UKC

In reply to Reach>Talent:

Oh, God, don't get them started. This could be a long thread. One could already summarise it fairly by saying 'virtually all of them'. That's not true, of course, but that's the impression one would receive from the forthcoming torrent of moaning, I predict.

jcm

In reply to Reach>Talent:

Not really a morpho route, but I'll never forget you reducing that E1 at Ramshaw to about vdiff, but just reaching past all the difficulties

In reply to Reach>Talent:

Shortcomings at the Roaches springs to mind

Being tall inevitably means you are disproportionately heavier than a shortarse, which has a greater effect as the routes get steeper. So the advantages of being short are more likely to bet outweighed by the disadvantages on slabbier routes.

In reply to Tom Last:

Oh yes the lesser spotted V-diff variant of Louie Groove. I never did find that 5b move!

In reply to Reach>Talent:

Anything by Chris Craggs.

In reply to Reach>Talent:
I reckon Ramon Puigblanque could climb it.

I fact, as he said, as a shorter climber you just have to do a lot more dynos.

In reply to Reach>Talent:

Blue Light at Attermire? If you are 6'4" or similar then you just reach the jug when stood on the deck and then finish a nice VS. If on the other hand you are of average stature then you have a desperate 6b move to get to said jug ...

In reply to Reach>Talent:

If you're taller, you're near enough by definition heavier. So I find it goes both ways.

Neil

In reply to Reach>Talent:

Humdinger at the Roaches. Virtually impossible unless of above-average stature.

In reply to Reach>Talent:

I remember leading Telli at Stanage and doing the pebble moves between the breaks. The 6'5 b..std with me just stood in each break and grabbed the next one - reckoned it was about VS!

In reply to JamButty:

Gritstone break shuffling has to be the canonical morpho style of climbing...

In reply to Reach>Talent:

If you want a route that's harder for the tall then Diapasan at Clogwyn Gafr http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=116328 would be a good one - there's a massive foothold but you can't use it!

In reply to Bob:

God, it's really my week for spelling. That should be Diapason - UKC have copied it wrong out of the guidebook.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I'll admit it did have me thinking but as I'm at work I couldn't check.

In reply to Reach>Talent:

Death and Night and Blood at Stanage (E1 5b)

HVS 5a for me - 1 long reach to a good flat hold on the crux
5c for anyone under 5'11? V thin smearing with a slopey arete

In reply to Reach>Talent:

Rusty Wall - Stanage - the first move is 4c for the tall or 6a for the short. In fact I've only ever seen one person (Anne Arran I think) doing it statically

In reply to Reach>Talent:

Deliverance @ plantation. I can't do it, so always use the lank excuse... Don't judge me.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

God, you're such a tw*t.

In reply to Reach>Talent:

Fading Star, Stanage Pop.

As the guidebook says: "the tall will be able to mantelshelf it but shorties may have to resort to pulling on the non-existent pebbles".

In reply to Reach>Talent:

Steelfingers at Tremadog - if you can reach the top of the little groove fine - if not....

King Crank Pen Trwyn - you can reach past the 'crux' if you're tall - doesn't make the top bit any easier though!

In reply to Reach>Talent:

Words I have often heard although rarely so politely as in the "git" form. Without thinking of any specific routes I think I've heard it most often when clipping euro bolts - that totally taking the sting out of the crux because you can make the high clip (I know, I know) before committing - really pisses off the pygmies

In reply to planetmarshall:
Get away with you - not ALL of them.

Quite a few though,

http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=10030

http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=9648

http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=82485


Chris

In reply to Sally Bustyerface:

What crag is that on?

In reply to Reach>Talent:
Well, looking at relatively easy routes but non-grit (shock horror I know) then how about the reach through the overlaps for the decent holds on both Scratch Arete (HVS) and Brothers Direct (E1) at Tremadog (the holds on the latter being "nicely" rounded iirc).

In reply to Reach>Talent:

Tall people should try Strapiombo (http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=10883). It is desperate trying to cram 'lank' in to such a short space!

In reply to Skyfall:

+1 for scratch arete, was two hard bouldery moves for me , lankster after me just stood on the ledge reached up and grasped the nice big comforting jug of glory without his feet even leaving the faff-ledge

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Not true, just an urban myth perpetuated by lanks who are weak as kittens to justify the fact they can't just skip the crux from the low jug and massive foothold, and instead of accepting that they have no strength, flexibility or technique because they never needed it or trained it before, they just resort to some dodgy physics logic disproven by clever guys with white coats and clipboards time and again.

In reply to Reach>Talent: I'm 5'4 (almost) and couldn't make the reach on FBD then I moved my feet up a bit and voila! It was slightly more strenuous that way.

In reply to Reach>Talent:

I do find there must be a height plus reach figure which is most efficient and I guess it is someone who is about 5'9 perhaps 5'10 with a slightly positive ape index.

In reply to Reach>Talent:

This thread is forming my next ticklist, being 6'2" and an arm span (Ape-Index?) of 6" more.

I always found Queersville ridiculously easy.
Others which I found very easy for the grade are Left Unconquerable, Mississippi Buttress Direct, and Jitter Face. (its all relative)
And if it helps, climbs I find virtually impossible are Right Unconquerable, Namenlos and Great North Road.

In reply to Fredt:

Shortarse!

In reply to Guy:

Not wanting to rub it in but I didn't use the nose under the overhang on FBD, I just reached straight from the break at the back to the lip.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


I think the opposite is more likely to be the case. Surely being short is an advantage on slabs (lower centre of gravity)?

In reply to Reach>Talent:

Kayak at Curbar varies between easy HVS and hard E2/3 depending on your reach.

In reply to Al Evans:


Oh no it doesn't - classic myopia from a shortarse!
Grade the route for yourself, but don't start making assumptions for other people.

Yes a long reach is useful low down on Kayak, and maybe you bypass the 5c move. But I reckon tall people find the next move harder, so you hit the crux higher up. Having fallen off from below this point (downclimbing in damp conditions) and broken my ankle, I can confirm that it's a scary move and certainly not easy HVS. My experience, even accounting for my history with the route, was still more like borderline E1/E2.

Just because you can't reach a particular hold, don't assume that all your problems would be solved if you were just a bit taller.

In reply to Reach>Talent:

Big Brother on Kinder North extended me considerably

In reply to Reach>Talent:

OOH you lanky git!

In reply to Reach>Talent:

I'm 5'5" and found the move up from the break of Ellis's Eliminate on Good Friday impossible. I've not done many of the routes mentioned so far, but I don't recall having had any particular problem on FBD, Scratch Arête, Telli or Kayak.

What was it Joe Brown said when asked what he did when he couldn't reach the next holds? "I just climb up a bit until I can reach them"?

In reply to Sam Beaton:


Or, still more withering, Lynn Hill. "There's no such thing as a lack of reach. Only a lack of power."

jcm

In reply to Reach>Talent:

these short arses need to find some kind of excuse. being tall is clearly a huge advantage, thats why all the worlds best climbers are all 7'.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I am 5 foot tall, and I tell people it's lack of imagination! I refuse to believe that I'm too short for anything, just not got the imagination yet to work out the solution!

In reply to Reach>Talent:

watched a mate lank up this http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=10963

We thought he was trying great slab, I was about to follow his chalk marks, but being 5'9", I'm glad checked the guide book first.

In reply to Chris the Tall:




We've had this argument before Chris, I really think that for a shortarse Finger Distance E3 6b, the direct start to Kayak is no harder than a shorties Kayak.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Actually, it's a bit high, isn't it, looking at that first picture? I remember it as a single move about six feet up. I must have bounced better in those days.

You bounce potential definitely goes as you get older, I remember falling 30ft as a kid, from the very top move of Abberation at Agden (hadn't cleaned the final holds), walking out and getting the bus home. Years later I slipped off Banana Finger Direct, and had to be taken to the Hallamshire, it's less than 10ft.

In reply to Al Evans:


You may be absolutely correct, but as a lanky git I am in no position to judge on what you will find difficult.

It's a bit like expecting a bloke to judge, say, what bike saddles are best for women.

In reply to Al Evans:



Not quite true, but yes, there's less difference than the grades suggest.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


Ed February says this too, and he's right!

I've been trying to think of a route that I really can't do, even on a toprope, as opposed to the very many that I've complained about as being a bit harder if you are short. I can only think of Long John's Slab (and that was a very long time ago, I haven't tried it recently) and the start of the Valve - a bold and lanky Gibson route at the Roaches.

Apart from them, I think I've always been able to jump or (more often) crimp my way though long reaches, on the blunt end at least. It just takes more commitment and I've been embarrassed too often by better, shorter climbers like my better half, not to mention Ed Feb and Jon Read (actually he's pretty much the same height and reach as me).

In reply to Dave Garnett:

The further you are from the average height, then the less reliable grades are (not they are particularly reliable in the first place). The downside of this is that you are more likely to have embarrassing failures on grades that you expect to cruise. The flipside is that you are just as likely to find certain routes much easier than the grade suggests.

This applies to shorties as well as lankies.

If you are the sort of person who thinks that all routes are hard for the grade because of your height, then you don't understand grades.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

This applies to weight as well (and probably a few other factors like strength).

How many short arses can 1-5-9? How many tall people can do the same?

In reply to Reach>Talent:

The Punk at Stanage is definitely a short arse climb

http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=10194

And a climb for those people who have asbestos skin!

In reply to Chris the Tall:


I agree, and although I can't think of so many routes that are easier for the short, locking out is easier if you have short levers and being small often goes with having slimmer fingers, which is definitely an advantage on thin cracks.

In reply to Shani:

True. How many routes should have a 'harder for the weak' label?!

In reply to Reach>Talent:

Well I'm 6'3" and I find the cave start to Hampers Hang impossible to keep my feet off the ground. Rest is OK. One for the vertically challenged.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


This is an ongoing discussion I have with one of my climbing friends. He is 4 stones lighter than me! I'm tall and weigh 13 stones, he is 5'9" (not really short???) but only weighs 9 stones.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


My bad. I was thinking of people with, for example, a very weak core (ie can't do a hanging leg raise).



Although I was trying to get across that there are loads of variables. I heard Ron failed on Lourdes as he simply couldn't get his fingers to fit in to a crucial pocket.

I also heard from a climbing legend about an 8c climber (who shall remain nameless), falling off The File at Higgar Tor because he couldn't jam!

In reply to Dave Garnett:



I can't think of any route where having extra weight will make it easier !

In reply to Shani:


Indeed, if you can't jam then you'll find any route that involves jamming hard for the grade. But it also means that you will find those routes which don't involve jamming easy for the grade.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


Have you done Humdinger?

In reply to Reach>Talent:
being a shorty is great for climbing (I'm 5'5") - look at your role models - Joe Brown, Dawes, Lynn Hill.
I've never used the height excuse as for every long reach there's a bunched rockover or tight bridge plus I weigh f*ck all.

Small correction - climbing walls the lack of intermediate holds sometimes can be a problem if you're trying some lanky gits setting.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

No, I admit I've been put off by the reports. I have enough trouble with the top of Matinee. I can do Wild Thing, though, which I've heard is a similar move.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

I can't think of any route where having extra weight will make it easier !

Well I can think of a couple of no-hands boulder problems where a massive beer gut would make the inevitable "dynamic whale" top out less likely to induce a visit to hospital.

In reply to Fredt:






Interested in your experience of Right Unconquerable and Great North Road, as I'm lanky and would love to do these one day. What made them so difficult? Anyone else agree/disagree that these are significantly harder for the tall?

In reply to Dave Garnett:


Matinee isn't really reachy is it? More technique. I've done Wild Thing, but couldn't do Humdinger, even on second with a tight rope. I guess an all-out lunge might get there.

In reply to Conor1:

Laybacking is harder(relative to other moves) for the tall - more weight, further from the rock.

Having said that I found GNR to be exactly what I'd expect of a HVS, and don't recall any issue with Namenlos either. Having seconded RU I've never been inclined to go back and lead it, I suspect I'd find it harder than I found LU, but many people do.

In reply to Michael Gordon: But on slabs, high rock-overs can be very difficult, even impossible. The shorter you are, or the shorter your legs are, the higher the rock-over seems.

In reply:

+1 for both Humdinger and Shortcomings at the Roaches.

Moribund on Stanage's Wall Buttress is one of the better protected and hence fiendlier two-star E3s for most, but desperate for the short.

In reply to TonyM:

>fiendlier

What a wonderful word.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


A neologism though? I think the word is 'fiendish'...unless he meant 'friendlier'.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

You see, you don't even notice! It's just getting the finger jam over the bulge, it feels miles to me. I have an alternative method, which I guess is the point of the thread, I just do it a different way. Same for Joe's Arete.

In reply to pasbury:

But then some of the routes I have set have been described as reachy, and I am TEENY! I am, however, really flexible and strong, so I can do a high step and a rock over onto it to then reach the next hand hold. There are just so many factors that affect our climbing abilities, but so many people just focus on the short thing. I still maintain that too short is never an excuse!

In reply to Reach>Talent:

I always thought Western Front was more difficult for those with a poor arm span, the crux move involves spanning up from a low hand jam to a high hand jam and the shorter your reach the poorer the high jam becomes until it's basically nonexistent.

You can do it with a weird lay back move but it's not obvious, or easy.

In reply to Reach>Talent:

Out of curiosity - I have been aware of, but never witnessed, dyno competitions at climbing festivals etc - do short or average height people ever win these?

In reply to MeMeMe:


Not a stopper move when you realise you can reach further by ..........

In reply to Reach>Talent:

Gavel Neese at Wharncliffe is one that springs to mind (and memory!).

In reply to MeMeMe:



Yeah, at 5'4" I really struggled with that jam. The layback move is desperate, because the rock there is slightly overhanging.

In reply to Reach>Talent:

People tend to focus on routes that are hard for the short and the usuals get trotted out; Telli, FBD (which is actually fine unless you are very short), anything with jumping etc etc. After which someone usually says, well Johnny Dawes / Ramon Pobol y Cwm pissed it. Yeah, but not at the published grade.

What about routes that are easier for the short / hard for the gangly?

The Mincer - bunchy for the tall.
Kelly's Overhang - what actually is all the fuss about? There's a lie down rest for chrissakes.
Most things with a roof? Again, less bunching.

In reply to Reach>Talent:

Surely Someone has already mentioned...

Wings of unreason.

In reply to Al Evans:

Yup being a short arse I found it easier than my lankier partner as, although I couldn't reach some of the holds straight off and had a few extra deleczte moves, I did find some of the earlier moves easy as I could scrunch up for a thin mantle. Onsight solo in 98, when I was climbing well.

In reply to Reach>Talent:

Being a short arse I do find a lot of routes tricky in terms of reach but that excuse was blown when I met even shorter Johnny Dawes.

I have also climbed with a few short women who have breezed routes I always found reachy (Chequers Buttress, Commander Energy)so what do I know

In reply to The Ivanator:

I did No musketeers direct with no problem and I'm 5'6" with a -ve ape index. One just has to use one's feet. The route that totally defeated me was Gunshot wound to the head at Wintours. At my height there is absolutely no way to do the crux other than to dyno (which I can't do). Taller climbers just waltz up, do a bit of an unstressed deadpointy sort of thing and declare the route a giveaway for the grade. Thanks chaps!

In reply to Jonny2vests:

I can attest to the mincer being a bit of a sod for the tall

To quote Mr. Dawes on the short v tall issue: "It is hard to be strong when you are as tall as you are" which I think was a very nice way of saying "ah you may be able to reach that hold but you can't hang it can you, you lanky git".

In reply to Reach>Talent:


Yeah, maybe something to do with levers and fizziks?

Am I the only one that finds Auricle a bugger? Supposed to be one of the softest E2s in existence, but I just can't reach that flaky thing no matter what I do. Give me Billy Whizz any day.

The Promontory Traverse must be downright boring or the tall, my hands stay on the slopers, but my feet are left dangling near the end of P1.

Autumn Day at Dovestones is tricky near the top, and I've never finished Hawkwing sticking rigidly to the arete, any short arses done this? Or does everyone scuttle off right?

In reply to Jonny2vests:


Being tall may be advantageous for the winter route, still difficult though

In reply to hms & Jonny2vests:

No Musketeers Direct and Kinky Boots are as you point out eminently possible for the shorter climber, but a few more inches certainly makes things easier in both cases.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

I meant the one at Bamford.

In reply to Ray Sharples:

Oh yes. That's another good one. Impossible at anything like the guidebook grade if you're short.

Sadly, so many of the routes mentioned in this thread aren't really that height dependent at all, that the minority that are genuinely morpho have got rather lost…

In reply to Reach>Talent:

Undertow at Rieff and Extraction at Rylestones both have nie on impossible starts if you are short, except if you cheat of course!

Trist

In reply to Reach>Talent:

There are no reach problems. Only strength problems - Lynn Hill

In reply to The Ivanator:


I was once waiting my turn at leading Kinkyboots and a very short young lady bravely (leading) did 'the drop' above a raging sea, her fingers only just touched the edge of the overhang, no way could she get to the hold. With much effort we managed to get the crying girl back to the gully wall, she wasn't crying from fear, only that she was too short to do the route.

In reply to Reach>Talent:

As someone who is 6'5" (and weak) I've always thought that there are just as many holds that I can reach that a short person can't as there are holds that I can touch, but can't use because they're too low down to be of any use to me.

In reply to Reach>Talent:

I'm about 6'2", with a rather advantageous ape index of around +10", and to be honest, apart from chimney's, and getting legs round the odd overhang, I've always considered my reach to be a huge advantage on the vast majority of routes.

And with a fighting weight in my prime of about 11 stone (still only 12 stone now), even on 'power' routes, I've still found my reach more than offset the negative aspects of my weight.

In reply to Goucho:


At last! Rob Durran, are you listening?

In reply to Goucho:

6'2 and 11 stone - you fat *******!

In reply to jon:


Am I missing something here jon?

In reply to Goucho:

Rob's always going on about what a disadvantage it is being tall.

In reply to jon:


Not in my personal experience jon.

I doubt I'd have done a lot of the hard routes I've done, if it wasn't for my reach - never been able to develop 'skyhook' finger strength, so compensated with a long 'reach', and a long neck

In reply to Goucho:


Flamin' heck! Gary reckoned he was (only) 5' 11" with +11" ("Before I started shrinking...") and his reach seems to go on forever.



A somewhat Ondra-esque physique...

Mick (5' 6" and +4 - help the poor struggler!)

In reply to Mick Ward:


Not really, pretty big shoulders and back, but offset by having legs like a marathon runner - in other words skinny


You have talent Mick, so you don't need to cheat like me

In reply to The Ivanator: I don't remember No Musketeers Direct being particularly reachy? It certainly felt fair at the grade to me. Now most of the starts at Raven Tor are a problem i.e. I can't reach the first holds!

In reply to Conor1:

Right Unconquerable is a powerful layback for anyone isn't it? It felt no harder than 5a to me at 6'. In fact I would have said the same for Great North Road. Tall people can't have long legs as an excuse for getting tired. Their muscles have more potential for being larger too.

In reply to Cake:

>Their muscles have more potential for being larger too.

Not in proportion, though, surely? Some elementary maths about areas vs volume. I can never work it out unless I think about it.

jcm

In reply to Cake:

You're missing the point, it's not about making excuses, it's about explaining why some routes will feel hard for the grade and some feel easy for grade

If I am able to climb with my weight over my feet, then my extra weight is less of a drawback than if my arse is halfway to Hathersage!

I think the technical term is the "Principle of Moments", or see-saws, if you prefer

In reply to Chris the Tall:


So you have poor technique, what's the biggie?

In reply to Guy:

The crux move straight up as you move up (rather than traversing right) is certainly reachy between the good holds. There are some thin intermediate options that are probably fair at the given grade of E1 5c, but at 6ft with a + ape index I found I could get to the next jugs with a stretch and mini bounce (5b) - not quite proper dyno territory at my height. Four of us climbed the route when I did it (5'6"ish to 6'4") and the smallest required 5c little crimps and smearing or a definite dyno, whilst the tallest reached through statically at no more than 5a.

In reply to The Ivanator:

I forgot my boots that day so was quite focussed on my bare footwork. I remember some small but positive crimps and then a smearing rockover to reach the holds you are on about. I suppose if you can reach those direct then you really are a lanky git

In reply to Reach>Talent:

On some routes though being tall is a freaking pain. I'm 6 ft 4 and find some joe brown routes terrible. I can't bunch myself up like short people. Not that flexible either. But some times ye the ape index and lanky legs comes in handy. Horses for courses though I suppose.