UKC

I can only think of one route I’ve done that would be . The arches at back Bowden . When I climbed a lot in the county I occasionally climbed with a chap who was 6 ft 6 . I would have paid money to watch him try it. 

Possibly The Mincer (HVS 5b)? It's quite bunched so I expect easier for the short.

Though I'm not short so may well be wrong. 

Anything that ends up bunched up is harder for the tall. Generally pulling though a roof is trickier as getting your feet up causes your arse to poke out further.

It's often just more obvious when something is easier for the tall as you can easily spot someone lanking between the good holds.

Can confirm the mincer is zero fun for the 6ft tall.

Also had a recent experience on Short Sean's Reachy Roof (f7A) that I wasn't expecting. I had a lot more trouble sorting the first move out than my rather less tall accomplice.

Hate Crime, at Wallsend North. A piece of piss for me, thought while muttering, "What a total piece of..." I managed to fall off. That's where complacency gets you! But my mate, who was vastly better, got shut down on it. A little groove which I could get into and he couldn't. 

Most things that are bunched. (Found the start of The Mincer simple.) Most things that are steep.

But sadly not most things at Portland!

Mick 

Pete Crew (tall) fell off it, landed almost literally in the arms of The Alpha, and, without a trace of irony, announced that he was going to burn Brown off and be the next big thing in British climbing.

They weren't in the least amused. ("We liked Joe...") 

Mick 

The Peapod (HVS 5b). Exactly where do you put your legs!?

Aerial (VS 4c) has an entertaining second pitch if you're tall; as I am.  Bunched up under a roof, I could only make the move left to get out if I took my helmet off.  Even then it all got a bit contortionist.

The second pitch of Diocese (VS 5a) was the opposite.  On the traverse, my shorter partner had a choice of handholds or footholds; I could use them both.  Which was nice.

T.

The first route I ever fell off. Still found it pretty desperate when climbing grades harder.

Pity you didn't witness my "ascent" then. You would probably have laughed a lot

"The Alpha" being....what or who?

How about Telescope Tunnel (M) at Birchen Edge?

If you're tall, you tend to have more reach, but also:

- you tend to be heavier
- you need more core strength
- high feet push your bum out
- feet close to a crimp or sloper means more outward force on the hand hold
- you generally have bigger hands, digits and feet, so holds feel smaller and jams can be more tenuous (loose finger jam instead of a hand, etc.)
- roofs, mantles and chimneys can be a nightmare...

In short: we all know climbing is harder for the tall, it's just we're more stoic about it than the shorties

Your profile suggests this must be amnesia or lack of imagination rather than you just being very new to climbing and only having done a few routes...

Amen!

Under the Barbarian roof could become the crux for the overly tall 

Crash 'n' Gurn (f7A). The sit start is desperate if you’re tall. The end is harder if you’re short but it is going to an absolute bucket.

I don't think this applies to most UK roofs. Our roofs tend to be quite short, meaning that a taller climber is often able to keep their feet on the better holds at the back of the roof, needing less body tension.

Mantles (when there isn't a good hold far back) are usually harder for the tall. As are crimpy board problems or power endurance problems.

Undercuts can be harder for the tall too, especially those with longer arms.

Strapiombo is desperate if you're tall - unless you can smear with your knees.

To look at top performers I'd say that anything harder than about 8b+ is harder for the tall. You don't see many people above 6ft climbing in the higher grades. As mentioned above reach doesn't make up for weight and finger size once the holds get small.

The great roof and changing corners pitches on the nose are meant to be nr impossible for the tall.

The first time I failed to lead it. Or second it. 

The second time I seconded it with a point of aid - the rope!  An hour after cruising Our Father. Oh the shame!

Am little; no excuse. Just got impatient both times and didn't put in the effort to work it out. With Walsh's Groove (broadly similar?) because I was so intimidated by it, even seconding, I read it perfectly and even managed to cross feet over on the crux and shake out the pumped calf. Interesting seeing it dangling in space. 

I guess it's all about reading the bloody rock!

Mick 

The Alpha climbing club. Broadly speaking, the short-lived successor to the Rock and Ice. Circa 1960/2 virtually all of the new wave were in it: Boysen, Crew (they let him in), Nunn, Ingle and McHardy (I think). Many superb climbers. 

Mick 

My 6ft second had some choice words about the bunched up crux of Chimes of Freedom (E2 5b) but I (5'2") had no problems with it.

But if you're tall:

• High rockovers are not as high because you've got longer legs
• You have more choice of holds to use
• The point about jamming is nonsensical - for every jam that's a bit too tight for you, there'll be one that's a bit too baggy for me!
• Walls and slabs are much easier

> In short: we all know climbing is harder for the tall, it's just we're more stoic about it than the shorties 

As a shortie (and a proper shortarse - not one of these whinging blokes who's actually like 5'6") I will concede that there are almost certainly routes that I find easier than taller climbers. But the difference is that something being harder for the tall usually just means an attritional impact of moves that feel a bit tougher, whereas when you're short you come across moves, even on reasonably easy routes, which are absolute stoppers so it's much more noticeable! I remember being absolutely shut down trying to second Safety Net (E1 5b) at the Roaches (not on the crux boulder problem start but with the moves higher up getting onto the headwall) and barely scraping up Spinnaker (S 4a) at Eavestone, which if you can't reach between the breaks is utterly desperate! 

Crash n' Gurn felt more like 6B to me at the modest height of 5'8". I've certainly done harder 6B grit boulders. 

Ban Y Gor is an example of a venue that is generally easier for the tall. Lots of stacked overhangs with big reaches to crucial holds, not many options for intermediates.

But as others have already said, advantages for the tall are most obvious around the mid grades, but seem to diminish at the elite grades. Notable exceptions to this include La Dura Dura and DNA, both of which apparently require some big spans for the crux moves.

I've also heard that smaller climbers tend to be more efficient (i.e. get less pumped) when moving through sustained terrain. No idea of the science that backs it up though.

Going back over the 'taller=heavier' point, the finger-locks on London Wall are brutal for the heavy. Reach is barely an issue and at just about every point on the final section your pain threshold is being triggered!

I am tall at 6 feet 2 inches. I used to climb a lot, all over the country, with a shorter guy (he must've been about 5 feet 2 inches. Now deceased, RIP Paul). I am certain my height was an advantage at least 90% of the time - always because of being able to reach holds, including jugs, that he could not. That was especially so on blank walls with good holds up there, and on overhangs with jugs or any useful holds above them

What was your weight at this time?

Yes, this nails why there is the common misconception that tall climbers have an advantage overall, despite it now, I think, being well established that it is simply not true.

And when you're tall, this makes you feel short

Get Them Out By Xmas (6b+)

I recall a podcast with Lattice where their data showed a U-shaped relationship wuth climbing ability and height. I can't recall exactly how short or tall were defined but for men 5ft5" and 6ft1" ring a bell.

Of course, Lattice attract a very specific subset of climbers so not sure how widely their findings can be applied.

It's obvious that, for all climbers, the further away you sit on the bellcurve from the average (in terms of height), the more likely it is that you'll find grades a bit wonky - sometimes easier but more often harder. But it's hard not to feel aggrieved when you get stuck on a move everyone else has breezed past, just because you stopped growing aged 12...

As a shortarse, it can be hard to keep a sense of perspective about the pros and cons of different heights and it's an easy excuse to fall back on, certainly easier than going away and getting a bit stronger, losing some weight or improving my dynamic climbing. I'm always amazed at logbook comments about this or that route being reachy, usually written by men (going by their usernames) who I would assume are at least 4-5" taller than me. Being charitable, I wonder if it's because those of us who are properly short are forced from very early on to develop an arsenal of skills to tackle long moves (dynamism, better use of crap footholds, core strength and flexibility to use high feet) which the moderately short don't need until later in their climbing life?

That said, a plague on the houses of tall climbers who wedge really solid gear in, as high as they can reach, from restful positions and then force their stunted seconds to remove it mid-crux...

If you can get off the ground…

On the other hand, a heavy climber can lose some weight but I'm only going to get shorter as I age. To make it worse I'm not even one of those short and light climbers - I'm both stumpy AND dense! I could definitely lose a bit of weight but even at my slimmest (mid-20s and a size 8) I weighed in at almost 60kg, right at the top end of the healthy BMI range

That's me 🙂

I also find that I regularly clip bolts off rubbish holds because I can and then find the next hold is the good one everyone else clips off.

Oh my god, this. They almost deserve to come begging for it in the Lost (abandoned) and Found sub-forum.

Saying "a heavy climber can lose some weight" is too simplistic. You could just as easily say "a short climber can lose some weight" and so extending their advantage. It's body composition that matters.

I'm currently around 82.5kg and 9.8% BF - but it's taking some effort and is still heavy!

"Stumpy AND dense" sounds tough, but tall, lean and weak isn't helping me much!

76 KG I think

Well said, I couldn’t agree more 👍🏻

Well yes, I know it's not that simple. But it IS a possibility, whereas a short climber is never going to be able to grow!

ETA: 

Sounds very similar to my partner. He's pretty much the opposite build to me and really struggles with pure strength/power. He stills climbs harder than me but tbf that's mostly because he trains more, is fitter, had better technique and is less of a wuss. Interestingly, the only type of climbing where I feel I have a distinct advantage (barring the occasional bunched up move or squalid sit start) is on the Moonboard. True, there are quite a lot of problems I can't get anywhere on because the moves are too big, but being short and stacked seems to be a distinct advantage for powerful board style problems.

Any Brown/Whillans route

Yes, but indeed BOTH climbers can lose weight!

"Hard for the tall" just describes a route where the hard moves require techinque or strength and cannot be lanked.

Quality route but I'm still trying to work out why it was upgraded to 5b and where the 5b move is meant to be. Did this a long time ago and thought HVS 5a (at the time) was perfectly fair. 4b/c moves into the pod, 4c-5a gradually getting more difficult (& precarious) up the pod, 5a exiting and 4c up the crack above. No single move IMO was technically harder than that.

Now if a French grade was going to be used, then it likely would be higher than on a lot of other HVS 5a routes because there are a lot of moves that are 5a or nearly at that grade.

its quite funny watching tall climbers on Diapason (E1 5c), shorties like myself generally have no problem.

Well, a hefty majority of voters on UKC disagree with you. I think exiting the pod is definitely 5b, and lower down it's really too technical for several moves to be 5a. It's technically MUCH harder than the so-called 5b that's now given to Cemetery Gates, for example, which I've always disagreed with. (It's just a very steep/sustained mix of 4b, 4c and 5a moves)

Agree. Peapod is 5a into 5b. (Still no excuse for me pissing 6b and using aid on a 5b an hour later). 

Also agree about Cemetery Gates. Sure, a bit pumpy in places but still only 5a.

Mick 

A bit harsh for people to downvote your joke.

it's cool. Probably Russian bots on their anti-science and anti-facts misinformation campaign. You now vaccines, climate change, something about levers amd CoG's, and extra-terrestrial shape shifting lizards

Best example I can recall had moves between consecutive hairline overlap breaks that you couldn't get fingers into but had to press thumbs upwards onto then transition to undercuts after getting feet up higher. Totally Wired 7a+ at Cawdor Quarry Matlock. Rare occasion that second ascentionist with famous very long reach found the moves hard.

Maybe I used to be a better climber than I thought all those years ago 😁

Certainly not better than I think I am nowadays ☹️

How about King Kong - Stanage.

Or Stormbringer at Gardoms - both tough mantles, though being fairly tall I've never tried KK, looked like an obvious no-no.

well, Harvest (E4 6b) is supposed to be tricky for the tall, at 5’10” that’s not me. However, the gangly youths I did it with on a couple of occasions climbed it ok, and suggested the lanky barrier was a convenient excuse 😂

The guide actually says it's harder for the tall.

Being reasonably tall I was rather pleased with my ascent.

I would have thought mantles would be a problem if your legs are disrpoportionately long (or arms short), not a matter of actual height. 

I remember King Kong being a nightmare.

The Froggatt one? 

You can just jam hands and feet the whole way, can't you? I'm 6" tall, so maybe I don't really count as tall

Isn't Ondra 6ft1? I think Sharma is 6ft as well.

Biologically only 5'6". The rest is Ondraneck.

Maybe instead of talking about height we should be focussing on the neck length to performance ratio. 

I understand that the non-neck that juiced-up knuckleheads down the gym eventually develop, is called a 'schneck'. Thus, we have a scale!

So the Schneck-Ondraneck scale?

You're right, of course; I was just being tongue in cheek. But, I did do a scientific survey, and all my shorter friends are better climbers than me. Also some of the tall ones.

IIRC with Stormbringer the problem is getting your feet onto some rock (just to give some assistive friction) above the overhang, taller climbers have to be that bit higher in the mantleshelf before their feet would get above the lip.

Does the Schneck-Ondraneck scale start at 0 like E-grades?

😉

Yes and it inexplicably finishes at 11 of all numbers.

I think waist size would be more of an issue than height.

At 5'10" with long arms (+10cm ape) getting my arse off without my heels touching the ground was really quite hard, but after that it was trivial. I would imagine it would be a rather unlikely climb for someone 6'4" or something.

Goth (E2 5b) is entertainingly bunched for the taller climber.

The CC guide describes it as "E2 to impossible" depending on height, which matched well with the differing experiences of myself (6'1") and my second (5'3")

Interestingly 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’.

The Unprintable (E1 5b) at Stanage would probably be a contender - although I thought it no pushover for a shorty either!

He did it !!!

King Kong at Stanage High Neb is an interesting candidate, and maybe Insanity at Curbar

6ft? Shorties as far as I'm concerned!