UKC

Fed up of the "easy for you lanky types" argument when climbing with smaller ppl, so i thought i'd start a definitive list of tall vs small climbers of note. Here's the criteria. If we take 5'10" to be "average" then go three inches either way to denote tall or small.
So small climbers of note at 5'7" or under vs. tall climbers of note at 6'1" or over.

To get ball rolling some suggestions (not sure on exact heights but someone will be along to correct/confirm i'm sure):

Small
Johnny Dawes
Joe Brown
Steve Mclure
Dave Macleod
Shauna Coxsey
Leah Crane
Mina Leslie Wijastyk (sorry!)


Tall
Andy Earl
Sonny Trotter
Dave Birkett
Charlie Woodburn?
Dave Pickford?
James Pearson?

In reply to alan_davies:

I know it's hard for you, but really, after you accept the truth it won't feel that bad.

Yes, routes are one or two grades lower for you lanky types, and one or two grades harder for us shorties, which means we are much better climbers than you guys are. The sooner you take it in the better for your future ego...

In reply to alan_davies:
It is almost always better to be tall on vertical rock (except for bouldering sit starts but who cares about that anyway) for the obvious reason that you can reach higher holds and complete a route in fewer moves. Height shouldn't normally matter on slabs, as any height person can keep their centre of gravity over their feet. And it is usually better to be short on overhangs, as your centre of gravity is kept closer to the rock, distributing more weight on your feet and less on your hands than a tall person. Short people also have better body tension given the same strength core muscles as their levers aren't as long. So, to summarize,
slabs - neutral
vertical - easier for the tall
overhang - easier for the short

yes?

Conor (6"3)

In reply to Conor1:
Not that i was trying to start a detailed discussion of which is it best to be, but i think your summary although logically thought out is still a bit simplistic. Climbing is so varied with so many movement patterns which we never stop learning, which is part of what i enjoy most about it. But, for example, what about a gnarly rockover on a vertical wall? Suddenly those long levers aren't so handy... What about power to weight ratio on a sustained wall climb? Now that larger mass needs more finger strength to hang those crimps, and more muscle to crank off of them.. I wasn't setting out to prove one is better than the other. Just that if you look at it, there's actually a good deal of balance in terms of climbers of all heights pulling hard.
Also Steve Mc and Dave Mac not exactly slouches on vert and Dave Birkett seems to manage fine on the steeps....

In reply to Mr Lopez: On behalf of my future ego, thankyou......

I agree completely with this,always found overhangs hard (6"2).

Smaller climbers tend to have smaller hands/fingers and can find finger crack climbing easier.

In reply to alan_davies:

If everyone entered their height into ukc databses you'd be able to calculate the average grade per height range, and standard deviations and perhaps infer some real data on this topic.

In reply to alan_davies:

Small

Daniel Woods

In reply to alan_davies: Don't forget that greater height generally means greater weight, which isn't a great attribute in a climber!

In reply to alan_davies: in my experience Hight is only an "immediate advantage". This gives an initial advantage and most commonly an early skill plateau. Just like a huge strength advantage.

So 4a to 4c you can reach every hold then suddenly you find your a grade higher and just looking upwards for a hold instead of working around a sequence. I have a friend who is 6ft 4 at a guess and any traverse or sloper or overhang stumps him for the first few tries more than it would a short climber. Tall newbs also tend to climb stretched out and with poor foot work. That being said we also climb with a short skinny midget who has great foot work and always climbs feet first.

Out side this also proves a disadvantage as my taller friend looks for holds above shoulder level only and gets pumped quick. with that said he has since learnt his error and caught up with us all.

In reply to alan_davies: tall...adam ondra,nuff said.

In reply to stevedude888:

Tall and skinny

In reply to alan_davies:
I think that size has little in the long run to do with it. To be a good climber you have to get over those problems that your size maybe causing on the route/problem your on. I often got people saying it was easy for me because im small and light, but i train a lot! I never use being small as a reason why i cant climb something, find a way around it. On the same lines, i dont think being tall should be an excuse, someone said it makes sit starts hard.....well practise and train for sits!!

In reply to wayno265:

True although I am tall 6'2" I am heavy, just under 15 stones.
I think Big Ron is 6'3" and 12.5 stones.

In reply to alan_davies:

The average male height in the UK is 5'9" not 5'10".

In reply to alan_davies: I think that smaller climbers have a certain advantage when you have to really get crunched up to reach the next hold, i.e. feet close to body. The longer legs can become somewhat unwieldy, although I don't use it as an excuse. As an earlier poster said, you just have to get over it, and taller climbers certainly have the advantage of reach, so I think it balances out, especially at higher grades.

In reply to alan_davies:

Ron Fawcett is surely leading the charge for us tall ones.

Everyone knows tall climbers have all that extra bone and skin weight to drag up!

In reply to Mr Lopez:

Yes, routes are one or two grades lower for you lanky types, and one or two grades harder for us shorties, which means we are much better climbers than you guys are. The sooner you take it in the better for your future ego...

Yes but you short-arses that weigh about as much as a damp fart don't have to worry about lugging 100+ kg up the wall! Being light is cheating, having small enough hands and feet to fit into the holds is cheating and don't get me started on people who train!

In reply to Dave 88:

Although some tall climb have thin skins, which must be lighter surely?

In reply to stevedude888: Thought Adam Ondra was about 5ft 11? Not 'tall' by the OP's criterion.

I reckon a lot of top climbers are in the 5ft 10 to 6ft 'middling' bracket.

In reply to alan_davies:

Small: Didier Raboutou, John Streetly, Dave Cuthbertson, Don Whillans, Chuck Pratt, the French Himalayan mountaineer who died last year whose name escapes me (!)

Tall: Layton Kor, Martin Boysen

In reply to alan_davies:

To quote steve Mclure whos is 5ft 6 I hope this helps

"I reckon being under 5 foot 9 gets exponentially harder as you get smaller, so my height is a bit harder, yours is a lot harder (my height being 5ft3), and 5 foot is despearte, less than that is wrong sport!"

Stacey

In reply to alan_davies:
LYNN HILL
lower case

In reply to alan_davies: On many routes, being very tall allows you to throw allot of technique out of the window- where the shorter climber may have to carefully balance and push of a hold to reach the next one- the tall one can simply reach up and grab it.

In reply to alan_davies:

Ramón Julian Puigblanque is quite short and ok at climbing.

In reply to Reach>Talent:


Nah, your god-given mass is proportional to your size. A taller person has naturally bigger muscles and stronger tendons to pull that body with. The reason we small people can levitate holds you can only dream of is because from the start we have to do deep lock-offs and long reaches which makes us stronger from the onset, let alone developing superior technique and core strength, whereas you tall guys just cheat with your long limbs and then get baffled when you encounter a move you actually have to do some effort to get through.

I agree about the hand sizes though. Sadly i also have very fat fingers, which means i'm not only a better climber than anyone taller, but i'm also a better climber than short people with small hands.

In reply to Mr Lopez: Hmm, I thought Simon Nadin had to hand over the lead of the Nose on El Cap to Lynn Hill - because she had smaller hands/fingers?

In reply to Mr Lopez:
The law of diminishing returns kicks in with height, weight goes up faster than your span does:
If you look at a graph of height against weight (take a BMI chert for instance) it gets much steeper as you get taller. So a taller climber is carrying proportionally more weight.

Also as I understand it muscle and connective tissue doesn't actually scale that well, so a much bigger person probably won't have proportionally stronger tendons:
My evidence for this is that I'm extremely weak (I can't do more than a couple of chin-ups on the trot) yet can strain a tendon just by looking at it. Also look at other apes, gibbons can jump vastly further than orangutans

I'll leave the final words of this debate to world reknowned short climber Johny Dawes, when we were on the same problem at the Castle:

"It is pretty difficult to be strong at your height"

In reply to Reach>Talent: To add to the debate. Height is, SOMETIMES, an advantage. Lack of weight is ALWAYS an advantage.

Al

In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:
Lack of weight is ALWAYS an advantage.

Unless it is really windy

In reply to staceyjg:
>

I knew I should give up climbing!

net

(4'11 1/2, with a negative ape index!)

In reply to alan_davies: Hazel Findlay and Lucy Creamer are both 5'2.

In reply to Reach>Talent:



Well, a non-climber non-sporty average fatness/thinness lanky guy of 100kgs can probably do a pull up. A non-climber non sporty average fatness/thinness small guy of 60kgs carrying a 40kgs weightbelt won't be able to do a pull-up and would probably trash the tendons trying. So that's proof for you that your own body is designed to deal with itself no matter the height.


I think you may be mistaking being tall with being fat... A gibbon is the ape version of this http://www.blackdiamondequipment.com/uploads/black-diamond/images/IMG_0449.... whereas an orangutan has this human equivalent http://bellstaekwondo.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/muscle-vs-fat-3.jpg


He was just being nice with you because he knows short people are better climbers.

In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

Here http://www.fatbusters.net/

In reply to Mr Lopez:
Actually I've just come to an important conclusion, height/weight etc is immaterial. The big problem is age:

All of these really good climbers are either older or younger than me. Obviously being born in september '82 means I'm at an unfair disadvantage

In reply to Reach>Talent:

Yes, that was a particularly bad year, which is why climbers born in the 70's are be...

In reply to alan_davies:

hand strength vs BMI, no evidence height has anything to do with it

In reply to alan_davies: What about skinny fists and short arms - I tried to jam a crack that was slowly tapering toward the back. A friend could easily fist jam about elbow depth it, but my shoulder was jamming in the edge of the crack before my fist even touched the sidewalls!

In reply to Liam M:

Rotate your hand 90 degrees

In reply to alan_davies: Being Tall, being short, its got nowt to do with it its all down to how hard you can pull relative to body mass !!!!!!!!!!!!! now where did i put that Deca.........Gurrrrrr

In reply to Liam M:
Climbing may not be for you, on the other hand lots of professions call for small hands:

Electronics assembly technician, gynacologist, letter box inspector, vet, person who retrieves small screws that roll under the fridge...

In reply to alan_davies:

5'8"?