UKC

I've found this huge dataset of climbing ascents from 8a.nu and decided to analyse it. You can find my results here:

https://www.alessandromasullo.com/blog/analysis-of-4-million-climbing-ascen...

I'd love to hear your feedback

210cm+ tall!! That is a lofty climber. Not sure on being able to 'lank' the 8a crux though. Not worked for me yet. 

Being a 200cm tall climber myself I like some of your conclusions w.r.t. height and grade progression. Always thought as much....at least that's what I tell myself. 

That was an interesting read, thank you. I'd come across some of that data before but much of it was new to me and your analysis and graphics are excellent. The biggest flaw with any of this logbook data, is of course the inconsistencies in how people log ascents (something you do explain). For a full analysis, we need every user to log every ascent they ever do, perhaps using some form of intrusive tracking device that monitors every move...

So at 195cm I am in the most negatively affected height bracket. Nice that the data confirms what I have been telling the tiresome whinging dwarfs for decades: while taller climbers have an obvious advantage on some individual moves, it's the short arses who generally have all the other advantages. 

I’m 188cm and will also be referring my shorter climbing partners to this data and to their climbing advantages. I’m sure I read somewhere that either Steve McClure or Dave MacLeod saying that shorter climbers have every advantage.

In 9 out of 10 climbers Make The Same Mistakes, Dave Macleod has a section called "For the Lucky Little Ones" along with advice for those who need to try to overcome the disadvantages of being tall. The bitter blinkered dwarfs just never want to know though.

Very nice. If you did the 'time to climb grade X' analysis as a time to event or survival analysis, you could look at associations with age when started climbing and sex. My suspicion (hypothesis!) is that climber who started younger and more recently progress more quickly to moderate grades. At the higher grades, any analysis become difficult due to the fact that for some of those climbers that high grade didn't exist for some of the time they were climbing.

Cheers, that’s probably where I read it. I’ll re-read that section. 

That's fun!

Time to first 10a though? The dangers of extrapolation...

https://www.nature.com/articles/431525a

Brilliant, Rob! Love it...

I hadn't seen that; thank you! I'm going to have to remind some of those authors about their out-of-range extrapolation... as clearly in a few hundred years both sexes will finish running the 100m before they started! 

You've analysed 4,000,000 ascents?? Is this the thread which finally reveals the one true grade of TPS?

Very good, liked it. 
Encouraging conclusion on BMI…”you can have pretty much any BMI within the healthy level and still climb pretty much any grade”

if the data comes from 8a.nu isn't that a rather skewed sample? Only a certain sort of person logs on there.

I dunno about that; my cat has a login!

(created when they decided everyone needed to be logged in just to view logged routes. I wouldn't dream of  logging anything myself as it's a disaster of a database!)

No trad stats for a start...

That's a great bit of analysis - well done!!

Very interesting and I would be keen to see it developed further.

I assume that the 'web scrapping' bit is about accessing data readily available on existing sites?

I wonder what UKC users would think about having their data analysed?

I can see where I am going wrong with a BMI of 30!

Height isn't everything, T-Rex were pretty tall but what did they do on grit? Ape index is a pretty interesting factor too

Ape index of a T-rex must be about -4 metres

edit - sorry ape index is measured in inches still isn't it? So that would be an ape index of -157"

Some googling and some quick maths suggests it could be as low as -200" though Silly creature!

I was just about to post "good point" until I realised that ape index isn't actually a ratio as you suggest. It is the difference between your height and wingspan and as such the units are relevant.

No, it is a ratio of lengths, so unitless.

If I'm 6ft tall with a 6ft 2 span, then my ape index is +2 inches. If it was a ratio it would be a unitless 1.03 ish - nobody every divides them, it's much less useful.

How about the world outside imperial measures? The index number would be higher in cms.

1m82   1m88   index therefore 6...?

Exactly, +6cm ape index. Not an issue since you define the units. Just like running in metric doesn't mean running further than imperial - 1.6 km or 1 mile, it's the same quantity!

Try googling it. It is a ratio. Obviously more useful since it is then independent of the size of the climber and instead tells you about their shape (a difference of 2 inches on a 5 foot climber will be more significant than a difference of 2 inches on a 6 foot climber).

Googled it - both methods can be used to calculate ape index. Ratio and subtraction. Ratio seems to be more common outside the context of climbing. However, subtraction is also much easier to calculate, hence why if you ask someone their ape index, or to calculate one, they're much sooner going to give you +4 inches or -2 cm as an answer, rather than getting their calculator out and rounding some decimals.

I do agree that the ratio is better for avoiding having to clarify height, but in practical terms subtraction is much easier to use day to day, and by far the most commonly used in these kinds of conversations. 

Well it seems daft to use a less meaningful measure just for the sake of a tiny bit of arithmetic! With everyone having instant access to a calculator on their phone the effort needed to work it out is neither here nor there if you've already gone to the faff of the actual length measurements.

Pedant alert - 1.609344 km - that approx 9m makes all the difference (approx 1.3s for elite runners) 😁

Maybe so! It's definitely not hard to calculate, but people don't really do it - i've never once heard someone use the ratio, compared to many instances of subtraction.

I realise this all started from whether or not it has units - I suppose the answer is both, depending on who you ask. You just might get one answer more than the other

This is a fine example of the being wrong when you are right phenomena. In the middle ages you may have been burnt at the stake for such heresy. Now a days we are far more enlightened and will go no further than to tell you to stop talking p*sh.

*Everyone* knows it's span-height, that's the way we have always done it around here and that's the way we are going to keep doing it around here. No-one cares if it is *technically* wrong.

Probably just a typical conspiracy propagated by stunted whinging Weegy dwarfs to make it sound like they are less advantaged by their ape-like neanderthal features than they really are.

Sorry for my part in the thread hijack that followed what was only meant as a quick joke!

No. Look it up. It can be either. Usually a ratio. Oddly often a difference in climbing when obviously a ratio makes more sense.

If you google it, most references use a ratio. As I said, climbing seems unusual in using a difference, but both do come up for climbing.

Hmm, not sure. Can't think of a situation where the ratio is more significant than the absolute value (and not relative to height)...

1. In balance slab, high next hold -> Height + half-absoluteAI (approx)

2. As above, but vertical (low handhold required for balance) -> As above or absoluteAI.

OK, the only case I can think of is one where short-arses generally have an advantage (e.g., under roof), but that's more to do with being short rather than having long arms (the primary conceptual driver for AI).

OK, Laybacking is another (and probably best) counter-example to my point.

?

I updated the article with this very analysis

https://www.alessandromasullo.com/blog/analysis-of-4-million-climbing-ascen...

Are you not just saying that long arms are advantageous? In which case why consider either form of ape index.

The point of using a ratio is that it actually describes the "shape" of a climber, independent of size. If you take a whinging dwarf and just scale them up to normal size by a factor of 2 then their subtractive ape index will double - have they really gained an ape index advantage by being scaled up? Whereas their ratio ape index is unchanged.

Using the ratio would be claiming that someone with a different "shape" or build, independent of height has an advantage.

I'm not sure; I don't think it is at all obvious. Except that for a given height, and other things being equal, long arms are an advantage.

Fantastic.  I particularly like the use of 2D histograms and colour banding.

The caption to figure 19 needs mending - it refers to figures 18 and 19, should be 17 and 18.  

I think we're probably agreeing that any sort of 'ape index' is pretty meaningless outside of a pub. I'm sure that longer arms help - up to a point. And being taller helps - up to a different point. Calculating the ratio or difference is unlikely to shed any light on what those optimal points are, even assuming that point don't move depending on the nature of the 'move' confronting the climber.

Of course in a "normal" height range, climber A having a bigger ratio than climber B will usually mean climber A having a bigger subtractive ape index than climber B anyway.

The analysis really should correlate WDF ( whinging dwarf factor ) with climbing partners performance, and the inverse ACF ( albatross condescension factor )...

T rex = king. Imperial units please!

I don’t think a ratio makes more sense for climbing. What’s relevant is absolute reach and that’s based on height and ape index as an absolute number. Let’s say climber A is 6”, while climber B is 5”6’. The absolute difference of 6” is what matters whether they can reach a hold statically off the same footholds. If A is +2 but B is -2, the difference for reaching up increases to 8”. The relative difference isn’t really that useful.

But you are just saying that what matters is height + arm length for absolute reach off footholds. Sutractive AI is effectively arm length - height. Not the same thing. 

The claim is that a large ape index is an advantage and it follows that if two people are the same height, then long arms are an advantage (works for both methods). I think this is obvious, because more holds will be within reach of any given body position. Whether ratio or subtraction is then a more accurate way of comparing this advantage for people of different heights is a more difficult question.

Agree not the same thing but it’s indicative and I’d say more intuitive than a ratio.

Why more intuitive? I disagree. If you have two different species of ape, then, although there will be some variation within each species, it is the ratio version that will differentiate between their builds independently of size. And one species might be better at climbing rocks because of it.

Because what matters most of the time is absolute reach, not reach relative to height. Clearly ape index alone doesn’t reveal height but people can judge that easily enough in person. At the end of the day, plus / minus is just simpler. 

Yes, absolute reach can sometimes be a help. But that is NOT what ape index is about. It is about arm length relative to height. we would be adding, not subtracting or dividing if we were talking about absolute reach.

Presumably nobody would ever mention ape index unless it was felt to be an advantage in the build of a climber. And, if we are talking about build, then clearly the ratio makes more sense. 

Basically we have two parameters, height and arm length/wingspan. The question is how to combine them to produce a single measure which is a best predictor of climbing ability. I presume ape index is felt to be a candidate. 

This is where the data could come in, competing models

1. grade~ H
2. grade~ A
3. grade~ A/H
4. grade~ A-H
5. grade~ A+H
6. grade~ A*H
7. etc

adjusting for years climbing, sex, etc

Ask which best explains variance in grade.

I'm surprised how high the average grades are, I think it maybe skewed towards people who report on UKC on a regular basis who perhaps tend to be more committed than the average climber.

This reminds me of a variation of an old joke...an engineer, experimental physicist, theoretical physicist  and mathematician are on a train and the engineer, looking out the window, said look the sheep here are black. The experimental physicist says no,  we only know they have those black sheep up here. The theoretical physicist says we only know those sides of those sheep are black. The mathematician refuses to speak but writes a funny looking equation (to the engineer) that makes the physicists laugh and smile like Kirk does with Spock, leaving the engineer confused.

 ....every climber I've used this with or discussed this with (until this post) measures it as a length, but you're always right.

Maybe a better segue would be the last joke on this page.

https://users.cs.northwestern.edu/~riesbeck/mathphyseng.html

Yes, we are looking for a function f(A,H) which best models the measured grade of climbers. 

It's interesting that apart from being a professional climber in some way, or a student, Engineer is the most common occupation. I guess it must be the challenge and problem solving aspect of the sport that retains engineers.

I'm surprised to see travel agent in the list. I thought they went extinct.

It is quite possible that every climber I have ever discussed it with has also subtracted to use a length. I've probably just never thought properly about it before. But now I have, ratio just seems to make a lot more sense because it is describing body shape or "build" - different species of ape or monkey will have typical ratios. And when I googled it, one of the first things I found was Ondra's index as a ratio.

Those are great! Not seen some of them before.

Only when being tall is an advantage. But it often isn't. In contrast, I've never heard of a situation where having a good ape index is a disadvantage.

I don’t really care but as others have said the vast majority of climbers used it as wingspan minus height. I’d never heard of it being a ratio before this thread.

It’s not a predictor of climbing ability though. It’s just a way of conveying how much reach people have. Relevant on reachy moves but ultimately meaningless on its own as the main variable will be height anyway.

To me, Ape Index is a way of offsetting the positive of reach against the usually accompanying negatives of leg length / weight.  A tall person's long reach might not compensate for their extra mass, especially if it is more due to long legs than arms.  Being bunched-up on a lip with knees in face, or having to lean out to accommodate legs, can completely negate absolute, theoretical reach.  There's a reason arboreal apes tend to have long arms, long bodies, and short legs!

Yeah good points. 

It's from 8a.nu data, not UKC data.  I imagine the averages would be somewhat lower if based on UKC.

I see .... it's a brexiteer inch conspiracy avoiding those dirty EU ratios

( I thought you'd like the jokes )

Fascinating data, loved reading it. I found the height data for women baffling (I'm a short woman but still 7cm taller than the optimum height) until I realised I was being very western-centric and had totally forgotten all the Japanese wadettes. It would be good to see this data split out by nationality/region as I wonder if there's a difference in optimum height based on the average for your region.

Interesting stuff about height vs progression - definitely chimes with my experience of starting out. I improved a lot faster than my taller male partners, something I ascribed to not being able to reach past hard moves or having to find alternative sequences at an early stage of my climbing.

The more I climb, the more I come to agree that short climbers overplay the reach card. I think it's just that the disadvantage of not being able to reach a hold is more noticeable than the advantages of strength to weight ratio, short levers, smaller hands etc. Whether you can or can't reach something is so binary compared to the attritional impact of many small disadvantages all the way up a route. That said, I don't know if tall climbers ever really hit stopper moves as a result of their height, in the same way that us whinging dwarves do (albeit much less frequently than logbook comments suggest).

No it's not in absolute terms. It is a measure of reach relative to height (which is why a ratio makes more sense)

No, I think you are missing the point. As I said, nobody would be talking about ape index if it didn't mean something in terms of climbing advantage.

Yes, all true, but I think this may only partially explain the advantage of a large ape index. Even small apes and monkeys are good climbers; scale everything up or down and nobody is disadvantaged by their reach or lack of reach*. The genersl advantage to small people comes from their greater strength to weight ratio (due to the way mass and muscular cross section scale)

I lay awake last night thinking about this and have a theory.........

Absolutely. I should have pointed out that I don't think I have heard women whinging about their height disadvantage - they just get on with it. The whinging dwarves are invariably inadequate little men with some sort of inferiority complex. I've lost count of the times I have been told by them that climbing must be so easy for me with my reach (they fail to notice all the petite women and children burning them off as well).

Yes, tall climbers do reach stopper moves too, though probably less often and they are usually more subtle than when small people simply can't reach a hold with no way round it.

Small fingers compensate for lack of height to an extent, depending on the route and rock type etc. Those who are short but don’t have particularly small fingers are at a disadvantage though. As such, short blokes tend to be a bit stuffed! Then again, plenty of very good male climbers who are relatively short…

Given that it is established that small stature is actually an overall advantage, I wonder whether there is any physiological reason why women should not "compete" on equal terms with men in climbing. The very top female climbers seem to be closing in on the top men in sport grades. Anecdotally there seem to be more young girls than young boys climbing impressively at Ratho, so I wonder whether, with climbing shedding its "male" image (and perhaps even becoming female dominated) there will soon be equal number of top level participants coming through.

Then again, maybe there are physiological reasons to do with musculature that will always, in general, disadvantage women. 

Whinge, whinge, whinge....... 🙂

Well, yes, exactly.

As a vertically challenged person the key thing is that every now and then tall climbers are ideally placed to mock the inability to reach some hold or other and I'm dragged straight back psychologically to the primary school playground ...

Assuming you are not of the whinging type, that does sound pretty unkind.

Yes, they do tend to whinge, unless they are good climbers, in which case they just get on with it and climb way harder than I do. It’s also amusing that some people think that I’m tall for a bloke at 5’1’’. I’d say that’s average these days. I might be wrong but to my mind tall is someone over 6”2’. 

They're having a laugh; 5'1" is small for a woman!

It would be interesting to re-run on UKC I agree.

Unless you're a dwarf who climbs. Then it's not so "Brilliant, Rob!"

I look forward to your hilarious jokes about people in wheelchairs not being able to climb.

Perhaps. Are you speaking personally? In which case it'd be fascinating to get your perspective on Rob's assertion the 90% of the time shorter people have an advantage over tall lanky gits like him. Or are you just outraged on small peoples' behalf?

I'm average height for a man with above average reach so have no personal axe to grind.

I see all my tall lanky pals getting quite a few very friendly ticks on UK low to mid extreme adjectival grades. Adjectival gift horses coming from being short with short arms seem rare to me, maybe Robert can list such routes. This best onsight/lead flattering factor gets buried in averages.

The whinging dwarf concept is an old climber's joke but most short climbers I know just get on with their climbing. Nearly all would appreciate it if, on the rarish occasions where reach is a big issue that it be mentioned by the guidebook editors in the description.

I think we'd need to look at gymnastics - if there was mixed competition in the olympics etc. what would the results look like?  If we look at 10yr olds, there's relatively little difference between the sexes physically, it's only at puberty where the differences in power diverge. So the question is, where are the ultimate advantages? Is light weight and delicate hands more advantageous than power?  Will the way grades are given change as a result of more females in the sport i.e. will routes favouring female climbers become 'easier' in the same way that the thuggy routes of old are a path for strong wall-bred climbers?

" the thuggy routes of old are a path for strong wall-bred climbers?" Not much sign of that on some of the infamous cracks.

I meant 5’11’…

Brilliant! Probably fairly average then.

I presume that he finds my use of the word "dwarf" offensive on the grounds of being disablist.

No I couldn't because they probably don't exist - the big ape index advantage is one, I think, like just being small, which makes things on average a bit easier rather than making some very specific moves a lot easier (the long arms on a small body increase the range of handhold within reach without the disadvantage of also being bigger and heavier}.

But it does come over in the data. Tall people are more likely to have an inflated top grade - I could possibly achieve my more or less abandoned ambition of climbing 8a by going in search of one which had a desperate crux made loads easier with a long reach and which might feel no harder to me than most 7b+'s say. But it would feel a bit hollow think.

Yes, but, by God, the whinging minority do go on and on and on about it.

Great Freudian slip

I've just never heard of this scale of complaint from anyone else, either you are massively exaggerating or you must attract them. 

Don't get that.

Well I have had, in particular, one long term climbing partner whom I had to tolerate for years (he had redeeming features!),and there has been one complete stranger at the wall who used to regularly come up to me and tell me how easy climbing must be for me - deserved a good slap.

Well yes, probably something to do with being 6'5".

Just have to say the only person on here whinging is you. Maybe change your company if short people are bothering you?

Yours,

a 5ft 5 climber who finds some stuff a bit easier and some stuff a bit harder than an average-sized climber (I think this is the very definition of being an outlier)

On the contrary, I'm tentatively daring to hope that the usual whinging dwarfs have finally shut up in the face of the hard data.

As others have said though, they don’t hear many short people complaining. There are some problems that do suit someone with height/ reach and these tend to be very obvious stopper/ morpho moves. Generally though it’s likely that having lower height = generally lower weight = generally an advantage over a sequence. Maybe it’s the moaning giants who are the bitter ones..?

As I'm sure you're aware 'data' =/= 'information' and certainly =/= 'knowledge'.

I'm genuinely don't know what point you are making. I am simply going on the evidence presengted by the OP.

Maybe not, but enough that over the years I have become really pretty fed up with it (or, to be more precise, telling me that it must all be so easy for someone of my height)

Precisely.

Sorry ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIKW_pyramid

In effect you should confuse 'data' (a bunch of numbers) with 'information' which requires analysis, context and interpretation.