UKC

Routes that are hard for the tall

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 dinodinosaur 09 Dec 2016
Exactly what the title says, looking for sandbag routes for tall people!

The only one that I can think of that might fit the bill is todys wall, watching my 6'stupid" mate nibbling his knees trying to pull the rock over gave me a giggle :')

Cheers people of UKC
1
 1poundSOCKS 09 Dec 2016
In reply to dinodinosaur:

There are none. It's a myth spread by weak, technically challenged tall climbers.
9
 SenzuBean 09 Dec 2016
In reply to dinodinosaur:

Under Milk Wood (VS 4a) might be harder for those with broad shoulders (which might be taller climbers?)
 Mr Lopez 09 Dec 2016
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

While you are of course 100% correct, there are some very few routes that are the exemption to the rule, when you have a traverse on a hanging 'wall' below a roof which a taller person may simply not fit in so good, such as The Mincer or The Tippler. This is of course compensated by the rest of the route being made significantly easier by lank. The example in the OP however definitely does not qualify for exemption status
Post edited at 16:19
 Neil Williams 09 Dec 2016
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

> There are none. It's a myth spread by weak, technically challenged tall climbers.

If you're tall *and heavy* anything bunched up. If you're tall and lanky, probably not a lot
 Hephaestus 09 Dec 2016
In reply to dinodinosaur:

Harvest?
 1poundSOCKS 09 Dec 2016
In reply to Mr Lopez:

Please don't give them the satisfaction. 99% of the time they can lank past the crux, then we've got to listen to them complaining about being 'bunched' occasionally.
7
 Robert Durran 09 Dec 2016
In reply to dinodinosaur:


About half of routes are easier for the tall and about half easier for the short. The reason that the myth has arisen that most are easier for the tall is that the reasons for a route being easier for the short are usually more subtle than the reasons for a route being easier for the tall.

And that is setting aside the fact that smaller climbers have a general biomechanical advantage.
9
 1poundSOCKS 09 Dec 2016
In reply to Neil Williams:

> If you're tall *and heavy*

...lay off the pies?
In reply to dinodinosaur:

Aerial (VS 4c) is a challenge. On the second pitch (I think) just above the belay you have to climb up a groove topped by an overhang and then quit the groove by moving left using a foothold on the left wall of the groove.

The chap I did it with had no problem, but then he was no taller than about 5'5". I'm 6'4", and the only way I could fit under the overhang that capped the groove and so get my foot on the crucial hold was to take my helmet off to give me sufficient clearance; though even that involved some curious positioning of hands, head and feet.

However, I'd argue that anything with a layback in it immediately becomes harder for taller people. They weigh more than short people because there's more of them, and that weight is further away from the rock; so more effort has to be expended. Staying in Cornwall, Anvil Chorus (VS 4c) is one such climb.

If you're a tall person who has been dragged up such routes by a shorter partner, I'd recommend trying Scratch Arete (HVS 5a), where the ability to reach crucial holds above the lip of rock on the crux move makes things rather more straightforward. Or you could try Suicide Wall (E1 5c), where the same partner I had on Aerial and I took rather different routes to reach the ledge by the peg belay after the traverse left; I enjoyed an elegant arrival after moving left across the face benath the ledge; my partner ended up shuffling backwards onto it with one hand and one foot in the groove you use for the earlier traverse.

Fun fun fun...

T.
 Mr Lopez 09 Dec 2016
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

> then we've got to listen to them complaining about being 'bunched' occasionally.

I don't take any of that, no sympathy from me. The reason they turn into a gibbering wreck and throw tantrums when they consider themselves to be "too bunched up" is because it comes as a shock to them that they can't just reach up and grab the next hold from the comfort of that massive foothold.

"Wait what? You mean i have to put my foot in that tiny foothold above my knee and get stood up on that before i can grab the next hold? You got to be kidding me. This route is for short people... Why can't all the rock types be just like grit?"
Post edited at 16:35
2
 1poundSOCKS 09 Dec 2016
In reply to Mr Lopez:

> they can't just reach up and grab the next hold from the comfort of that massive foothold.

Imagine not knowing what an "intermediate" is.
1
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

> Please don't give them the satisfaction. 99% of the time they can lank past the crux, then we've got to listen to them complaining about being 'bunched' occasionally.

Dave McLeod says short climbers have every advantage!!! ;0)

 Dave 88 09 Dec 2016
In reply to dinodinosaur:

All of them.

Yours sincerely,

Dave.
6'2"
85kg
 1poundSOCKS 09 Dec 2016
In reply to Christheclimber:

> Dave McLeod says short climbers have every advantage!!! ;0)

We have the advantage in that our natural disadvantage forces us to be become better climbers. Is that what he meant?
7
 deacondeacon 09 Dec 2016
In reply to dinodinosaur:

I'm fairly average all round but I'm glad I wasn't any taller on Stormbringer at Gardoms.
Also sit starts can often be a fair bit easier for the short (as long as you can reach the starting holds).
 nniff 09 Dec 2016
In reply to dinodinosaur:

All this talk of 'lank' and 'reach' makes it sound like a free lunch. Sadly, this is not so because extra reach is heavy. If you've got to carry it up there, you might as well use it. On the other hand, being able to scrunch up under a roof or what have you does come without penalty, so short-arses should stop moaning and collect their prize.

They could then proudly display that prize on a shelf, or at least they could if only they could reach the shelf to put the prize up there.....
4
 Robert Durran 09 Dec 2016
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

> We have the advantage in that our natural disadvantage forces us to be become better climbers. Is that what he meant?

Not at all - if anything the opposite. Small climbers have a biomechanical advantage - he called them "lucky little people". He gave good advice on how tall people can work to overcome their natural disdavantages.
3
 stp 09 Dec 2016
In reply to dinodinosaur:

Being in taller implies being heavier too which is a definite disadvantage. Ondra reckons he can just about compete in lead but still struggles on comp routes that are pure power endurance with no rests because his tall frame means he's bound to be heavier than the average comp climber.

The interesting thing is that the difficulty of routes - grades - is defined by average height climbers (usually male). If the grades were defined by say small women the difficulties for tall climbers might be much more apparent. We tend to remember the things we should be able to do but can't far more than routes that should be hard but we find relatively easy.
 Mr Lopez 09 Dec 2016
In reply to nniff:

> Sadly, this is not so because extra reach is heavy. If you've got to carry it up there, you might as well use it.

Fallacy. Your own body's muscles and tendons are specifically designed and fine tuned to your own body's characteristics. The muscles and tendons of a taller person are also larger and stronger than those of a smaller person.

Just excuses that don't hold up to sctrutinity to make up for being weak.
21
 Lemony 09 Dec 2016
In reply to dinodinosaur:

When shorties start climbing with two stone weight belts then they can start complaining about me lanking stuff.
1
 Mr Lopez 09 Dec 2016
In reply to Lemony:

Lay off the pies
1
 JIMBO 09 Dec 2016
In reply to dinodinosaur:

I feel sorry for tall people, they miss out on all the good climbing...
 Goucho 09 Dec 2016
In reply to dinodinosaur:
> Exactly what the title says, looking for sandbag routes for tall people!

> The only one that I can think of that might fit the bill is todys wall, watching my 6'stupid" mate nibbling his knees trying to pull the rock over gave me a giggle :')

> Cheers people of UKC

Apart from tight chimneys and certain types of wide offwidths, I've found being tall with a long reach a huge advantage - 6'2" and 168 lbs with a +10" ape index
Post edited at 17:45
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

> We have the advantage in that our natural disadvantage forces us to be become better climbers. Is that what he meant?

Think he was referring to short climbers being generally lighter, having more efficient levers, a better centre of balance and smaller hands and feet.
 Brass Nipples 09 Dec 2016
In reply to dinodinosaur:

I find Johnny Dawes routes hard because I'm much taller than him.
 deacondeacon 09 Dec 2016
In reply to Lion Bakes:

> I find Johnny Dawes routes hard because I'm much taller than him.

I find Johnny Dawes routed hard because they're hard.
2
In reply to Mr Lopez:

> Fallacy. Your own body's muscles and tendons are specifically designed and fine tuned to your own body's characteristics. The muscles and tendons of a taller person are also larger and stronger than those of a smaller person.

That may be so, but more is more; and so it weighs more. As many a man and woman has discovered, there's no arguing with the scales.

T.
 Mr Lopez 09 Dec 2016
In reply to Pursued by a bear:

> That may be so, but more is more; and so it weighs more. As many a man and woman has discovered, there's no arguing with the scales.

Plenty studies show that there's no apreciable diference in performance on body weight exercises (ie. pull ups) between people of differet heights with similar BDI's.

You take 2 people who have done no training (they usually use kids to allow for that) and similar body composition, one is 5'4 the other 6', and they would be able to do the same number of pull-ups. However you hang a 3kg rack on each, and the 6' guy will be able to do more pull-ups than the 5'4 guy, so in fact the shorter person is also at a disadvantage weight-wise, which comes full circle to the point that shorties are better climbers all round
1
 Rocknast 09 Dec 2016
In reply to dinodinosaur:

To echo 'Lion'... anything by Johnny Dawes or John Allen! LOL
abseil 09 Dec 2016
In reply to dinodinosaur:

I'm tall, way over average. Over decades of climbing I've never ever found a single move, or route, that was harder for me. Quite the opposite - partners [always shorter than me] have often struggled up to reach holds I reached with ease from slightly lower down.
1
 Mick Ward 09 Dec 2016
In reply to Goucho:

> ...I've found being tall with a long reach a huge advantage - 6'2" and 168 lbs with a +10" ape index

Hmm... 5'6", 140 lbs, +4 ape index.

Help the poor struggler.

Mick

 Elsier 09 Dec 2016
In reply to Robert Durran:

Agreed, and this is backed up by studies:

As in previous studies with adult climbers, the young climbers in this study were found to be relatively small in stature and had low body mass, with means at or below the 50th centile for age and sex matched norms. Climbers were also significantly smaller and lighter than athletic control subjects. The small stature and low body mass in climbers minimises the work requirement of movement along the climbing route. A lighter mass also reduces the force output in muscle that would be required to sustain position and maintain a given hand configuration. This could result in a slower rate of fatigue in smaller climbers than their heavier counterparts.

http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/37/5/420.full

I'm not sure if UKC will let me post the link, but this came from a quick search of articles in the bmj. (There are several others that say very similar things)

But just in general if you look at studies of the physiology or anthropometry of rock climbers, it's evident that height is clearly not an advantage at the elite level.

Whether it makes a difference at lower levels for example at the beginner level, where people are generally just relying on reach to grab the next hold rather than technique is probably still open to debate though.


 Elsier 09 Dec 2016
In reply to dinodinosaur:

Sorry that last post was off topic slightly from your OP but I nominate Overhang Buttress Ordinary (VS 4b)

It would be much easier if you were small to make the transition from the horizontal crack to the vertical crack.

 cwarby 09 Dec 2016
In reply to dinodinosaur:

Peapod. And I was only seconding. How talls that bloke Brown?
 Ray Sharples 09 Dec 2016
In reply to dinodinosaur:

The Unprintable (E1 5b) is a classic one that supposed to be harder for the tall, but I'm 5'5'' and still found it desperate!
 Shani 09 Dec 2016
In reply to dinodinosaur:

Strapiombo at Froggatt. Fitting under that roof is bloody desperate for the tall. Found it harder than Strapadictomy.
 1poundSOCKS 09 Dec 2016
In reply to Elsier:

> it's evident that height is clearly not an advantage at the elite level.

Is anyone on this forum at elite level? But even at elite level, Sharma and Ondra are tall. Don't appear to be having too many problems with their levers.
 Mick Ward 09 Dec 2016
In reply to Ray Sharples:

> The Unprintable (E1 5b) is a classic one that supposed to be harder for the tall, but I'm 5'5'' and still found it desperate!

It's piss! But, just to make you feel better...

There's a delightful spot of footage doing the rounds on Facebook of an acquaintence who does F8b+ losing the plot utterly on The Unprintable. And yes, he's tall. (And, luckily, big enough to live with the embarrassment. Me, I'd have to live in a darkened cellar for a month.)

Mick
 bouldery bits 09 Dec 2016
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

> Is anyone on this forum at elite level? But even at elite level, Sharma and Ondra are tall. Don't appear to be having too many problems with their levers.

I would say I am elite. Yes.

(Sorry, just sent my 7c project at the wall and feeling a bit pleased with myself)
4
In reply to stp:
> Being in taller implies being heavier too which is a definite disadvantage. Ondra reckons he can just about compete in lead but still struggles on comp routes that are pure power endurance with no rests because his tall frame means he's bound to be heavier than the average comp climber.

Ondra 'can just about compete in lead' Yeah. The way Usain Bolt can just about compete in the 100m.
Post edited at 22:25
 Kevster 09 Dec 2016
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

Ondra is 1.8m, that's 5ft 11. That is not tall. Sharma is a touch over 6ft. That is not abnormally tall. Certainally not abnormally tall for their age groups in a statistics kind of way. I thought that 5ft10 was the most common height of elite comp climbers. But I have no evidence for this to hand, or from memory.
Either way, top end 5ft to just about 6ft isn't newsworthy evidence for bias in height with ability.
Just to help, I used to climb with a Japanese lad. 5ft 1. Could climb any route I could, even with a lack of holds, let's call them intermediates, between the ones I used. We never viewed his stature as a negative. Just meant more variety in the way problems could be solved. Not that I was any good at the time either, but he wasn't held back by being short. I've also seen very short people crush sport 8s with ease. Climbing in the high 8 and 9s is possibly more abnormal than being very tall or short?
1
 duchessofmalfi 09 Dec 2016

The Mincer at the Roaches...







[Unfortunately it is hard for the short as well...]
Post edited at 22:31
 Mr Lopez 09 Dec 2016
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

I wouldn't worry too much about that study, the elite climbers they 'studied' where in fact kids in a junior competition.

There's many flaws with that study and is obiously apparent that the "researchers" have no idea about climbing leading to some funny misconceptions of how climbing grades work in one case. But the clincher for me is that they compared the heights of the climbers with a control group made up 45 kids who compete in basketball, running, cross-country skiing, etc and not freaking surprise the climbers were shorter!

The average height of these 'elite' climbers with an average age of 13 years old is actually 2cm taller than the average height of a 13 year old kid in the US. They seem to have ignored that when they declared them all to be "of small stature". I find more significant that the average height of their control group is more than 4 inches taller than the average height for a kid that age. Hell, those kids mean age 13 are as tall as me!

 Shani 09 Dec 2016
In reply to Kevster:

Jeez - Ondra is 6ft 1" & 68kg according to Wiki. I could just about do a chin-up with him on my back.

Wiki has Sharma at 6ft and 75kg.
 Kevster 09 Dec 2016
In reply to Shani:

Funny, I looked him up and then on line converter to ft and it came in as I stated. So 6ft an 6ft 1, or as I said 5ft 11 and 6ft E0.
doesn't change the fact they they are not an Un average height. They are quite light however.... and only 2 people out if how many in the world?
 Kevster 09 Dec 2016
Shani, if you can do a pull up with Ondra on your back, respect! I can barely do a pull up! Lol.
 Robert Durran 09 Dec 2016
In reply to Kevster:
> Ondra is 1.8m, that's 5ft 11.

F*cking whinging dwarf. Just like the rest of you lot.

Anyway, the fact is that if all you whinging dwarfs were right about being tall being such an advantage, then the best climbers would be overwhelmingly tall. They are not. You are wrong.

Post edited at 23:30
3
 TheFasting 09 Dec 2016
In reply to Mr Lopez:

I see you are being downvoted but this is actually correct I think. It's too advanced for me but a guy I know who studied this explained it like this:

"A limb that's 20 inches long but has muscle attachments 2 inches down its length only has to produce as much force as a limb that's 10 inches long but has muscle attachments one inch down its length. The muscles don't have to work any harder to move a given weight, and the range of motion isn't greater because we're looking at angular displacement instead of just up and down."
 Mr Lopez 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Robert Durran:
> Anyway, the fact is that if all you whinging dwarfs were right about being tall being such an advantage, then the best climbers would be overwhelmingly tall. They are not. You are wrong.


Ah, it seems you found the lanky climber's curse. It goes like this:

Tommy the tall and Jimmy the short start climbing together. First day out Tommy lanks up a couple of VS like if they were ladders, where Jimmy has to work them through, try them time and again, and find a sequence that works for him. Jimmy at the end only manages 1 of the VS in a top rope while Tommy sniggers.

The next outings go similarly, but Jimmy improves rapidly and start ticking those VS one by one. Meanwhile Tommy lanks all the VS at the crag and a couple of HVS for good measure. Jimmy gets a bit stuck with those HVS, and starts practising dynos, mantling into breaks, and using shitty smears and dirty crimps to be able to reach the good holds. Eventually after a few sessions he manages to climb his first HVS.

Time goes by and they are both now climbing E2. Tommy still skips the cruxes by reaching past them, while Jimmy has got pretty strong and technically gifted. Tommy laughs sugestions that being tall helps by pointing out that Jimmy is a midget and can climb the same routes he does.

More outings follow and they get into E4's, and Tommy can't just reach past the bad holds any more. However Tommy is weak and technically challenged, and try as he might he can't hang those holds or rock-over into that waist high smear, so he fails to climb any of those routes while muttering something about levers, bunching up, and carrying 2 stones. Jimmy on the other hand progresses quickly into the E5's after dispatching several E4 easily onsight.

A couple of years later Jimmy is an acomplished well known climber with sponsorship from a hair gel brand and an online dating company, but Tommy doesn't answer his phone calls any more to go climbing. Jimmy hears rumours that Tommy doesn't climb any more and that he spends most of his time drank down up the pub while shouting incomprehensible things to the short bartender who works there.
Post edited at 00:40
1
 Robert Durran 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Mr Lopez:

> Ah, it seems you found the lanky climber's curse. It goes like this:

Whatever. As a tall climber, I am genuinely utterly sick of having having to listen, over and over again, year in, year out, to pathetic little dwarfs with a chip on their shoulder telling me how easy it must all be for me. Sorry, but I am long since beyond humour on this topic.
17
 alan moore 10 Dec 2016

In reply to dinodinosaur
looking for sandbag routes for tall people!

...not many, judging by the replies here.

6' and stupid, I couldn't even get onto the block of Tody' Wall and will happily and walk past The Arches. At the Roaches, have always wanted to do Wings of Unreason and The Mincer; I know which one I have the best chance of getting up...

Routes like Heart of Darkness might be a bit pumpier when the handholds are below your shoulder height. I guess you could always bend your knees; assuming they bend of course......creeeaaak....
Post edited at 07:45
 Mick Ward 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Robert Durran:
> Sorry, but I am long since beyond humour on this topic.

Or any other, Robert... or any other?

I guess one could refer you to Goucho's post above:

'Apart from tight chimneys and certain types of wide offwidths, I've found being tall with a long reach a huge advantage - 6'2" and 168 lbs with a +10" ape index...'

But really - what's the point?

Mick (F*cking non whinging dwarf who just gets on with it.)
Post edited at 09:43
 Robert Durran 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Mick Ward:

> 'Apart from tight chimneys and certain types of wide offwidths, I've found being tall with a long reach a huge advantage - 6'2" and 168 lbs with a +10" ape index...'

I wonder whether it is the massive ape index which is an advantage (I am 6'5" with zero ape index)



3
 Mick Ward 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Robert Durran:

I'm sure it is the massive ape index - far more relevant than height per se, imho. The only comparable example I can think of is Gary Gibson. I think he's just under 6' - although he seems much, much bigger. Gary reckoned he used to have +11 ape index ("though it's probably shrunk with age!") Some of his routes featured huge reaches at the grade. You just had to improvise...

Yes, I can see that at 6'5" with zero ape index, you might be aggrieved. But most of us are disadvantaged in some way or another. For instance, the good Mr Jones whose proud boast was that he was too small to be a female police officer(!) but - killer footwork.

I remember seeing Lynn Hill somewhere and marvelling how tiny she was. How did she get up stuff, I wondered? (This was before The Nose/Changing Corners). But when you looked in her eyes, you knew how she got up stuff.

The Lynn Hill method is available to all of us...

Mick
 Robert Durran 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Mick Ward:

> Yes, I can see that at 6'5" with zero ape index, you might be aggrieved. But most of us are disadvantaged in some way or another.

.......and advantaged. As I said in my first post in this thread, it probably balances out overall - there are really good climbers across the whole height range.

> For instance, the good Mr Jones......

So I think you know where I am coming from about whinging dwarves

> .......... whose proud boast was that he was too small to be a female police officer(!) but - killer footwork.

Horribly true. And he still turns heads at the wall with it. But doesn't he love to keep reminding us about it! But I'm sure we all love him dearly really....... sort of.......



2
 GridNorth 10 Dec 2016
In reply to dinodinosaur:

Which short but good climber, it may have been Don Whillans, when asked what he did when he could not reach a hold answered "I climb up to it".

This being short excuse is b*llocks much of the time. All the best climbers at my local wall are 15 years old and not yet fully grown. When people use it with me I tell them that it comes in handy on a few routes but the weight disadvantage is there on EVERY route. A good ape index is the biggest advantage irrespective of height.

Al
 JRJones 10 Dec 2016
In reply to dinodinosaur:

Another vote for the mincer. Mincing is difficult when your feet are 6 inches under the holds it would appear.
 henwardian 10 Dec 2016
In reply to dinodinosaur:

There are a few at Reiff like Making Bacon and so on that I thought were desperate because it is a hand traverse with smeary feet not so far above the lip of a horizontal roof. There must be loads of other routes like this over the rest of the country where there is a hand traverse about 3 feet above a roof. I'm sure I've seen some photos of something at like the Lleyn or Gower or something of an E6 traverse that fits the bill (and has a bonus inch think layer of guano on the entire hand traverse).
 Robert Durran 10 Dec 2016
In reply to GridNorth:

> The weight disadvantage is there on EVERY route. A good ape index is the biggest advantage irrespective of height.

If you scale up a climber by a factor of two, their weight goes up by a factor of eight, but the cross-sectional area of their muscles goes up by a factor of four, so their strength to weight ratio goes down by a factor of two ie strength to weight ratio is inversely proportional to height. Or, rather, taller climbers have to be either disproportionately muscular or disproporionately skinny to have the same strength to weight ratio of smaller climbers.
2
 Martin W 10 Dec 2016
In reply to GridNorth:

> Which short but good climber, it may have been Don Whillans, when asked what he did when he could not reach a hold answered "I climb up to it".

It was Joe Brown, according to most reports, eg:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=118019&v=1#x1626895
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1_R7BAAAQBAJ&pg=PA152&dq=%22i+c...

> This being short excuse is b*llocks much of the time. All the best climbers at my local wall are 15 years old and not yet fully grown. When people use it with me I tell them that it comes in handy on a few routes but the weight disadvantage is there on EVERY route. A good ape index is the biggest advantage irrespective of height.

Amen to that. I'd also say that rockovers are harder when the tenuous handholds are below shoulder height. OK, in theory you can bend a knee to bring your upper body down but unless you're as bendy as an Olympic gymnast there's a limit to how low you can drop on one knee and still be able to get the other foot up on to the next hold. It's not just corners and roofs where tall climbers can get bunched up.

All that said, the other major disadvantage which is there on EVERY route is being an abject punter. Ask me how i know...
 TobyA 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Robert Durran:
let me guess, you are 6'2" with a positive ape index.

If you are 5'3" with stubby little arms then I'd love to hear more!

edit: just read your later post - 6'5"! You can reach the top of lots of grit routes from standing on your beer mat.
Post edited at 12:01
 TheFasting 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Mr Lopez:

Blasphemy
 The Ivanator 10 Dec 2016
In reply to dinodinosaur:

Bread and Pickle (VS 4c) slightly obscure, but the exit moves are definitely easier for the short. I can't use it as too much of an excuse for my ungainly struggle on it though as the first ascentionist Scott Titt has a good couple of inches more height than me.
My log notes:
Steady till the exit which has decent gear, but was awkward and ugly as hell, executed with minimum grace and maximum swearing - got in a right pickle, should have used my loaf! Last move felt harder than 4c to me.
Dave (my more compactly built partner) log notes:
A fine route with an entertaining finish that is possibly one of those rare 'easier for the short'.
 Babika 10 Dec 2016
In reply to dinodinosaur:

Scarletts Chimney, VS 4b at Rivelin?

My 6' leader simply couldn't get his legs into the crack to move up. I'm only 5'3" and it seemed a lot more secure. I guess that's mirrored on a few, deeply unfashionable, chimney routes......!
 Shani 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Kevster:

> Shani, if you can do a pull up with Ondra on your back, respect! I can barely do a pull up! Lol.

I can chin-up (palms inwards) with 65kg in plates hanging off me (proper form with scapular retraction at the top). No way i could pull-up (palms out) with anything like that!
 climbingpixie 10 Dec 2016
In reply to dinodinosaur:

My 6ft partner assures me that the crux on Chimes of Freedom is a lot harder if you're tall and I can believe it, it's a pretty compressed move with your feet on a short hanging slab.

As a shortarse (just shy of 5'2") it seems obvious that the further away you are from the average height (5'10") the harder routes will usually feel, whether you're tall or short. Comparing apples with apples I'd rather be 8" shorter than average than 8" taller though, and I think it's telling that there are more very short good climbers than the opposite. But if I could wave a magic wand and grow a couple of inches I'd jump at the chance!
 Mr Lopez 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Robert Durran:

> If you scale up a climber by a factor of two, their weight goes up by a factor of eight,

You haven't thought that through, have you? Because if you and me have a similar body type that would put you at a butch 322kgs.
1
 Shani 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Mr Lopez:

I'm not sure about some of the claims above, but as a rough guide, if you double a muscle's size you only get about a 70% increase in strength.
 Ian Patterson 10 Dec 2016
In reply to climbingpixie:



> As a shortarse (just shy of 5'2") it seems obvious that the further away you are from the average height (5'10") the harder routes will usually feel, whether you're tall or short.

Agree, it's pretty much obvious by just looking at the distribution of builds of elite climbers that being tall is in no way an overall advantage as a climber beyond (possibly) as a beginner. Anybody who says otherwise is either trolling or not really looking at the evidence.

 Robert Durran 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Mr Lopez:

> You haven't thought that through, have you? Because if you and me have a similar body type that would put you at a butch 322kgs.

How tall are you?
 Lemony 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Ian Patterson:

People keep saying that but for some reason it seems to go straight over Mr Lopez's head...
 Mr Lopez 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Robert Durran:

170cm and 70kgs. I become you by scaling myself by a factor of 1.15 to be 195cm. Then i'd have to scale myself by a factor of 1.15x4 = 4.6 weight-wise, which would put me at 322kgs
2
 Dave Garnett 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Mick Ward:

> The only comparable example I can think of is Gary Gibson. I think he's just under 6' - although he seems much, much bigger. Gary reckoned he used to have +11 ape index ("though it's probably shrunk with age!") Some of his routes featured huge reaches at the grade. You just had to improvise...

Yes, I boulder on the wall with Gary occasionally. I'm about your size with a bit less of an ape index, so I just have to do it differently!

 Robert Durran 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Mr Lopez:
> 170cm and 70kgs. I become you by scaling myself by a factor of 1.15 to be 195cm. Then i'd have to scale myself by a factor of 1.15x4 = 4.6 weight-wise, which would put me at 322kgs

No, your scaling factor should have been 1.15 cubed which will be about 1.5, putting me at about 95kg. I am about 92kg, so not far off. I thought something must be wrong! My 8 is 2 cubed, not 2x4.
Post edited at 16:12
1
In reply to dinodinosaur:

Top pitch of Thin Wall Special at Bosigran for sure.
 stp 10 Dec 2016
In reply to dinodinosaur:

Well why short and tall climbers complain about their height why is it we so little from medium sized climbers. It's definitely possible to be too medium for some problems. Like when you can't quite do the reach from the lower foothold but you're too scrunched up when you put them on the higher ones: clearly a case of being too medium for the route.
 rocksol 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Ray Sharples:

Simples use your knees!
 rocksol 10 Dec 2016
In reply to dinodinosaur:

King Kong High Neb.
As I climb with Basher a lot I've noticed his height deficit of 2" + 2" more on Ape index counts for him reaching higher and me falling off Of course it may that he,s just a lot stronger?!
 Mick Ward 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> I'm about your size with a bit less of an ape index...

Happen you get by without dragging your knuckles on the ground, like wot I have to do.

Mick

 rocksol 10 Dec 2016
In reply to dinodinosaur:


As I climb with Basher a lot I've noticed his height deficit of 2" + 2" more on Ape index counts for him reaching higher and me falling off Of course it may that he,s just a lot stronger?!
 Mick Ward 10 Dec 2016
In reply to stp:

> Well why short and tall climbers complain about their height why is it we so little from medium sized climbers. It's definitely possible to be too medium for some problems.

Ha, ha, now we've heard it all! You mediums are going to get sod all sympathy from us dwarves or the lanky buggers.

Top tip: get used to being scrunched up. It's all good character training.

Mick

 rocksol 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Mick Ward:

Could be that some are ballpoint not redpoint?! Just kidding
 wilkesley 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Ray Sharples:

At 6ft 2"I found getting out of the cave desparate. I just couldn't get into a position to unwind and reach above it to the jamming crack.
 Mick Ward 10 Dec 2016
In reply to rocksol:

Owt's possible!

Mick
 1poundSOCKS 10 Dec 2016
In reply to bouldery bits:
> I would say I am elite. Yes.

7c indoors in beyond elite. Respec!!!

EDIT: But being indoors, it might have been 7a+.
Post edited at 19:13
1
 1poundSOCKS 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Kevster:

> Ondra is 1.8m, that's 5ft 11. That is not tall.

I would say it is very tall to me. Isn't that 9A boulder guy Nalle tall too? So the only 2 F9b+ climbers and the only f9A climber are all tall.

> I used to climb with a Japanese lad. 5ft 1. Could climb any route I could, even with a lack of holds, let's call them intermediates, between the ones I used. We never viewed his stature as a negative. Just meant more variety in the way problems could be solved. Not that I was any good at the time either, but he wasn't held back by being short.

He was the better climber.
 1poundSOCKS 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Ray Sharples:

> The Unprintable (E1 5b) is a classic one that supposed to be harder for the tall

Tall people find it hard because it hard, i.e. they can't lank past the hard bit, and have to man up try hard like the shorties do all the time.
2
 1poundSOCKS 10 Dec 2016
In reply to stp:

> It's definitely possible to be too medium for some problems.

Is that like being too strong?
 Lemony 10 Dec 2016
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

> Isn't that 9A boulder guy Nalle tall too?

1.73m, tall?
 1poundSOCKS 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Lemony:
Okay, he's medium then. So no shorties at the cutting edge, despite our "advantages".
Post edited at 19:22
 climbingpixie 10 Dec 2016
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

Megos is pretty stumpy. Ashima's hardly a colossus either...
 1poundSOCKS 10 Dec 2016
In reply to climbingpixie:

> Megos is pretty stumpy.

Taller than he looks, I reckon.

> Ashima's hardly a colossus either...

Neither at the cutting edge. Plus Ashima has climbed harder as she got taller. Coincidence? I think not.
1
 climbingpixie 10 Dec 2016
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

How do you define cutting edge? Megos is 5'7" and has climbed 9b and bouldered 8C. Ashima bouldering 8C seems pretty impressive to me and at age 14 and 5'2" had climbed harder than any woman had ever climbed before. How many 6'6" climbers are climbing as hard as Ashima?

Widening it from the modern cutting edge you have people like Steve McClure, Lynn Hill, Dan Turner, Dave Barrans, Beth Rodden, Lucy Creamer etc etc - basically loads of proper shorties!

P.S. I'm not disputing that being shorter than average is a disadvantage - my point is that when you're talking about climbers towards the ends of the bell curve for height, the shorter ones are climbing harder than the tall ones.
 Ian Patterson 10 Dec 2016
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

> Taller than he looks, I reckon.

> Neither at the cutting edge. Plus Ashima has climbed harder as she got taller. Coincidence? I think not.

Neither at cutting edge.....!?! The only possible way you could say that is if the cutting edge is limited to Ondra and Sharma on routes! And if 6' is very tall then 5'6" is very short - obviously rubbish, but by that definition Nalle is pretty short and definitely cutting edge at bouldering!

If anything there are probably more hard climbers (9a+, 8C), who are short (5'4" or less) than there are tall (6'2" or more)
 1poundSOCKS 10 Dec 2016
In reply to climbingpixie:

> How do you define cutting edge?

As I did above. Hardest grade for route and boulder. F9b+ and f9A. Obviously shorties can climb hard too. I would say 5'7" is a medium.

> Steve McClure

He's got better reach than me. And Steve is best at hard redpointing on limestone. I think it even out a bit more on limestone, and certainly does redpointing more than onsighting.

> Lynn Hill/Beth Rodden

I don't think being short is a usually a problem on Yosemite granite. Plus gender advantage.

> Dan Turner

Don't know much about him.

> Dave Barrans

He's got the wingspan of a 6 footer. And he insanely strong, which you have to be if you're not tall.

> Lucy Creamer

Gender advantage (same as LH and BR).



3
 Dave Garnett 10 Dec 2016
In reply to steve.aisthorpe:

> Top pitch of Thin Wall Special at Bosigran for sure.

Well, that's only fair, especially if you've done the Chicken Run to get there.
 1poundSOCKS 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Ian Patterson:

> If anything there are probably more hard climbers (9a+, 8C), who are short (5'4" or less) than there are tall (6'2" or more)

Based on what?
 Robert Durran 10 Dec 2016
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_average_human_height_worldwide

Mean height for men in UK and US 5'9" or 5'10"

Edit: You are coming across as a classic case of whinging dwarf syndrome - hilarious the way you are making it up as you go along.
Post edited at 20:32
1
 1poundSOCKS 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Robert Durran:
That includes all the none climbers so is inadmissible. Sorry.

> Edit: You are coming across as a classic case of whinging dwarf syndrome.

Or trolling/banter/whatever.
Post edited at 20:33
 Robert Durran 10 Dec 2016
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

Eh? Obviously we need to see where good climbers are relative to the general population.
1
 Robert Durran 10 Dec 2016
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
> That includes all the none climbers so is inadmissible. Sorry.

> Or trolling/banter/whatever.

Ok. So I'll just put you down as talking crap for the sake of it.
Post edited at 20:42
4
 Ray Sharples 10 Dec 2016
In reply to rocksol:

Yes I did in the end Phil, but I think I was sandbagged by watching a guy (taller then me!) who just jammed it facing left. Didn't look HVS!
 1poundSOCKS 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Ok. So I'll just put you down as talking crap for the sake of it.

I only started with a joke (and an obvious one) when I was bored at work. Seemed to escalate into a serious discussion. Since when did anyone take climbing excuses seriously.
 Mr Lopez 10 Dec 2016
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

He has problems coming to grips with the fact that just because he climbed a route graded E5 6A he didn't actually climbed E5 because he can do those 6A moves with a 5A sequence.
 1poundSOCKS 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Mr Lopez:

> He has problems coming to grips with the fact that just because he climbed a route graded E5 6A he didn't actually climbed E5 because he can do those 6A moves with a 5A sequence.

Serious point, thanks. It is very unlikely anyone as tall as Robert had to do a 6A move.

Now I know why he called me a whinging dwarf. I'm only 4'9", so the dwarf bit is hard to contest, but I'm not much of a whinger.
 stp 10 Dec 2016
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

> > It's definitely possible to be too medium for some problems.

> Is that like being too strong?

It's actually a serious problem that plagues thousands of climbers but the pleas are usually drowned out by short people whinging about long reaches or lanky b'stards moaining about lack of finger strength. The poor old medium sized climbers have neither the reach of the tall nor the finger strength and core stability of the short. It's a lose-lose situation. But they soldier on regardless, uncomplaining when the reality is that almost everything they do is at least a full grade harder.
 Robert Durran 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Mr Lopez:

No, you and pound socks are in denial and having trouble coming to terms with the fact that height does not convey a general advantage in climbing.
 1poundSOCKS 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Robert Durran:

> No, you and pound socks are in denial and having trouble coming to terms with the fact that height does not convey a general advantage in climbing.

Not generally no, just anything under E6 ish.
 1poundSOCKS 10 Dec 2016
In reply to stp:

> nor the finger strength and core stability of the short

Okay. Did I mention that I'm old too? That can't be an advantage.
 climbingpixie 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Robert Durran:

I can't find a link to the data but someone did plot out the height and weights of the top 200 climbers with a profile on 8a.nu once and the mean height is actually about 173cm so even shorter than the average population - https://www.8a.nu/?IncPage=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.8a.nu%2Fforum%2FViewForumThrea...
 Mr Lopez 10 Dec 2016
In reply to climbingpixie:

Of course they would be. We all know shorter climbers are the better climbers. Tall climbers just lank the hard moves and when they can't be lanked any more they throw cosmetics grade pseudo-scientific excuses
2
 Goucho 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Robert Durran:
> No, you and pound socks are in denial and having trouble coming to terms with the fact that height does not convey a general advantage in climbing.

I do agree with that point Rob.

Height is not by default an advantage, neither is being short by default a disadvantage.

However, I do believe that height, when combined with a good ape index and a good power to weight ratio, does give an advantage over shorter climbers generaly speaking.

There are certainly routes which I wouldn't have been able to climb if I'd been average height, let alone a shorty.
Post edited at 22:20
 Robert Durran 10 Dec 2016
In reply to climbingpixie:
Seems pretty conclusive. I'm not sure of the statistical significance, so let's just generously say that there is no evidence of an advantage either way. It's just that while tall climbers just get on with it, the tedious whinging dwarves, as amply evidenced in this thread, refuse to shut the f*ck up and do likewise.
Post edited at 22:21
3
 Goucho 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Mr Lopez:

> Of course they would be. We all know shorter climbers are the better climbers. Tall climbers just lank the hard moves and when they can't be lanked any more they throw cosmetics grade pseudo-scientific excuses

Does that apply to Big Ron and Tom Proctor?
 climbingpixie 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Goucho:

> There are certainly routes which I wouldn't have been able to climb if I'd been average height, let alone a shorty.

I'd be interested to know what they were. I can add them to my list of reachy routes to avoid, along with the likes of Poetry Pink and Holocaust...
 Goucho 10 Dec 2016
In reply to climbingpixie:

> I'd be interested to know what they were. I can add them to my list of reachy routes to avoid, along with the likes of Poetry Pink and Holocaust...

It would be a long list

As I said in my post further up, I consider the combination of my height and ape index to be a big advantage for me personally. I'm more than happy to lank my way up routes, although shorter partners have often refused to let me have a full tick at the grade
 Mr Lopez 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Goucho:

Exemptions to the rule abound and facts aren't as important as hyperbole these days anyway . Lets call it data presentation for the purposes of uncovering the truth. but mainly is because Robert believes that being tall is not an advantage to climbing and seems to get hilariously worked out about it
Post edited at 22:43
3
 Mr Lopez 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Seems pretty conclusive.

Conclusive that tall climbers are weak and technically challenged perhaps
3
 Robert Durran 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Mr Lopez:
> Exemptions to the rule abound and facts aren't as important as hyperbole these days anyway . Lets call it data presentation for the purposes of uncovering the truth. but mainly is because Robert believes that being tall is not an advantage to climbing and seems to get hilariously worked out about it

If you'd been systematically subjected to the sort of shite you are spouting for the last 35 years, you might well be getting worked up too.
Post edited at 22:51
 Mr Lopez 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Robert Durran:

After 10 years of waiting for a chance, i finally found a good oportunity to quote from one of my favourite movies:

"The first time someone calls you a horse you punch him on the nose, the second time someone calls you a horse you call him a jerk but the third time someone calls you a horse, well then perhaps it's time to go shopping for a saddle."
 Robert Durran 10 Dec 2016
In reply to Mr Lopez:

> "The first time someone calls you a horse you punch him on the nose, the second time someone calls you a horse you call him a jerk but the third time someone calls you a horse, well then perhaps it's time to go shopping for a saddle."

Good luck with your saddle purchase.

 Mr Lopez 11 Dec 2016
In reply to Robert Durran:

It's already on order. To fit 1.95cm and 92kgs in pink leather. You have a choice of embroidery between fluffy rainbows with unicorns or hello kitties, also they are asking if they should make the saddlebags to fit your toys or if you have thrown them all out.

The saddlemaker also mentioned something about it being easier for you to leap those gates and run the races with your lank
 Root1 11 Dec 2016
In reply to dinodinosaur:
The Arches at Back Bowden, is quite reasonable if you are 3 ft tall.
 Dave Garnett 11 Dec 2016
In reply to Goucho:

> There are certainly routes which I wouldn't have been able to climb if I'd been average height, let alone a shorty.

Fewer than you might think in my experience. Certainly there have been routes I have backed off leading, especially if the gear isn't great, but I've nearly always then managed to do the move seconding, so where there's a will there's usually a way. Usually a bit of jump or a few moves of ultracrimping.

The only local one I can think that I simply can't do is the start of the Valve at the Roaches. I can't do Humdinger when I'm weak but that's one (like Wild Thing and the problem start to Entropy's Jaw) where being strong can compensate. There are plenty of boulder problems where I'm never going to be strong enough to compensate!
 timjones 11 Dec 2016
In reply to Mr Lopez:

> Exemptions to the rule abound and facts aren't as important as hyperbole these days anyway . Lets call it data presentation for the purposes of uncovering the truth. but mainly is because Robert believes that being tall is not an advantage to climbing and seems to get hilariously worked out about it

Forget size, weight or general ability. There are only 2 types of climber.

Those who make the most of what they've got and work through the challenges and those who like a good whinge.
 jon 11 Dec 2016
In reply to Robert Durran:

> tedious whinging dwarves

Brilliant! I think I've just found a name for my next new route...
 Mr Lopez 11 Dec 2016
In reply to timjones:

> Those who make the most of what they've got and work through the challenges and those who like a good whinge.

And there we are, finally somebody understands why the top 200 clmbers in the World are of limited stature

 Robert Durran 11 Dec 2016
In reply to timjones:
> Those who make the most of what they've got and work through the challenges and those who like a good whinge.

Absolutely. Why there are good climbers of all statures. And why there would probably be even more small ones if so many of them didn't spend half their time tediously whinging.
Post edited at 12:10
1
 timjones 11 Dec 2016
In reply to Mr Lopez:

> And there we are, finally somebody understands why the top 200 clmbers in the World are of limited stature

Ahem, I didn't say anything about climbers that couldn't read
 Robert Durran 11 Dec 2016
In reply to timjones:

> Ahem, I didn't say anything about climbers that couldn't read

I'm sure he can read. Just too hard of thinking to see past his prejudices.
 kevin stephens 11 Dec 2016
In reply to dinodinosaur: Black Hawk Bastion at Stanage always seems a struggle for my tall friends over bunched up under the roof. The convex walls of the cack and foot groove of Orifice Fish in Cathedral Quarry seem much more tenuous for those not blessed with short legs

 Robert Durran 11 Dec 2016
In reply to Mr Lopez:


Thankyou for perfectly illustrating my earlier point. You wouldn't find a large animal with the necessary strength to weight ratio to leap several times it's own height.
 Dave Garnett 11 Dec 2016
In reply to kevin stephens:

> the cack and foot groove

Ah yes, those unprotected scary offwidths!
In reply to Robert Durran:

> About half of routes are easier for the tall and about half easier for the short. The reason that the myth has arisen that most are easier for the tall is that the reasons for a route being easier for the short are usually more subtle than the reasons for a route being easier for the tall.

> And that is setting aside the fact that smaller climbers have a general biomechanical advantage.

Spot on (and I'm distinctly average height so not biased towards this).

Being short is often helpful on overhanging terrain as your body makes a smaller lever, so easier to prevent cutting loose. Not to mention that taller people are usually heavier.
 Mr Lopez 11 Dec 2016
In reply to Byronius Maximus:

> Being short is often helpful on overhanging terrain as your body makes a smaller lever, so easier to prevent cutting loose.

Another fallacy arisen from lies and excuses told by tall people.

Here is one overhanging route

http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd137/senorlopez13/route_zps7esoihst.jpg

And here's 2 climbers, one tall and one short, climbing that very same route

http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd137/senorlopez13/moments_zpsbltuat9h.j...

So what are those mythical levers we are talking about? I may be wrong, but i'm pretty sure holding the position at the bottom is not easier than the one at the top...






1
 Mr Lopez 11 Dec 2016
In reply to Robert Durran:

Woah, If that's not a mental roundabout then i don't know what that is... Regardless

> You wouldn't find a large animal with the necessary strength to weight ratio to leap several times it's own height

Kangaroos, springboks, cheetahs, tigers, whales...

P.s. BTW, if that's the whole extent of your theory you may want to explain to the best high jumpers in the World that they are doing it wrong by being 6 foot 5. They should be 5 foot 4 and then they would jump higher...
Post edited at 16:29
 timjones 11 Dec 2016
In reply to Mr Lopez:

> Another fallacy arisen from lies and excuses told by tall people.

> Here is one overhanging route


> And here's 2 climbers, one tall and one short, climbing that very same route


> So what are those mythical levers we are talking about? I may be wrong, but i'm pretty sure holding the position at the bottom is not easier than the one at the top...

Your short climber is deformed. try drawing him with forearms.

 JimR 11 Dec 2016
In reply to dinodinosaur:

I'm 5'6" and I used to climb regularly with a guy that was 6'2", I cannot remember a single move that was easier for me than him. There were quite a few that were a lot harder for me cos I'd have to do them differently or a bit more dynamically.
 Mr Lopez 11 Dec 2016
In reply to timjones:

> Your short climber is deformed. try drawing him with forearms.

Lanky and shorty are exactly the same in proportions. They are the very same stickman which was scaled in-software. If i draw longer arms for shorty then i'd have to make them longer for lanky, so the result is the same.

 Raskye 11 Dec 2016
In reply to Mr Lopez:

> More outings follow and they get into E4's, and Tommy can't just reach past the bad holds any more. However Tommy is weak and technically challenged, and try as he might he can't hang those holds or rock-over into that waist high smear, so he fails to climb any of those routes while muttering something about levers....

Ha ha... when I 1st read this post the rock-over on Downhill Racer immediately sprang to mind... I'm not tall but have a +6 ape index and blamed the long levers for failing to do it while my even shorter and stocky mate cruised it!

Ah well
cb294 11 Dec 2016
In reply to Shani:

During my competition years (>20 years ago) most of our Judo sessions would end with a few sets of climbing the ropes for power endurance. No legs, one 60 or 65kg guy on the back (my own weight at the time was around 90kg). No way I could do this now, but a pullup with one Ondra on my back should still be easy, never mind the hand orientation. Doesn't mean I climb particularly hard, as I am way too heavy for this (179cm, 100kg plus or minus a bit).

CB
 Chris Murray 11 Dec 2016
In reply to Mr Lopez:

> 170cm and 70kgs. I become you by scaling myself by a factor of 1.15 to be 195cm. Then i'd have to scale myself by a factor of 1.15x4 = 4.6 weight-wise, which would put me at 322kgs

Volume scale factor is length sf cubed, so you'd be 1.15^3 = 1.52 x heavier, or about 106kg.

 Shani 11 Dec 2016
In reply to cb294:

Wow. Cracking numbers. I'm only 85kg and it's taken a while to get to RM65kg. Not sure i could climb a rope doing it though!
OP dinodinosaur 11 Dec 2016
Well once again UKC has provided Sunday night entertainment while I've been climbing all weekend and "getting on with it" as a shortarse
 Robert Durran 12 Dec 2016
In reply to Mr Lopez:

> Lanky and shorty are exactly the same in proportions. They are the very same stickman which was scaled in-software.

I think the flaw is that real people are not stickmen.
Post edited at 01:22
1
 Robert Durran 12 Dec 2016
In reply to Mr Lopez:

> P.s. BTW, if that's the whole extent of your theory you may want to explain to the best high jumpers in the World that they are doing it wrong by being 6 foot 5. They should be 5 foot 4 and then they would jump higher...

Obviously a 20 ft giant would easily step over the bar to break the high jump world record. But we are not talking about absolute jumping ability, just using it to illustrate a smaller animal's superior strength to weight ratio.
 Robert Durran 12 Dec 2016
In reply to JimR:

> I'm 5'6" and I used to climb regularly with a guy that was 6'2", I cannot remember a single move that was easier for me than him.

That's because if would have been subtler when they were. And I think the tall person's disadvantages are more often cumulative over the whole route rather than in an individual move.

cb294 12 Dec 2016
In reply to Shani:

I was training like a semi pro at the time, i.e like a pro but except for the bit about being paid ....

German reunification put an end to my anyway not particularly realistic Olympic dreams. I still carried on competing at national level for a few more years with reduced training volumes, until my first child being born, PhD work getting serious, and an ACL tear stopped my comp career. Now I am just an old fat bastard training once a week at the uni club.

We still do rope sessions now and again, usually one minute climbing up and down, using the arms only. No more extra weights for me, though, thank you very much!

CB


 alan edmonds 12 Dec 2016
In reply to dinodinosaur:

The Neb at Tremadoc. It was 50 years ago but I recall cramped crab like movements to the right.

I am 8" taller than Joe Brown.
In reply to Mr Lopez:

> Another fallacy arisen from lies and excuses told by tall people.

> Here is one overhanging route


> And here's 2 climbers, one tall and one short, climbing that very same route


> So what are those mythical levers we are talking about? I may be wrong, but i'm pretty sure holding the position at the bottom is not easier than the one at the top...

Okay then, rather than being a bigger lever, the taller person is dealing with a larger moment pulling them away from the rock.
A taller person will weigh more (assuming the same, or even similar, proportions), so:
Moment = force x distance from fulcrum. Force = weight, which is higher for the taller climber. Distance from fulcrum = constant, in your diagram. Therefore, the taller person is dealing with a larger moment.
 Robert Durran 12 Dec 2016
In reply to Byronius Maximus:

> Okay then, rather than being a bigger lever, the taller person is dealing with a larger moment pulling them away from the rock.

> A taller person will weigh more (assuming the same, or even similar, proportions), so:

> Moment = force x distance from fulcrum. Force = weight, which is higher for the taller climber. Distance from fulcrum = constant, in your diagram. Therefore, the taller person is dealing with a larger moment.

Unfortunately that is the wrong argument because the arms as well as the Centre of Mass are also further from the fulcrum, so can exert a correspondingly bigger moment. As I said earlier, I think it is due to the fact that real climbers are not all stickmen; it must be that a small climber's build is better suited to generating body tension.
 HeMa 12 Dec 2016
In reply to dinodinosaur:

I've seen a few... majority have been proper lie-down or assis start boulders though, not routes.

So really crammed position and bad holds...

Also especially indoors you might find (boulder) problems that might suit shorter people, generally 'cause big people just don't fit between the holds and their center of gravity comes too far out. To same extent, this can be compensated with more force, but not always.

That said, a few of the routes setters in my caves are a tad taller (plus longer reach) and that means that there seems to be more problems which punish from being shorter... than those that punish being tall. Majority though has nor bias.

A quick guesstimate says 80% no bias, 15% harder for the short and 5% are harder for the tall.

On (real) routes, there often isn't much difference... Sure, there are obviously ones that are suited either for the tall (really spaced holds) and also those that suit more vertically challenged (tight/crammed positions). How ever, outdoor boulders in the feeble grades I climb, well it can be a completely different thing. Quite often all the same things mentioned about indoor boulders hold true outdoors ('cept for the percentage). But generally speakin', I think there are a lot more boulder problems that are easier for the taller than for the short (no extra holds and long reaches to bad holds, so classic granite boulders... you simply can reach the hold statically or you won't climb the problem)... Compression problems are the worst though, either you are the right length & wingspan or it is going to be considerably harder for ya.
 JimR 12 Dec 2016
In reply to Robert Durran:

> That's because if would have been subtler when they were. And I think the tall person's disadvantages are more often cumulative over the whole route rather than in an individual move.

That sounds like bollox to me. You may be getting confused with heavy v light.
 Robert Durran 12 Dec 2016
In reply to JimR:

> That sounds like bollox to me.

I think that, without proper consideration, it might sound like bollocks it gets to the heart of the whinging dwarf issue.

> You may be getting confused with heavy v light.

Tall people's strength to weight disadvantage is certainly part of it.

 JimR 12 Dec 2016
In reply to Robert Durran:
> I think that, without proper consideration, it might sound like bollocks it gets to the heart of the whinging dwarf issue.

> Tall people's strength to weight disadvantage is certainly part of it.

Extra height is always an advantage, extra weight rarely is! You are confusing the two dimensions short fat hairy people are even more disadvantaged than tall fat bald bounders. Just to throw another dimension into the mix! Ive never moaned about being disadvantaged by lack of height as it forced me to develop my technique more. The only way a taller person could be disadvantaged is by missing the technical school the short are coerced into more often.
Post edited at 23:00
 Shani 13 Dec 2016
In reply to JimR:

> Extra height is always an advantage...

I am not sure about this. Most gymnasts are short as this favours lever work and body positions which you'd say require 'core-tension'. This would have considerable implications for climbing roofs and steeply overhanging rock.

Also, if you consider a 1-5-9, it is actually lock-off depth that matters more than height.
 Robert Durran 13 Dec 2016
In reply to JimR:

> Extra height is always an advantage.

I've not often heard even the most tedious of whinging dwarves make such a transparently absurd claim.
1
 biscuit 13 Dec 2016
In reply to Ian Patterson:

> Agree, it's pretty much obvious by just looking at the distribution of builds of elite climbers that being tall is in no way an overall advantage as a climber beyond (possibly) as a beginner. Anybody who says otherwise is either trolling or not really looking at the evidence.

I'll just chip in with the idea that people tend to gravitate towards sports their body shape is deemed suitable for. So a tall youth will be pushed towards basketball/netball. A stocky strong one may be pushed towards rugby. Then add in all the influences from society towards football,cricket etc. and it's not a clear picture why we have small elite climbers.

What we end up with in climbing has tended to be people who don't fit with other sports, either socially or physically. I was reasonably good at rugby in my youth but got told a good big un will always beat a good little un. Not surprisingly I lost my psyche for progressing at that stage. On the plus side I may never have discovered climbing of that hadn't happened.

My point being that we don't really know what effect height (extra reach, extra weight, longer levers, relative muscle strength, etc) has and looking at a skewed sample of elite comp climbers doesn't tell us much at this stage. People have ended up there through all sorts of factors, not because they are small. Are they elite because they are small or because they couldn't find a sport they were allowed to excel at with their body type?

Until the sample size increases (which is happening as climbing increases in popularity) and someone studies the pathways into climbing and other sports we can't really use the elite as an example.
 JimR 13 Dec 2016
In reply to Robert Durran:


> I've not often heard even the most tedious of whinging dwarves make such a transparently absurd claim.

You ought to listen more then. Its really quite simple, greater length between toes and fingers = greater range of holds available . This off course means that lanky gits often tend to rely on lanking rather than technique. Lanky gits with technique get the best of both worlds. As far as levers etc go on overhangs, the ability to reach decent holds outweighs [sic] the small lever advantage a midget may possess ceteri paribus .. obviously a lanky, technical, trained git will be awesome. The other significant advantage lanky gits often have is placing protection (trad or clips) where the long reach is a most definite advantage. Not saying its an advantage measurable in light years but nevertheless its an advantage. If you think wingeing dwarfs are outclimbing you, then learn how to climb properly and get stronger. You can't use your height advantage as an excuse for your shortcomings [sic]
3
 Goucho 13 Dec 2016
In reply to JimR:
> You ought to listen more then. Its really quite simple, greater length between toes and fingers = greater range of holds available . This off course means that lanky gits often tend to rely on lanking rather than technique. Lanky gits with technique get the best of both worlds. As far as levers etc go on overhangs, the ability to reach decent holds outweighs [sic] the small lever advantage a midget may possess ceteri paribus .. obviously a lanky, technical, trained git will be awesome. The other significant advantage lanky gits often have is placing protection (trad or clips) where the long reach is a most definite advantage. Not saying its an advantage measurable in light years but nevertheless its an advantage. If you think wingeing dwarfs are outclimbing you, then learn how to climb properly and get stronger. You can't use your height advantage as an excuse for your shortcomings [sic]

A strong shorty with good technical ability will always be a better climber than a weak lanky with crap technique - being able to easily reach holds means sod all if you haven't the strength or technical skills to make effective upward progress.

However, a lanky equipped with a good power to weight ratio and good technical skills, will have an advantage over a similarly equipped shorty across the majority of routes.

I think it also depends on the build of the lanky. I'm 6'2" and weigh 168lbs, but have a +10 inch ape index, a 41" chest and 30" waist. I've got good balance and pretty good technical ability, and can still do about 4 one arm pull ups with both arms.

However, I don't think my fingers are that strong, and they lack overall stamina - which is why I tend to climb quick and use my reach to compensate.

Of course this is only speaking from personal experience
Post edited at 12:17
1
 SenzuBean 13 Dec 2016
In reply to dinodinosaur:

Sad Amongst Friends (E7 7a) says this: "The blank central section of the face, finish using a red wart on the lip of the final roof. The lower section is bold and easier for the short."


 Mr Lopez 13 Dec 2016
In reply to Shani

> Also, if you consider a 1-5-9, it is actually lock-off depth that matters more than height.

You are contradicting yourself. If lock off depth is what matters that's directly related to height.

On the standard rung spacing of 22cm, if a 1.61m person does 1-5-9 a 1.73m person would have to do 1-6-11 to lock off at the same depth, and a 1.95m weak lankling would have to do 1-7-13.

Or to put it another way, a 1-5-9 for a 1.73 person equals a 1-6-11 for a 1.61 guy and 1-4-7 for Robert.

Even my grandma can do 1-4-7 with a little training, but very few people in the world can crank 1-6-11
 Robert Durran 13 Dec 2016
In reply to biscuit:

> Until the sample size increases (which is happening as climbing increases in popularity) and someone studies the pathways into climbing and other sports we can't really use the elite as an example.

I actually think the elite will be a good example. Enough people climb nowadays that those body types naturally advantaged will tend float to the top.

 Ian Patterson 13 Dec 2016
In reply to biscuit:

> My point being that we don't really know what effect height (extra reach, extra weight, longer levers, relative muscle strength, etc) has and looking at a skewed sample of elite comp climbers doesn't tell us much at this stage. People have ended up there through all sorts of factors, not because they are small. Are they elite because they are small or because they couldn't find a sport they were allowed to excel at with their body type?

> Until the sample size increases (which is happening as climbing increases in popularity) and someone studies the pathways into climbing and other sports we can't really use the elite as an example.

There's obviously potential for the sample to be skewed in some way but that's a big leap to say to say that elite climbers are small because they couldn't find other sports to get into. In fact I wouldn't argue that elite climbers are significantly smaller than average, just that the available evidence is that the best climbers tend to have a height around the average (maybe slightly smaller) with a fairly wide variation on either side and there's no evidence that being much taller than average (or much smaller than average) is an advantage. And as far as I've seen nobody has provided any evidence to the contrary beyond assumption and speculation.

BTW who are the tallest/shortest climbers to have done 9a+ or 8C ? Off the top of my head tallest maybe Jan Hojer who is 6'2'' according to google. Shortest I can think of are Ramonet (5'3''?) and Ashima (5'2''?).

 Robert Durran 13 Dec 2016
In reply to JimR:

> You ought to listen more then.

No, it is you who ought to listen and think more and look more. With the obvious advantages of height tend to come other disadvantages. Overall tall people do not have an advantage. Look around you. Do you see the best climbers being overwhelming tall? No.

You have fallen for the trivial fallacy that tall people have an overall advantage because when extra reach is an advantage, it is blindingly obvious and you have not seen past this. As I said earlier, the disadvantages which tend to come with height are more subtle.

 Wicamoi 13 Dec 2016
In reply to Goucho:

On average it seems obvious that the small have an advantage when defying gravity - think of the climbing ability of lizards v crocodiles, mice v capybara, weasels v otters, house cats v lions, gibbons v gorillas. However, the details of particular climbing routes will mean that there's a lot of variation around the mean, and that some will favour the short, and others the tall. It is also quite possible that certain climbing substrates (e.g. grit, indoor plastic) might actually favour the tall on average.

In any case, whichever side of the argument is correct, we would be well advised to get over it. If your height, or lack of it, disadvantages you in some way, and means you can't climb a route, so what? Tomorrow you will still be you, and you will still be the same height, you will still be disadvantaged, and you will still be unable to climb the route. A permanent excuse is no excuse at all - it's just a fact.
 Ian Jones 13 Dec 2016
In reply to Robert Durran:

You seem to totally misunderstand the meaning of the word. While 6 foot may not seem unusually tall you and all the other lanky bastards probably have about 15" reach advantage over a short climber (5 foot 3").
I honestly doubt if you ever do a 6a move. You and your ilk simply span past the fiddly cruxes. Lose a tech grade and an adjectival grade which makes you the strongest E1 climber in Scotland!.
1
 Robert Durran 13 Dec 2016
In reply to Ian Jones:

F*cking tedious overopinionated, whinging dwarf
1
 david100 13 Dec 2016
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

the ondras and sharmas of this world probably have an medically unhealthy bmi ( too little weight). A tall person of average bmi is definitely carrying more weight than a short person of average bmi. The next question then becomes is extra weight a handicap. I suspect that there is a physical limit with certain types of hand hold where beyond a certain weight the hand simply slips off probably most marked on slopers. So perhaps the secret is to be tall and on a vegetable diet.
In reply to david100:

Until you'd pointed it out to me, I hadn't realised that there are rock climbers who are fearful of becoming as unhealthy as Ondra or Sharma.
 Lemony 13 Dec 2016
In reply to david100:
Adam Ondra is apprarently 1.80m and 68kg for a perfectly "healthy" BMI of 20.9
Chris Sharma is apprarently 1.83m and 75kg for a perfectly "healthy" BMI of 22.3
Post edited at 13:10
 1poundSOCKS 13 Dec 2016
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Until you'd pointed it out to me, I hadn't realised that there are rock climbers who are fearful of becoming as unhealthy as Ondra or Sharma.

Unhealthy BMI = unhealthy?
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

> Unhealthy BMI = unhealthy?

So when you say a BMI is 'unhealthy' are you using it as some kind of metaphor simply for 'undesirable'? Or that a low BMI could have an unhealthy outcome? Even though those climbers, now, are manifestly not unhealthy.
In reply to Lemony:

> Adam Ondra is apprarently 1.80m and 68kg for a perfectly "healthy" BMI of 20.9

> Chris Sharma is apprarently 1.83m and 75kg for a perfectly "healthy" BMI of 22.3

I see that a 'healthy' BMI lies between 18.5 and 25, so presumably 21.75 is the ideal.

Which means that both Ondra and Sharma are extremely close to the ideal, with Ondra being slightly underweight, and Sharma slightly overweight. ...
 1poundSOCKS 13 Dec 2016
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> So when you say a BMI is 'unhealthy' are you using it as some kind of metaphor simply for 'undesirable'? Or that a low BMI could have an unhealthy outcome? Even though those climbers, now, are manifestly not unhealthy.

Wasn't me who said it originally Gordon. I presumed David meant they had a BMI that was below the "healthy" range, not that they were unhealthy. And it turned out they had a "healthy" BMI anyway (or close).
Post edited at 13:37
 Goucho 13 Dec 2016
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> I see that a 'healthy' BMI lies between 18.5 and 25, so presumably 21.75 is the ideal.

> Which means that both Ondra and Sharma are extremely close to the ideal, with Ondra being slightly underweight, and Sharma slightly overweight. ...

My BMI is 22
In reply to Goucho:

I've just rechecked mine (now that I'm wizened/aged) - it's 21.9
 JimR 13 Dec 2016
In reply to Robert Durran:

> No, it is you who ought to listen and think more and look more. With the obvious advantages of height tend to come other disadvantages. Overall tall people do not have an advantage. Look around you. Do you see the best climbers being overwhelming tall? No.

> You have fallen for the trivial fallacy that tall people have an overall advantage because when extra reach is an advantage, it is blindingly obvious and you have not seen past this. As I said earlier, the disadvantages which tend to come with height are more subtle.

Rubbish, My view is based on over 40 years of climbing experience with many different partners most of whom were significantly taller than me. Its not a issue for me, never has been merely my personal observation based on climbing loads of routes in the E grades with different partners.
 JimR 13 Dec 2016
In reply to david100:

> the ondras and sharmas of this world probably have an medically unhealthy bmi ( too little weight). A tall person of average bmi is definitely carrying more weight than a short person of average bmi. The next question then becomes is extra weight a handicap. I suspect that there is a physical limit with certain types of hand hold where beyond a certain weight the hand simply slips off probably most marked on slopers. So perhaps the secret is to be tall and on a vegetable diet.

I was on the first ascent of a route called Bollocks to Broccoli, named after my reaction to the suggestion of a diet
 Simon4 13 Dec 2016
In reply to Robert Durran:

> F*cking tedious overopinionated, whinging dwarf

You rang sir?
 Robert Durran 13 Dec 2016
In reply to JimR:
> Rubbish, My view is based on over 40 years of climbing experience with many different partners most of whom were significantly taller than me. Its not a issue for me, never has been merely my personal observation based on climbing loads of routes in the E grades with different partners.

Bollocks. Bollocks. Bollocks.

I think you are so blinkered that you are not even trying to understand the issue.

Don't worry, you're far from alone. My observation based on similar experience is that very few dwarves do make the effort to get it.

Maybe you would like to tell me why it is not true that all the best climbers are tall.
Post edited at 16:11
 Michael Gordon 13 Dec 2016
In reply to thread:

We often say it is an advantage to be tall when what we mean is that it's a disadvantage to be short (compared to average). I myself am guilty of this, probably not helped by being accused of lanking my way past cruxes, despite only being 6ft! But clearly a 6ft man is generally at an advantage over say 5ft 5in; however the same height advantage is not there when you compare 6ft 5in to 6ft. As others have said, you only have to visit an elite comp to see that the field are not generally tall (rarely over 6ft 2).
 Robert Durran 13 Dec 2016
In reply to Michael Gordon:

> But clearly a 6ft man is generally at an advantage over say 5ft 5in; however the same height advantage is not there when you compare 6ft 5in to 6ft.

Why do you claim one and not the other? The taller person will clearly have a reach advantage over the smaller person in both cases.
 Michael Gordon 13 Dec 2016
In reply to Robert Durran:
I think there is an optimum height band which is about average for men (and presumably women). Those a good bit shorter lose out due to lack of reach while those a good bit taller may struggle due to e.g. getting bunched up.

In some sports it is an advantage to be tall, e.g. running and basketball. In others if anything shorter is better (e.g. some martial arts). Climbing is one where being average is probably best.
Post edited at 17:58
 Mr Lopez 13 Dec 2016
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Maybe you would like to tell me why it is not true that all the best climbers are tall.

Because most tall climbers turn into a pile of despair and self-pity when they get to discover what real climbing is and how ill-equiped they are for the task after years of perpetuating their weakness and languishing into overweightness from lanking routes and skipping cruxes, and either quit climbing altogether or become self-styled gurus of "grades don't matter, i just climb for the fun of it and the best climber is the one having the most fun".

Those that see through it and embrace the pain accordingly hit the same training boards that short climbers have been using from day one and go on to excel. Those that don't get left behind by the incresingly strong and technically proficient dwarf army laughing copiously at their levers.

Bit of trivia

There's been 33 ascents of routes at 9b and over. 30 such things have been done by people above average stature. More than 2 thirds, (23 ascents) have been done by people 6 foot and over.

Short climbers can and do get to the top of the game, but when tall climbers get there they dominate.

 Michael Gordon 13 Dec 2016
In reply to Mr Lopez:

Apparently the average height for men in the UK is around 5ft 10. I'm actually surprised - I always thought it would be about 6ft. Perhaps it would be higher if one excluded the elderly?
 Mr Lopez 13 Dec 2016
In reply to Michael Gordon:

Usually average heights are for adult male/female, so my guess is there's an age range. No?
 Michael Gordon 13 Dec 2016
In reply to Mr Lopez:
Sorry you'll have to rephrase that?

Actually apparently it is around 5ft 10 in the US and around 5ft 9 in the UK.
Post edited at 21:32
 Ian Patterson 13 Dec 2016
In reply to Mr Lopez:

> Bit of trivia

> There's been 33 ascents of routes at 9b and over. 30 such things have been done by people above average stature. More than 2 thirds, (23 ascents) have been done by people 6 foot and over.

> Short climbers can and do get to the top of the game, but when tall climbers get there they dominate.

Think the sample size might be a little on the small to identify any causation to go with correlation particularly since nearly 50% of 9b/9b+ (15) ascents and 75% of 9b+ have been done by a single climber who happens to be over 6 foot tall.
 Mr Lopez 13 Dec 2016
In reply to Michael Gordon:

I mean that when they estimate the average height they probably only include adults of an age range so as to exclude people still growing and people who is shrinking. For example the samples could be people between 30 and 40 years of age.
1
 Mr Lopez 13 Dec 2016
In reply to Ian Patterson:

> nearly 50% of 9b/9b+ (15) ascents and 75% of 9b+ have been done by a single climber who happens to be over 6 foot tall.

Amazing isn't it? That he can climb pretty much every single hard route in the World with those long levers and that awful weight disadvantage. I'm sure he wishes he was 5 foot 6 so that he could break into the 9c's


2
 Ian Patterson 13 Dec 2016
In reply to Mr Lopez:


> Amazing isn't it? That he can climb pretty much every single hard route in the World with those long levers and that awful weight disadvantage. I'm sure he wishes he was 5 foot 6 so that he could break into the 9c's

I assume your just trolling, I've never said being short was an advantage so your joke makes no sense. Amazing that you imagine the only factor in him being the best climber in the world is that he is a bit taller than average. Any more than the main factor in Steve Mclure being the best British sport climber for more than 15 years is that he is a bit shorter than average.
 Robert Durran 13 Dec 2016
In reply to Ian Patterson:

> Think the sample size might be a little on the small to identify any causation to go with correlation particularly since nearly 50% of 9b/9b+ (15) ascents and 75% of 9b+ have been done by a single climber who happens to be over 6 foot tall.

Beat me to it. A bit like the fact that the ten (or whatever) fastest 100m have been run by someone 6 ft 5 in and concluding that the optimum build for a sprinter is really tall rather than taking a statistical significant sample and concluding that Usain Bolt is an outlier, a freak.

Mr Lopez is clutching at statistical straws; dishonest shameful shite. It might be funny but for the fact that other desperate innumerate dwarves, as small in mind as they are in stature, might actually be taken in by it.
1
 Robert Durran 13 Dec 2016
In reply to Michael Gordon:

> I think there is an optimum height band which is about average for men (and presumably women). Those a good bit shorter lose out due to lack of reach while those a good bit taller may struggle due to e.g. getting bunched up.

That statistic referred to earlier in the thread that the top 200 sport climbers have an average height not far away from (maybe a little below) the general population average doesn't show that being of around average height is actually an advantage. It would be interesting to know how the variance for the top climbers compares with that of the general population; if it is significantly smaller then it would indeed suggest that being around average height is advantageous*, but if it is no different it would suggest that height is not really a factor at all in overall climbing performance. The skew of the distribution would also be interesting.

*I would be surprised if this is the case, since it is difficult to see why there should be anything special about average height with regards to climbing.
 Mr Lopez 13 Dec 2016
In reply to Ian Patterson:
> Amazing that you imagine the only factor in him being the best climber in the world is that he is a bit taller than average. Any more than the main factor in Steve Mclure being the best British sport climber for more than 15 years is that he is a bit shorter than average.

Errr. Did i say that? I'm not the one who was asking for a list of elite climbers and correlate their ascents with their heights.

But the point is that him being tall is a factor, one in many factors at play. Steve McClure does not have that factor, so he has to excel in the other ones to plug that gap. Ondra has Steve's factors, plus height, and so he crushes.

Height is in fact the only factor that is innate and can't be worked on, short of illness or disabilities.

If you are heavy you can lose weight. If you are weak you can train to get strong. If you are unflexible you can stretch to become flexible. If you are clumsy you can work your technique and become a smooth technical master. If you are short you cannot grow.

Ondra famously couldn't do a one armer a couple of years ago. He just didn't need that strength for what he was doing. He got training for the first time being coached by Patxi Usobiaga, and now not only he does one armers but he eats 9b routes and 8C boulder problems for breakfast.
Post edited at 00:01
 Mr Lopez 14 Dec 2016
In reply to Robert Durran:

Don't forget Chris Sharma. 2x 9b+ and 6x 9b

Strange that the 2 people with the most hard climbs in the World are freaks. Maybe you are just using your levers wrong?
 Robert Durran 14 Dec 2016
In reply to Mr Lopez:

> Strange that the 2 people with the most hard climbs in the World are freaks.

Ondra and Sharma are both around 6 ft. A bit above average but hardly freaks*. If anything, corroborates the suggestion from that statistic about the 200 top sport climbers that height isn't important in overall performance.

*And even if they were freakishly tall, it wouldn't really prove anything. Just like Usain Bolt.
 kez1 14 Dec 2016
In reply to Dino Dinosaur:
It's a shame the OP got highjacked by people with obvious inferiority complexes. It would have been nice to have lists of routes that are hard for both the tall and small. It's always good fun to be able to sandbag your mates.
Being tall does have some advantages though, I can go to Alton towers without fear of being turned away from everything bar the teacups
Post edited at 07:29
 Michael Gordon 14 Dec 2016
In reply to Robert Durran:

Obviously this is purely based on speculation, but logically to me there will be a point for men/women when one becomes too small or too tall to have as strong a likelihood to excel at climbing as someone more average. Pick three people at random, one 4ft 6in, one 6ft and one 7ft 6in and I propose the 6ft person will either be the better climber or have the potential to become so (if the people didn't previously climb). Of course these numbers will probably get mixed up with gender differences (not many 4ft 6 men) but I've deliberately picked a big number range to try and make the point that at some point either end of the scale a disadvantage is likely to be apparent.

I do think height is a factor in overall performance, i.e. whether one gets up a route or not. I've lost count of the number of times a shorter partner has struggled due to not being able to reach the next good hold. Obviously if they were better than me they wouldn't struggle but they would still have to do harder moves than me to make the same ground. I haven't noticed any problems with my height but then I'm not that tall. So the interesting part of the discussion for me is whether one can be too tall and I would expect this would be the case.
 Robert Durran 14 Dec 2016
In reply to kez1:

> It's a shame the OP got highjacked by people with obvious inferiority complexes.

Yes, these tedious whinging dwarves really do come across as pretty f*cked up.
2
 kez1 14 Dec 2016
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Yes, these tedious whinging dwarves really do come across as pretty f*cked up.

Not just them Robert
 Ian Patterson 14 Dec 2016
In reply to Mr Lopez:

> But the point is that him being tall is a factor, one in many factors at play. Steve McClure does not have that factor, so he has to excel in the other ones to plug that gap. Ondra has Steve's factors, plus height, and so he crushes.

So Steve is good despite being short, Ondra is good because he's tall. I admit defeat, your excellent statistical analysis and logical and rigorous approach has defeated me, tall people obviously have an advantage and I await the the next generation of 6'6'' giants crushing 10a and 9B



 JimR 14 Dec 2016
In reply to dinodinosaur:

Several points:
1) I've never heard the excuse at the bouldering wall "I'm just too tall"
2)The original question was routes that are harder for the tall , which implies the height being the constraint not power/weight ratio or technique.
3)My observations are based on my experience, you might disagree but hey if you do then why not be specific about a route that is harder for the lanky rather than resorting to aspersion casting? That might gnerate an interesting debate rather than troll feeding.

I stand by my assertion that with all other things being equal (power/weight,finger strength, technique,endurance )then extra height is an advantage (both in climbing and placing gear).

Be interesting if anyone can come up with a specific route( or even better routes) where they have found that not to be the case. I can possibly think of a couple of routes with close together small crimpy side pulls with highish step ups but even then its debateable.

I'm reminded of the famous quote from Joe Brown (I just climb up to it)

Interesting link here http://frixtion.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/do-tall-climbers-have-advantage.html

in summary, height per se (via reach) is an advantage although shorter climbers can overcome that (and more) with better technique, lower weight, better core strength and higher power to weight. Height alone whilst a factor is not hugely significant BUT certainly does not disadvantage the tall.


One excuse I did hear once was "my feet are too long, and its wrecking my calves!"


.
 Robert Durran 14 Dec 2016
In reply to kez1:

> Not just them Robert

I think you have completely misunderstood the issue then.
 Robert Durran 14 Dec 2016
In reply to JimR:

> Be interesting if anyone can come up with a specific route( or even better routes) where they have found that not to be the case.

Plenty of examples have been given in the thread.

> in summary, height per se (via reach) is an advantage although shorter climbers can overcome that (and more) with better technique, lower weight, better core strength and higher power to weight.

Obviously technique is not a factor, since all climbers can have equally good technique no matter what height they are, but I'm glad you now seem to be conceding that genetics favour the short with the other factors you mention (just as genetics favour the tall with reach).
 1poundSOCKS 14 Dec 2016
In reply to JimR:
> 1) I've never heard the excuse at the bouldering wall "I'm just too tall"

I hear complaints of being too bunched all the time. Typical whinging giants.

> I stand by my assertion that with all other things being equal (power/weight,finger strength, technique,endurance )then extra height is an advantage (both in climbing and placing gear).

> Be interesting if anyone can come up with a specific route( or even better routes) where they have found that not to be the case

There are some rare exceptions.

Bongo Fury (7b)

The crux is a tiny crimp and high feet. It's a pretty desperate move for the grade anyway (used to get a tech grade of 6c I think). To compensate, the rest of the route is harder for the short, but maybe not enough to fully compensate for the crux.

50 for 5 (7c)

More size specific. The last move to the slot to clip the chains, can be significantly harder if you're too short (can't reach) or too tall (too bunched on the pinches and high feet). It's hard enough even if you're the right height. :/

There are no others.
Post edited at 10:23
 JimR 14 Dec 2016
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Plenty of examples have been given in the thread.

Must have missed them!

> Obviously technique is not a factor, since all climbers can have equally good technique no matter what height they are, but I'm glad you now seem to be conceding that genetics favour the short with the other factors you mention (just as genetics favour the tall with reach).

I've always said that! The OP's question was about height not the other factors.
 Robert Durran 14 Dec 2016
In reply to Michael Gordon:

> Obviously this is purely based on speculation, but logically to me there will be a point for men/women when one becomes too small or too tall to have as strong a likelihood to excel at climbing as someone more average. Pick three people at random, one 4ft 6in, one 6ft and one 7ft 6in and I propose the 6ft person will either be the better climber or have the potential to become so.

You may well be right, but, as you say, it is speculation and it might be quite hard to find conclusive evidence.

I have a theory that if a rock type has a surface which is a fractal (ie self similar at every scale), then, overall, reach should make no difference - the smaller climber, on average, simply uses closer together smaller holds which feel bigger because they have smaller hands and feet. It certainly does seem to me that small hands and fingers should be an advantage - if every one finger joint hold becomes a two finger joint hold then they will be easier to use (though obviously there will be specific holds where large hands might be better). Watching small children climb indoors, it sometimes seems that they are effectively climbing a different (but no harder) route to adults - big moves between large holds (relative to hand size) rather than smaller moves between smaller holds (relative to hand size).

Since this thread has been running I've made a point of observing the differences between myself and shorter partners on the same indoor routes (I expect differences are amplified indoors due to the lack of availability of intermediate or alternative holds for the short or tall). Working the same route with a shorter partner on which we are both at our limit has reinforced my view that neither of us is disadvantaged or advantaged - we just have to climb the route differently. Sometimes my reach will help on a move, but just as often a high step will require more power or alternatively more power to initiate a pull at full stretch from a lower foothold. We get small shake outs at different places - some sets of holds are more stable and less strenuous to maintain body position for one of us, others for the other. It is simply massively oversimplistic and plain wrong to reduce everything to "you can either reach a hold or you can't" as the blinkered whinging dwarfs tend to do.

All this is not to say that there are not routes and moves which are much easier for the tall (I actively seek them out when I want a grade based ego massage!). Of course there are, but equally well, the examples in this thread show that there are routes which are easier for the short and sometimes a nightmare for the tall. Though I'm sure the most blinkered whinging dwarves will continue to deny this.
 Robert Durran 14 Dec 2016
In reply to JimR:

> I've always said that! The OP's question was about height not the other factors.

Fair enough, but height (with all the other factors being equal) is not by any means always an advantage.

 Michael Gordon 14 Dec 2016
In reply to Mr Lopez:

> I mean that when they estimate the average height they probably only include adults of an age range so as to exclude people still growing and people who is shrinking. For example the samples could be people between 30 and 40 years of age.

Not sure about that. If an average adult height was wanted surely you'd sample over the whole range of ages found in the population (e.g. 18-100). I don't see a reason to exclude the elderly from a population height study which has nothing to do with sport.
 andrewmc 14 Dec 2016
In reply to dinodinosaur:
I'm 5' 7" and I think +1" ape index - so entirely average (although I suspect the male bias in climbing means that I fall in the 'short' end of climbers).

Arguing that being tall is not an advantage on average is (to me) simply silly. There are plenty of times I wish I could just reach a little further... What I do accept is that being heavy is a disadvantage, and taller climbers will be heavier. I don't see any reason why these factors should exactly cancel out at all heights. I would not be surprised, as others have said, if being 6' was an advantage over being 5' 6" but being 6' 6" was a disadvantage over being 6'.

Indoors on easier routes (grades 4/5) height can make an easy route absolutely horrific. On these easier routes every move will often be static - stand on this, reach for this (poor) hold, move feet up... If you can't reach the poor hold you are supposed to be using, the route can jump several grades because you now have to jump and dyno for a poor hold.

Yes, outdoors intermediates sometimes exist - but sometimes they don't. Stuff like climbing between horizontal breaks in Dartmoor granite and grit can be a nightmare if you can't reach the breaks!

Outdoor example: finishing this (about 4+ to the finish if you are a bit taller and can clip the loweroff from the ledge, 6a if you can't)
Hanging Out with Halo Jones (6a)

On routes with dynamic moves I have a lot less trouble - you just have to go a bit further, which is fine! I have also found indoor corner mantles can be very height dependent, bizarrely - you can't push down on stuff as easily if the holds you are supposed to be pushing on are too far above your hips.

Basically anything both static and reachy is a horrendous nightmare if it is not easily avoidable.

I have always wondered what would happen if you took a few bouldering panels and carefully drilled all the holes at non-standard spacings, so you could reproduce a few select bouldering problems at different scales (you might like to change the hold size, or you might not). Then get tall and short people on their respective versions and get them to estimate a grade. This tells you how much advantage being tall is (but NOT how much disadvantage being heavier is).

Here's a short guy not letting it hold him back:
youtube.com/watch?v=fn6uIZaF0tk&
Post edited at 18:13
In reply to dinodinosaur:

I think there is probably an optimum height and weight ect. and then exceptions to that on either side.
The Usain Bolt example mentioned above is a good one. Being 6ft5 won't make you a great sprinter, but a great sprinter that is 6ft5 has an advantage over his rivals.
I think Rob Burrows is also a good example. At 5ft5 he manages to duck a lot of tackles and make break.
I'm sure at some point in their careers Bolt was told he was too tall to be a sprinter and Burrows told he was too small to be play rugby.

Im 6ft3, weigh naff all and I'm pretty strong. I've definitely used these attributes to my advantage in climbing but they've only got me so far and there has been times when my height feels like a disadvantage but not many. I've put a lot more effort into technique recently and I feel that is paying off.
Overall I'd say that being light and strong is of more benefit to me than being tall but height is still of benefit the majority of the time when I climb.
 deacondeacon 14 Dec 2016

The thing with climbing is there'll always be someone taller than you, shorter than you, lighter than you, heavier than you that is climbing harder than you, and is getting up the routes you're trying.

It'll very, very rarely be morphology that is stopping you from doing the route.



 1poundSOCKS 15 Dec 2016
In reply to deacondeacon:
> It'll very, very rarely be morphology that is stopping you from doing the route.

Not so much stopping you in itself, just that the guidebook grade might not be a good indicator of difficulty in some cases. And morphology might make it necessary for you to become a better climber.

Kaluza Klein is a well known example. It gets E7 I think, but could be more like E6 or E8 depending on your reach.

EDIT: The top of Demon Wall at Almscliff is another example. If you're much shorter than me, it'd be desperate I imagine.
Post edited at 09:57
OP dinodinosaur 19 Dec 2016
In reply to dinodinosaur:

> Exactly what the title says, looking for sandbag routes for tall people!

> The only one that I can think of that might fit the bill is todys wall, watching my 6'stupid" mate nibbling his knees trying to pull the rock over gave me a giggle :')

> Cheers people of UKC

Would like a bump on the original question, or failing that general sandbag routes, come on Ukc we can keep on topic for once
 Michael Gordon 20 Dec 2016
In reply to dinodinosaur:

I remember a Jules Lines article (about Icon of Lust) where he says his second (Paul Thorburn) had no chance on a mantel move due to being tall. That said, just about anyone wouldn't have had any chance on it!

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...