This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Being a climber of shorter stature I was wondering at what height does a move become reachy. Do I have to avoid all reachy symbol routes for the rest of my life?
2
3
In reply to dinodinosaur:
In my experience the symbol is used both to show a route is more difficult for the shorter climbers and that it's a lot easier for the tallest climbers. I don't think there is an accepted definition.
As a side note despite my years of campaigning rockfax have never included a "if you're over 6ft you're going to repeatedly bang your head and end up really annoyed" symbol.
Reach is a skill....
In my experience the symbol is used both to show a route is more difficult for the shorter climbers and that it's a lot easier for the tallest climbers. I don't think there is an accepted definition.
As a side note despite my years of campaigning rockfax have never included a "if you're over 6ft you're going to repeatedly bang your head and end up really annoyed" symbol.
Reach is a skill....
Post edited at 22:31
27
2
33
3
In reply to dinodinosaur:
The "reachiness" of routes is more relative rather than absolute. The probability of alternative sequences may decrease somewhat with grade but for most climbers it's only routes near their limit which may prove impossible.
Reachy low grade routes are almost always perfectly climbable by a shorter climbers albeit with a harder sequence. Mid-grade routes may still have effective but harder sequences for short climbers, although not always. However the hardest routes are more likely to end up being nigh on impossible for those under a certain height.
Also my impression is that the critical height where the symbol comes into play also does seems to vary, again with grade. On the lowest grade routes where I've seen it, climbers under 5'8" could struggle whereas on the some of hardest routes with it, everyone under 6'3" would have an issue.
In summary, it's completely subjective rather than objective. Reading comments on the logbooks here will often provide more helpful insights on specific routes but most times it's worth giving routes a try.
The "reachiness" of routes is more relative rather than absolute. The probability of alternative sequences may decrease somewhat with grade but for most climbers it's only routes near their limit which may prove impossible.
Reachy low grade routes are almost always perfectly climbable by a shorter climbers albeit with a harder sequence. Mid-grade routes may still have effective but harder sequences for short climbers, although not always. However the hardest routes are more likely to end up being nigh on impossible for those under a certain height.
Also my impression is that the critical height where the symbol comes into play also does seems to vary, again with grade. On the lowest grade routes where I've seen it, climbers under 5'8" could struggle whereas on the some of hardest routes with it, everyone under 6'3" would have an issue.
In summary, it's completely subjective rather than objective. Reading comments on the logbooks here will often provide more helpful insights on specific routes but most times it's worth giving routes a try.
Post edited at 23:21
5
1
In reply to jim jones:
This.
Reach is a state of mind man...
> Don't use a Rockfax guide and you won't have to worry!
This.
Reach is a state of mind man...
11
1
In reply to dinodinosaur:
Generally, a route is reachy when the crucial hold is, when you're at absolute full stretch, still about an inch or two beyond your capacity. Close enough to make you contemplate a dyno; far away enough to make you uncertain of the outcome.
T.
Generally, a route is reachy when the crucial hold is, when you're at absolute full stretch, still about an inch or two beyond your capacity. Close enough to make you contemplate a dyno; far away enough to make you uncertain of the outcome.
T.
7
In reply to dinodinosaur:
There's a route in the Peak somewhere that states in the guide.
Its is a long reach for most but doesn't get a morpho symbol on account of the first ascentionist - Johnny Dawes!
There's a route in the Peak somewhere that states in the guide.
Its is a long reach for most but doesn't get a morpho symbol on account of the first ascentionist - Johnny Dawes!
Post edited at 23:33
5
27
In reply to dinodinosaur:
I remember Dark Continent at stanage, which gets a reach symbol, suiting me (short and flexible) and not my lanky climbing partner as the crux was a high foot and long, reachy rock over.
An anomaly, maybe, but since then I don't avoid reachy symbols, in fact sometimes I'm attracted by them. Most of the time there's an alternative, and with practice you can become a master of finding it.
Luke (5'5")
I remember Dark Continent at stanage, which gets a reach symbol, suiting me (short and flexible) and not my lanky climbing partner as the crux was a high foot and long, reachy rock over.
An anomaly, maybe, but since then I don't avoid reachy symbols, in fact sometimes I'm attracted by them. Most of the time there's an alternative, and with practice you can become a master of finding it.
Luke (5'5")
3
In reply to dinodinosaur:
Joe Brown is alleged to have said if you can't reach a hold, climb upto it.
Joe Brown is alleged to have said if you can't reach a hold, climb upto it.
1
3
In reply to Luke01:
I've failed on this route twice now....
Cheers
mark (6'3")
> I remember Dark Continent at stanage, which gets a reach symbol, suiting me (short and flexible) and not my lanky climbing partner as the crux was a high foot and long, reachy rock over.
I've failed on this route twice now....
Cheers
mark (6'3")
2
In reply to dinodinosaur:
There is no set guideline for the use of the symbol, it is generally done by feedback and author experience. However, as Ex-engineer points out succinctly, this is far from an exact science.
My advice would be to take each routes on its merits and use the symbols as very approximate indicators.
Alan
> Being a climber of shorter stature I was wondering at what height does a move become reachy. Do I have to avoid all reachy symbol routes for the rest of my life?
There is no set guideline for the use of the symbol, it is generally done by feedback and author experience. However, as Ex-engineer points out succinctly, this is far from an exact science.
My advice would be to take each routes on its merits and use the symbols as very approximate indicators.
Alan
1
In reply to Greasy Prusiks:
A head and helmet with stars and exclamation marks**!*!?*
Like it.
Alan
> As a side note despite my years of campaigning rockfax have never included a "if you're over 6ft you're going to repeatedly bang your head and end up really annoyed" symbol.
A head and helmet with stars and exclamation marks**!*!?*
Like it.
Alan
10
In reply to dinodinosaur:
despite all the taller climbers cheerily quoting joe brown at you, its well worth watching out for the reachy symbols. just because joe brown (or lynn hill or hazel findlay) could climb a reachy route, doesnt mean the moves will neccesarily be doable at the quoted grade for climbers of all heights. personally I dont mind getting stuck on routes, but what worries me is finding myself stranded on a run out section with critical gear out of reach, so I treat the reachy symbol as a warning to eye the route up carefully first and make my own decision. For this reason I tend to use rockfax in preference to guides which dont use the reachiness symbol. re at what height it kicks in - its not 100 % reliable, at 162cm I quite often find routes assumed to be fine for average height blokes contain a wee suprise for me.
despite all the taller climbers cheerily quoting joe brown at you, its well worth watching out for the reachy symbols. just because joe brown (or lynn hill or hazel findlay) could climb a reachy route, doesnt mean the moves will neccesarily be doable at the quoted grade for climbers of all heights. personally I dont mind getting stuck on routes, but what worries me is finding myself stranded on a run out section with critical gear out of reach, so I treat the reachy symbol as a warning to eye the route up carefully first and make my own decision. For this reason I tend to use rockfax in preference to guides which dont use the reachiness symbol. re at what height it kicks in - its not 100 % reliable, at 162cm I quite often find routes assumed to be fine for average height blokes contain a wee suprise for me.
7
In reply to dinodinosaur:
Just take the symbol as a handy excuse for struggling/failure if you are under 6ft
Just take the symbol as a handy excuse for struggling/failure if you are under 6ft
4
3
In reply to dinodinosaur:
Top pitch of the cracks on Dinas Mot. Wasn't there once a tongue in cheek comment in an earlier guidebook, something like, 'harder for climbers under the BMC standard height of 5' 8", will need someone with a comprehensive set of guides to come up with the actual quote, I've binned all my old guides.
At about 5'6" I fully agree with that statement, although have managed to lead that move.
John
Top pitch of the cracks on Dinas Mot. Wasn't there once a tongue in cheek comment in an earlier guidebook, something like, 'harder for climbers under the BMC standard height of 5' 8", will need someone with a comprehensive set of guides to come up with the actual quote, I've binned all my old guides.
At about 5'6" I fully agree with that statement, although have managed to lead that move.
John
2
In reply to John Gresty:
However tall you are, that top pitch is a pain in the proverbial! Next time I'm going off left
However tall you are, that top pitch is a pain in the proverbial! Next time I'm going off left
In reply to dinodinosaur:
Depends on the guide.
Quite often it indeed means that the values hiven are for those with enough height & span.
But on boulders it can also work the other way. So for an assis, too tall and getting off the ground can be significantly harder. Same applies for low roofs and traverses.
On routes though, If you’re shorter than 170 and the route is reachy. Well, the grade might be a tad harder . Sometimes you can be a lot taller and still have trouble.
Depends on the guide.
Quite often it indeed means that the values hiven are for those with enough height & span.
But on boulders it can also work the other way. So for an assis, too tall and getting off the ground can be significantly harder. Same applies for low roofs and traverses.
On routes though, If you’re shorter than 170 and the route is reachy. Well, the grade might be a tad harder . Sometimes you can be a lot taller and still have trouble.
It probably only means anything when the move for a shorter climber is in no way comparable to the grade of the route.
Subculture at kilnsey gets a long reach symbol but there are ways round the reaches. The Bulge has no reach symbol and feels more difficult overall but you can still get round the longer reaches. Doubt there is any specific height thing involved as you get have a large ape index and be shorter, mines +3. But if you are a petite female you could have a -3 ape index and not be tall and that certainly has impact. It's an endless argument as weight and flexibility kick in as does general strength.
Subculture at kilnsey gets a long reach symbol but there are ways round the reaches. The Bulge has no reach symbol and feels more difficult overall but you can still get round the longer reaches. Doubt there is any specific height thing involved as you get have a large ape index and be shorter, mines +3. But if you are a petite female you could have a -3 ape index and not be tall and that certainly has impact. It's an endless argument as weight and flexibility kick in as does general strength.
1
In reply to dinodinosaur:
No, but maybe don't push your grade on them.
Overall it shouldn't hold you back.... Ste Mclure and Johnny Dawes are living proof.
> Do I have to avoid all reachy symbol routes for the rest of my life?
No, but maybe don't push your grade on them.
Overall it shouldn't hold you back.... Ste Mclure and Johnny Dawes are living proof.
2
In reply to TCP:
Actually originally 'morpho' means that it is oing to be harder or impossible for those of not certain stature... Generally it does mean, that it is going to be harder for the shorter.
But as I pointed out, sometimes taller people will also suffer (less so, though).
> It probably only means anything when the move for a shorter climber is in no way comparable to the grade of the route.
Actually originally 'morpho' means that it is oing to be harder or impossible for those of not certain stature... Generally it does mean, that it is going to be harder for the shorter.
But as I pointed out, sometimes taller people will also suffer (less so, though).
2
In reply to dinodinosaur:
Does height come into it? I guess it's less important for a bouldery start as you could always run and jump.
Does height come into it? I guess it's less important for a bouldery start as you could always run and jump.
In reply to dinodinosaur:
"There are no such thing as reach problems only strength problems"
At least thats what my old roaches guide book tells me.
Still cant fecking do wild thing.
"There are no such thing as reach problems only strength problems"
At least thats what my old roaches guide book tells me.
Still cant fecking do wild thing.
In reply to dinodinosaur:
I think Jingo Wobbly has a ruler symbol with different lengths shown
Not sure if based on reach or height
I think Jingo Wobbly has a ruler symbol with different lengths shown
Not sure if based on reach or height
1
In reply to dinodinosaur:
Use the reachy symbol as an indication, not an absolute. I tend to find it relates more to routes requiring wingspan rather than actual height. I am quite tall but with a minus ape index. For me the reachy symbol is really variable.
Use the reachy symbol as an indication, not an absolute. I tend to find it relates more to routes requiring wingspan rather than actual height. I am quite tall but with a minus ape index. For me the reachy symbol is really variable.
In reply to John Gresty:
6ft and found that top move harder than anything on left wall, you're not alone!
6ft and found that top move harder than anything on left wall, you're not alone!
In reply to Michael Gordon:
Even at Gogarth?
> Does height come into it? I guess it's less important for a bouldery start as you could always run and jump.
Even at Gogarth?
In reply to jim jones:
For those routes you can abseil straight down to, the alternative is to sneakily start the route from above the bouldery start.
For those routes you can abseil straight down to, the alternative is to sneakily start the route from above the bouldery start.
In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:
Sounds good to me.
Whilst you're at it a symbol for routes likely to damage your ego would be good. Perhaps a couple of tears or a glass of spilt milk for the symbol?
Sounds good to me.
Whilst you're at it a symbol for routes likely to damage your ego would be good. Perhaps a couple of tears or a glass of spilt milk for the symbol?
Post edited at 22:33
In reply to dinodinosaur:
If UKC let you enter your reach in your profile, it'd be easy to see in the grade voting if there was an obvious split in the grade.
If UKC let you enter your reach in your profile, it'd be easy to see in the grade voting if there was an obvious split in the grade.
In reply to Greasy Prusiks:
You could have a symbol for just about anything, possibly multiple symbols for some routes. A bag of sand for those which are known to be under graded but popular opinion deems them 'correct'. What about a pram with a few toys strewn about nearby for some popular red point angst routes?
You could have a symbol for just about anything, possibly multiple symbols for some routes. A bag of sand for those which are known to be under graded but popular opinion deems them 'correct'. What about a pram with a few toys strewn about nearby for some popular red point angst routes?
In reply to summo:
Or Lynn Hill's "There are no reach problems, only strength problems"
> Joe Brown is alleged to have said if you can't reach a hold, climb upto it.
Or Lynn Hill's "There are no reach problems, only strength problems"
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...