as rad as phUnk?

phUnk is only rad becuase he is short and skinny. He makes things look bigger than they are on TV, unless you're TV is huge, then they might look about right.

I think phUnk got pretty hurt this year.

**Odin** · 05-12-2005, 08:12 PM

well if you do........

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/afplifestylecoffinus

**Samwich** · 05-12-2005, 08:20 PM

I'm sure phUnk gets hurt every year. I know I do. That's just part of the sport. However, some of the falls I took this year weren't that bad, but I still got pretty banged up. My friend, who is a tiny little guy, almost never gets hurt. He doesn't go for it very hard either though, so it's difficult to compare.

**Arty50** · 05-12-2005, 08:29 PM

I don't think injury has that much to do with your physical mass. Of course, larger people land harder. But if you frame (bones and muscles) are up to the task, then it doesn't matter as much from an injury standpoint. To me it seems like it's much more important that you're relatively flexible, strong, and competent of course. I say relatively, because we all have different bodies and need to treat them differently. Still, freak injuries do happen and they're part of the sport.

13 · 05-12-2005, 08:49 PM

Maybe strength to weight ratio has more to do with it?

If your muscles are up to the task, less risk of injury, perhaps?

**runethechamp** · 05-12-2005, 08:51 PM

Added muscle mass means increased muscle strength and mass, but not so much increased strength of bones, ligaments, cartilage and tendons. Makes sense?

**biggins** · 05-12-2005, 09:00 PM

look at Minute Bol, George Muiresan (sp?), or any other really tall NBAer- their knees give out quickly. Andre the Giant died young from complications incurred by anyone who suffers from Gigantism (real condition, not comic book villian who has huge orgasms... angry whe--..).

I believe the saying goes 'bigger they are, harder they fall.'

'Course I'm a bitter, broken off biggins.

**Arty50** · 05-12-2005, 09:02 PM

Originally Posted by runethechamp

Added muscle mass means increased muscle strength and mass, but not so much increased strength of bones, ligaments, cartilage and tendons. Makes sense?

Makes perfect sense. In fact this is the one of the main arguments against taking steriods. Normal weight training helps strengthen not only muscles, but also connective tissue. Steriods however can increase muscle mass and strength faster than the surrounding connective tissue can keep up. So that's why lots of roid freaks end up tearing things.

If however, you strengthen yourself through normal means, you are also strengthening the surrounding mechanisms.

**Schralper** · 05-12-2005, 09:04 PM

Originally Posted by 13

Maybe strength to weight ratio has more to do with it?

If your muscles are up to the task, less risk of injury, perhaps?

lbs/ sq in. and the velocity (force) of impact is gonna be the limiting factor. Muscles? Come on, where's all the body builders hucking? It's all about weight. I leave a way bigger bomb hole than Chris Collins, for the same altitude. Bigger bombs leave bigger holes, plan and simple.

13 · 05-12-2005, 09:06 PM

rtc,

Weight can come in 2 forms -- fat weight & muscle weight. You can have a lot of both, a little of both, or a lot of one and not the other.

You can be fat & have a bad strength/weight ratio, and on the other hand, you can be ripped and have a horrible ratio. But if you're lean & without large muscle mass, your strength to weight ratio would still be pretty good.

Gymnasts are a perfect example of this. They are typically small, compact, lean, and strong as hell.

**Samwich** · 05-12-2005, 09:24 PM

So could size potentially limit the top end of someone's ski performance? I don't think I really have to worry about it, because my balls are not gonna let me push my body's top end. I'm just curious.

**FollowMe** · 05-12-2005, 09:25 PM

Originally Posted by Samwich

Micah Black, Jeremy Nobis, Philou Poirier, and Matt Sterbenz break the mold a little. I think Black is the shortest of that bunch at 6'1".
Do you think bigger guys get hurt more easily... or am I searching for excuses as to why I'm not as rad as phUnk?

If my memory serves me well, Nobis is like 5'8" on a tall day.

**runethechamp** · 05-12-2005, 09:33 PM

Originally Posted by FollowMe

If my memory serves me well, Nobis is like 5'8" on a tall day.

I think you're right about that.

**BobMc** · 05-12-2005, 09:39 PM

Originally Posted by FollowMe

If my memory serves me well, Nobis is like 5'8" on a tall day.

He was really hungover that day, usually he's about 6'2".

BobMc

**MacDaddy** · 05-12-2005, 09:47 PM

actually Nobi is no more than 5'11"

but that hardcomofo works out!!

understand Biatches?

the best of the best get "there" on talent, but stay "there" with super hard work! IN THE FUKIN GYM!

ok i'm over my self

**girlski0912** · 05-12-2005, 09:49 PM

It is pretty interesting how many of the pros are little agile fuckers. I think that the bigger built skiers are typically alot stronger and relatively coordinated. Being built bigger than most of the girls out there, I have always used my size to my advantage (especially in skier cross...the little ones don't wanna mess with me). But I also am aware enough of my body and what it takes to get it to do what the other smaller people are doing. It takes more work and so you train to accomidate that.
So maybe that would bode the question- is it that most of the pros out there are small because it is easier to be good at sports like skiing when you are small? Taller people are sometimes less coordinated and it takes more effort to do ordinary athletic endeavors, therefore fewer of them pursue athletics that don't necessarily call for height (skiing vs volleyball or rowing). But enough of this...I have a final to write.

**Huckwheat** · 05-12-2005, 09:53 PM

First....this is a great thread (from one Clydesdale to another).

I have been watching little guys gracefully stick landing for years (and I was a pretty notorious bomber.....before the glory of REALLY FAT skis). I think strictly talking hucking, little is a huge advantage. But, skiing in general?? Take a look at World Cup racers, lots of those guys are big.

I agree with all the strength to weight talk, but ultimately you are going to stick more if you are always dealing with less force.

All this said, my main huck buddy was this little Irish dude Trick, and after throwing down hundreds of bomb holes together, he ended up with 7 herniated discs and I had never had an issue (before the ACL this year - which is not size related). On this topic, I believe seriously in yoga and stretching and Trick only believed in coffee and chew.....so stretch.

The one injury I have battled for years though is the front shin bag. I know every gets it, but I always attributed it to my boots being lower on my tib/fib than all the short guys. Longer lever arm, less support, backseat huck landing.....OUCH.

**release** · 05-12-2005, 09:55 PM

Not sure if they get hurt easier, but it is harder for them to get up after a fall. Right Endless?

**The AD** · 05-12-2005, 10:21 PM

Originally Posted by biggins

look at Minute Bol, George Muiresan (sp?), or any other really tall NBAer- their knees give out quickly.

But, come one, these guys are freaks. We're talking more along the lines of does a 6'2" guy get hurt more easily than a 5'6" guy? I really don't know. I don't think there's much question that short people have an advantage in the flippy, spinny stuff. Just look at the athletes that excel in sports like diving and gymnastics.

**Jumper Bones** · 05-12-2005, 10:29 PM

I'm no superstar skier, in fact I'm quite mediocre, however I'm a fat fuck...5'9", 220 lbs... so I guess I qualify for your survey here. I have had some really really bad falls before and have walked away without injury (serious wood-knocking here) every time. Including some nasties, like landing squarely on the tails of skis that had Silvretta 404 bindings (no toe piece or releaseablility, just wire toe bails, like crampons). I used to push it a lot harder, I also used to ski a whole lot more than I do now, but still. It was unreal watching my friend blow his acl out skiing this spring - skiing a groomer down to the lift at moonlight, catches an edge, gets tossed, blows out acl. The fall was nothing, I swear his acls are made of jello. I've had many a fall far worse than that. I am built like a football player, big bone, muscle, and fat mass; I gain weight very easily (polar opposite of phUnk I guess, I can say that having met him once). Just a very out-of-shape football player. It's cool, I'm working on it...

But to answer you question Sam, I think bigger people may be morer sturdier. However, I get shin splints from running like a muthafucka!

**Telekóptero** · 05-12-2005, 10:30 PM

I don't know.. . .I'm 6'4" and pretty much just don't get seriously hurt. i'm not the most gnar there but i do like to get up there. definitely have seem my share of wrecks. but nothing broken so far and the ligaments are all pretty good too, despite ACL work for Ultimate and climbing accidents.

one thing's for certain, that mass/acceleration/etc. equation definitely is hard to get around. I'm lighter, so that helps.

**shamrockpow** · 05-12-2005, 10:37 PM

Originally Posted by girlski0912

It is pretty interesting how many of the pros are little agile fuckers. I think that the bigger built skiers are typically alot stronger and relatively coordinated. Being built bigger than most of the girls out there, I have always used my size to my advantage (especially in skier cross...the little ones don't wanna mess with me). But I also am aware enough of my body and what it takes to get it to do what the other smaller people are doing. It takes more work and so you train to accomidate that.
So maybe that would bode the question- is it that most of the pros out there are small because it is easier to be good at sports like skiing when you are small? Taller people are sometimes less coordinated and it takes more effort to do ordinary athletic endeavors, therefore fewer of them pursue athletics that don't necessarily call for height (skiing vs volleyball or rowing). But enough of this...I have a final to write.

I hate being labeled as uncoordinated b/c I'm tall. It takes us longer to grow into our bodies, but there are plenty of freakishly tall guys that are great athletes. Ever heard of the NBA?

Maybe the little skinny guys just always found it harder to get into racing? The Austrians would laugh if phUnk tried out to be a DH racer

I do think that being tall and gangly does leave you a little more prone to bendy/twisty injuries like ACLs. Don't know if there have been studies on this, but it seems pretty logical that longer limbs put more torque on ligaments and tendons...