|
|
Forums:
Climbing Information:
General:
Re: [camhead] Height: Are tall climbers actually more disadvantaged?:
Edit Log
|
|
kriso9tails
Jan 11, 2008, 1:29 AM
Views: 18869
Registered: Jul 1, 2001
Posts: 7772
|
I have a hard time saying it's a disadvantage, but I think it's generally easier for someone 5'7 to compensate for a lack of reach in general than it is for someone 6'+ to compress into shorter moves. That said, someone taller (and heavier) trains in that body and will adopt a climbing style suited to it (or fail) much the same as someone shorter does. Sometimes people make a comment about my height advantage, which is cool by me until they insinuate that if they had my reach they could do it too. In most cases this simply isn't true; if they suddenly had my height they'd probably climb a grade or two lower because they wouldn't know how to work my body (and i burned the owner's manual).
I'm not super tall, but even at 6'2 I'd gladly drop an inch or two for climbing, so long as I didn't have to lose anything off my arms to match (I don't care if it'd give me gorilla arms).
In terms of movement advantages, I think at either extreme it's going to be tough on you, but in general, people need to find their own method of pulling a given move that's suited to their body. I used to climb with two other people that had very different body types from me and from each other as well. We were all climbing at a similar level and were all also progressing and would generally send problems in a similar number of attempts, often with three different sets of beta.
In terms of the strongest climbers I met, it seems most were in that 5'8 - 6' range, but I've always been horrible at gauging height. It may just be that 5'7 is closer to the average height of male climbers in general.
(This post was edited by kriso9tails on Jan 11, 2008, 1:40 AM)
|
|
|
Edit Log:
|
|
Post edited by kriso9tails
() on Jan 11, 2008, 1:36 AM
|
|
Post edited by kriso9tails
() on Jan 11, 2008, 1:40 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
