UKC

When Guidebooks say things like hard for the short, harder for the tall etc. Where is this arbitrary boundary drawn?

I'm less than average height, but equally I have a whole hand span on some friends, and they in turn have a whole hand on some of theirs. And the same up the spectrum. Should I be scared of reachy/hard for the short warnings or is that meant for people even smaller than me?

And also could it be said that most things for someone less than 5ft or more than 6ft2 are inaccurately graded?

If most people were around 5ft tall, or over 6ft, you can be sure that a lot of routes would be graded quite differently to the way they are now.

I'm 5'8" and I've always found that routes described as hard for the short are just about possible for me without a major change of sequence - albeit with a lot of effort to get perfectly into position, but those described as easier for the tall definitely aren't.

I'm 5' 8", a friend I climbed with for many years was about 5' 4" but he could reach holds I couldn't because he had a longer arm span and was more flexible in the body and more dynamic.  IMO the number of times outright height comes into play is minimal and in any case stretching on your toes to just reach a hold is not usually a very good idea. Being able to lock-off low down, twist and reach is much more beneficial.

I don’t know whether routes are harder for the short. 

But I do know that my climbing partner on Sunday, who is only 5 feet tall/small, made every climb look far easier and climbed with a far better technique and style than I did at 5 feet 10. I resorted to long reaches and hauls but she used her feet, intermediates and positioning really well to reach the same holds. It was a really good lesson for me. 

What's the average height of our best climbers?

"The median average height of male Olympic climbers who qualified for the quarter finals of the 2021 Tokyo Olympics was 176.5cm (or just over 5 feet 9 inches)." 

So this agrees with John Arran.

5’8” and 6’1”

In this range there are no excuses 

Joe Brown, "if I can't reach the hold I climb up to it."

I thought that was Whillians' answer when asked what he did if he couldn't reach a hold?

I thought Brown, but I could easily be wrong and misquoting. Either way, no excuses! 

Depends on the route (case by case basis)!

I'm a bit confused by this. Presumably "hard for the short" means that short people can't use the usual sequence for which it is graded, so are you saying that you are at he upper limit of short? But I would have thought that "easier for the tall" just means that tall people can reach past the usual sequence for which it is graded that most people, including the short, use. 

I'm 5'5" and the only outdoor route I can recall having failed on because of my lack of inches was Good Friday at Stanage. I have very strong thighs and find rocking over on high footholds quite straightforward. I also frequently find with outdoor bouldering that friends point out different body positions that suddenly make impossible looking reaches plausible. So I rarely disagree with outdoor grades specifically because of my height, but I do think that grades get progressively more arbitrary the taller or shorter you are (grit grades made no sense at all for my son when he was 5, but every hold on slate was a jug for him at that age!).

Indoor routes or problems on the other hand.......

I’m not as tall as you, the only one that really stood out was Poetry in Pink, I’m glad I was only seconding it.

I understand the following are significantly harder for the tall: Black Hawk Bastion at Stanage and Orifice Fish at Black Hole quarry (Lakes Slate). I guess there must be others?

What height is required for poetry pink?

So if I do it I should take a stiffie draw...

Any mantelshelf type move is harder for the tall (basic mechanics/levers), most rockovers are harder for the tall, scrunched up moves are generally harder for the tall.

There are of course routes where being tall helps, but if being tall was the answer, all the top climbers would be super-lanky.

(definitely used to be 6', maybe less now - might have started age shrinkage ☹️ but at least that'll improve my ape index 😁)

"On a global scale, the average height of men is around 5 feet 9 inches (175 cm), while the average height of women is around 5 feet 4 inches (162 cm)"

So just about the same as the global average

Not so much the upper limit of short as the lower limit of not short 😉.

The rest I agree with, so not sure why there's any confusion.

I think the latest UK figures suggest average height for adults is about 5'6". So lots of men who think they are short are actually taller than the average person.

Obviously there are times when reaching a particular hold (or not) makes a big difference. But I have mixed feelings about height related info in guidebooks. Sometimes (as a short arse) I find it unnecessarily off-putting. I've been warned about reachy moves by climbing partners before getting on a route and then been fine and just wondered what they were on about. Just because they reached to do the move doesn't mean it's the best or easiest way to do it. Sometimes the shorter person's way of doing a route is harder but it's not a given. I also imagine it's very difficult to work out whether something would be harder if you were shorter and doubt that it's feasible for that much attention to detail to go into most guidebook writing.

Also what do people have in mind when they casually refer to 'the short'? Short for a man? Shorter than me? Less than 5'6"? Children?

Surely it's not height, per se, it's reach, i.e. height/ape index?

I'm only 5' 6' (well I was; may have shrunk with age!) but with long arms and a +ve ape index. So I've probably got nearly the same reach as a 5 '8' or 5' 9'male climber? For instance, on Sardine, I could just reach the crucial pocket from the 'normal' holds. But I remember when Ruth Jenkins did the first female ascent, she said it was significantly harder (at least 7c) for her. And I can well believe it. Some stuff just is. 

I used to have a girlfriend who was about 5' 2' and it was a real struggle for her reaching between breaks on grit. Conversely on Portland people like Wayne (6' 2'?) can effortlessly reach past sections where I'm crimping for Ireland. 

When bolting, I aim to position the clips for someone who's around 5' 2' with a zero ape index. Nowt worse than a bolt you can't clip (and others can!)  

Mick 

Also taller people are generally heavier (because there's more of them even if they're skinny) but don't necessarily get stronger fingers etc as part of that.

Sorry, I read your post as saying that you found moves described as "easier for the tall" not possible by the usual sequence.

I would take "harder for the short" to mean short people need to use a harder sequence than the one for which it is graded. I would take "easier for the tall" to mean taller people can use an easier sequence than the one for which it is graded.

I think that how hard it is to make a reach can depend a lot on the position of the footholds. A move might feel reachy to a tall person just because the footholds are awkwardly placed for them but feel no worse to a shorter person for whom the footholds are better placed. It is rarely a pure issue of height.

I too am 5ft 6 with a positive ape index and I'm coming to terms with not being considered "short" after measuring my reach to average height/ape friends, (only half an inch or so less).

I remember trying sardine a few years back and being able to just reach that crucial pocket but with some trickery. My mate actually adopted my beta for the move despite being able to just reach it as it was easier for him my way.

Despite this I still get a bit put off by "hard for the short" or "reachy" in Guidebooks, especially on trad. On sport I often can find something that works for me or just deal with the fact it might just be harder as I've never been unable to clip a bolt from the obvious place. But on trad there feels like more commitment and there's definitely a bit of fear about not being able to make a move in a runout or be able to reach crucial kit.

I think this is the answer. Partly because you are, arguably, average height and therefore not short. Admittedly, it's possible that when the guidebook says 'the short' it means short for a man. So, maybe by their defintion you are short. But even if that's the case, as you and others have noted above, the relationship between height and climbing ability is very complex. I think in the context of guidebook descriptions 'the short' is so poorly defined that references to it are not as helpful as they might at first seem.

I sympathise though because I am similarly sometimes put off by these warnings and often have to remind myself to not always take them as read. I'm much shorter than you but I climb with a large number of people who are shorter than me (and who therefore don't have much truck with any claims of mine that something is hard for me because I'm short). Thinking too much about it will probably just get in the way of me enjoying climbing.

I agree it's confusing as you have said because it's a poorly defined sentence. I have found "hard for the short" routes both fine and almost impossible on separate instances, so it's hard to know if the warning is for me or not haha.

I'm 5'5", so just a bit shorter than average.
However, I make up for this by having an above average number of arms and legs.

What was the height of the route setters?.

Tall people tend to be heavier. It's one thing being able to reach a hold, it's quite another to pull on it with the extra weight.

Additionally, I've seen more short (light) people 1-5-9 on a campus board than those over 6ft. Lock-off would seem as important as footholds - depending on the route.

Oh yes, you've skipped those crimps to the jug. I'll give the tall folk a disadvantage on steep sport and Bouldering. But vertical trad mostly on your feet I'm sticking by being tall is always a benefit 

Or, I've skipped that jug to the crimp - i just can't pull on it!

Telli at Stanage was definitely easier for my 6ft3", but some of the crimps on Helmut Schmitt are brutal at 85kg.

One is E3 the other E6, hardly a good comparison 

The technical grade is more important. I reached past the 6a bit of Telli. I thought it barely 5c - possiby a safe, top-end  E1/2 5b.

Schmitt offered no such lankvantage. The problem with the crimps wasn't their spacing, it was their diminutive size.

Look mate, you're super strong so don't be put off. I'm not saying take silly chances, just don't be put off. Once you get more used to trad you'll be running up E5s and some E6s. 

Right now though, just enjoy the journey. Because it's the journey that's so worthwhile. 

Mick 

I tend to assume that around 6'+ is where it gets easier for the tall

There are some boulder problems where the grade is laughably variable. I did Jason's Mono earlier this year, which gets 7A, but there are some people who can reach the break while keeping their hand on the starting undercut! Presumably makes it about 5+ or something. A shorty has got absolutely miles to go, going to be harder than 7A if you're 5' 2" or something 

As a slightly different take on this, I've found on a couple of occasions that my height (around 5'4) can make a difference to placing key bits of gear - for instance, on Three Pebble Slab, I couldn't see into the back of the pocket where you get the nut and had to place it blind (not something I'm very confident doing!). In that instance I couldn't pull up and get any higher to inspect it without committing to the key move - just food for thought as my guess would be routes are given their adjectival grade with the expectation of being able to place the gear 'normally'. (I realise this pales in comparison with Jesse Dufton!)

In his book 9 out of 10 climbers Dave MacLeod discusses the tall v short climber issue and titles the section about short climbers ‘To the lucky little ones’. He goes on to discuss  how short climbers should milk their ‘natural advantage’.

I agree with this - I've sometimes talked myself out of trying stuff because of guidebook or logbook comments about reachy moves. I remember getting really psyched out sitting at the bottom of p2 of The Troach (E2 5b), listening to the pair above me talking about how bold and reachy it was. When I finally got started it was absolutely fine, yeah there were long moves between big holds but there was no end of footholds and intermediates to use between them.

Grading is very subjective. Descriptions even more so. Huge pinch of salt generally required. Or just maybe don’t read the description and make your own assessment by looking up at the climb. The first HVS I onsighted is apparently hard for the grade - if I’d read that I might never have got on it!

Top pitch of The Cracks on Dinas Mot. 'Graded for the standard 5' 8" climber' according to one guide book. 

John

I used to complain -- as recently as three days ago -- about reachy climbs especially in the gym (where I take it as a microaggression from the routesetter, a personal affront,  etc etc). But have evolved to complaining about people who tell me I shouldn't get on a climb because it's reachy. Recently was on a guided course on Kalymnos and a super strong guy in our group lowered off a climb that turned out to be a full number grade higher than anything I've ever tried. But I didn't know the grade, just ran over and asked if I could try it on toprope and they wouldn't let me, saying, it's reachy you won't like it. Later, back in rainy England and pining for Kalymnos, I came across a picture on Instagram of a woman about my size sending that very climb. Determined now to come back for it someday. I don't wanna hear any more patronizing comments about climbs being reachy, unless there is an objective danger associated with it (a bad clip at one if the first few bolts, a bad gear placement, etc).

Telli should be the international benchmark.  I'm 5'10 and it was E2/E3.  The 6'5 guy I was with found it to be VS.

There was a route in the Leicestershire quarries graded VS to E3 depending on height…

If you look up, Troach seems blank. Kudos to Hughie Banner for launching out on it (and The Hand Traverse), circa 1959. Paved the way for Great Wall. 

Conversely, when you look down the main pitch, it's like the 6a+ of your dreams, littered with pockets, jugs and little ledges. But no bolts...

I remember making the crucial reach at the top of Great Wall and, far too late, realising that it was a lot further than I'd thought. No way back - well, apart from the obvious. 

Mick 

One day at The WestWays, I found out that I was the same height as Neil Gresham and Tommy Caldwell - Neil is 5ft 10 inches.

 https://climbkalymnos.com/neil-gresham-on-climbing-kalymnos-and-his-new-rou...

On behalf of every short person under 5’2, I thank you. 

IMHO that boundary is in actuality a warning mainly relevant for a climber at the top of their grade. For example a short VS climber may find it difficult to tackle a reachy HVS crux, but a short E1 leader might easily climb through it.

I would like to suggest that at the extremes of height there may be issues but for the vast majority of climbers it's simply an excuse As has been said having a positive ape factor is the best advantage and quite possibly this is regardless of height.  I'm 5' 8" with a very tiny positive ape factor. A friend is 5' 3" with a huge AF.  He is also lighter, more supple and lets not beat about the bush a better climber. He can reach holds I can't because he can lock off lower down and adjust his weight far more efficiently.  On the other hand I have seen Ron Fawcett simply reach his way through, what would be for me, two moves. So that could be one 5b move for him and  two 5c moves for me?  I think he is about 6'4" but also has a huge ape factor.

And thank you! 

The whole point of bolting is to make experiences available to others. I want them to be good ones. 

Mick 

Deliverance ?