|
|
|
|
camhead
Jan 11, 2008, 1:11 AM
Post #1 of 213
(18895 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
so, I was thinking about this the other day at the gym, while I was watching a pretty good climber get shut down on a heel-hook-sloper move.
We all know about how there are moves that shut down short people... we think less about moves that shut down tall people; high steps, hand-foot matches, high heel hooks, etc. And in harder sport climbing, I think it is safe to say that perhaps
Then I looked at the top fifteen male climbers on 8a.nu; the average height of them is 171.9 cm (about 5'7"), which is lower than the average caucasian male height of 5'10"... why is this? I have heard probably a dozen times from friends about meeting a pro climber "whoa, he's so much shorter than I thought he would be."
In hard sort climbing, say 5.13 and up, do physical limitations of flexibility and keeping your body into the wall, which disadvantage taller climbers, outweigh the physical limitations of reach that disadvantage shorter climbers?
I would love to hear from the engineers and statisticians here (yeah, you jt512!)
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Jan 11, 2008, 1:15 AM
Post #2 of 213
(18885 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
Interesting theory... just a small anecdote to add, most pro surfers are like 5'6 to 5'8. I think being smaller might result in better coordination/faster reflexes.
|
|
|
|
|
miavzero
Jan 11, 2008, 1:18 AM
Post #3 of 213
(18877 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 8, 2005
Posts: 624
|
I am guessing that smaller stature (lighter weight) is more imprtant than height. Most elite sport climbers weigh much less than 160 pounds.
|
|
|
|
|
dudemanbu
Jan 11, 2008, 1:19 AM
Post #4 of 213
(18875 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 3, 2005
Posts: 941
|
I think a lot of it has to do with non muscle weight. The taller you are, the more of your body weight is made up of things other than muscle, whether that is fat, bone, skin, or organ tissue. Since muscles are what move us, the greater proportion of your total weight that is muscle, the better able you are to move your body weight.
In addition to this, greater overall weight puts more stress on your ligaments and tendons as you pull harder to support it. That may lead to more injuries, preventing taller climbers from entering the elite ranks.
As a side note- i've never ever seen a tall climber stifled by a high step.. because to them, it's just a regular step.
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Jan 11, 2008, 1:24 AM
Post #5 of 213
(18867 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
yeah, i thought of the overall muscle weight issue...
but, in the gym the other night this tall guy was way strong, thin, but about 6'5"... and this move that the problem required was basically levering him off the wall. Do you think that this, the disadvantages of body position, is significant in top level climbers having lower average height?
|
|
|
|
|
kriso9tails
Jan 11, 2008, 1:29 AM
Post #6 of 213
(18858 views)
Shortcut
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)
|
|
|
|
|
jgivens
Jan 11, 2008, 1:33 AM
Post #7 of 213
(18848 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 10, 2006
Posts: 89
|
I have to chime in on this. I am 6'4, around 180 pounds. Ive been climbing for about 10 years. There are times when it helps to be tall, like for reachy stuff, but sometimes it is a disadvantage. Okay, so I just stated the obvious. I can think of many times when my short, gymnast-built friends crank moves that just put my knees in my face (like most sit starts). So many boulder problems, I look at the starting holds and Im like "you have to be kidding me." Hence why Im not much of a boulderer.
|
|
|
|
|
dudemanbu
Jan 11, 2008, 1:44 AM
Post #8 of 213
(18831 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 3, 2005
Posts: 941
|
camhead wrote: yeah, i thought of the overall muscle weight issue... but, in the gym the other night this tall guy was way strong, thin, but about 6'5"... and this move that the problem required was basically levering him off the wall. Do you think that this, the disadvantages of body position, is significant in top level climbers having lower average height?
The main problems i see physically are moves that require a lot of compression, and having shins too long for knee bars.
The reason that I really think that it's a muscle weight percentage thing is quite simply this-
A very difficult route is a very difficult route. While it is true that someone who is taller may have to use different beta to get through a sequence, it isn't suffice to say that the sequence a taller person is going to use is always going to be harder. This is because there are enough hard routes out there where a tall person can definitely get on something that suits their body type.
I really think it comes down to non muscle weight.
|
|
|
|
|
gobennyjo
Jan 11, 2008, 2:11 AM
Post #10 of 213
(18777 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2007
Posts: 177
|
I have the same problem on sit start boulder problems; I am 6'5". I don't ever call it a disability because I can't stand when people say, "If I was as tall as you I could do that".
|
|
|
|
|
hopperhopper
Jan 11, 2008, 2:12 AM
Post #11 of 213
(18774 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 29, 2007
Posts: 475
|
i think it goes both ways...probably the more common scenario being a shorter climber has problems.
if a tall climber has trouble sticking something low or "too close" to the middle of his body (pushes his center of gravity out), the chances of him looking higher for something else/the next move are much higher than someone who can't reach the next move finding something substantial on the way to it.
P.S. sharma is 6'.
sorry, someone had to say it 
|
|
|
|
|
microbarn
Jan 11, 2008, 2:12 AM
Post #12 of 213
(18774 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920
|
I know you said caucasian males are 5'10" average, but 8a.nu is not just caucasian. I thought I heard the average height overall for males was 5'8"
so that is a pretty negligible difference in my mind.
|
|
|
|
|
gobennyjo
Jan 11, 2008, 2:13 AM
Post #13 of 213
(18770 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2007
Posts: 177
|
Ohh hey not to hijack the thread but I do have one question. Does anyone know any really tall climbers? Like 6'8"+ish. Many of my family members are in that range.
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Jan 11, 2008, 2:21 AM
Post #14 of 213
(18751 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
microbarn wrote: I know you said caucasian males are 5'10" average, but 8a.nu is not just caucasian. I thought I heard the average height overall for males was 5'8" so that is a pretty negligible difference in my mind.
yeah, I just googled average height of caucasian males, and came up with 5'10", which seemed a bit high.
All of the top 15 8a.nu guys are caucasian, though.
|
|
|
|
|
phillygoat
Jan 11, 2008, 2:40 AM
Post #15 of 213
(18730 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 22, 2004
Posts: 428
|
climbsomething wrote: camhead wrote: I would love to hear from the engineers and statisticians here (yeah, you jt512!) Who is 5'6. 
Ahhh, it all makes sense now! 
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jan 11, 2008, 3:14 AM
Post #16 of 213
(18695 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
camhead wrote: so, I was thinking about this the other day at the gym, while I was watching a pretty good climber get shut down on a heel-hook-sloper move. We all know about how there are moves that shut down short people... we think less about moves that shut down tall people; high steps, hand-foot matches, high heel hooks, etc. And in harder sport climbing, I think it is safe to say that perhaps Then I looked at the top fifteen male climbers on 8a.nu; the average height of them is 171.9 cm (about 5'7"), which is lower than the average caucasian male height of 5'10"... why is this? I have heard probably a dozen times from friends about meeting a pro climber "whoa, he's so much shorter than I thought he would be." In hard sort climbing, say 5.13 and up, do physical limitations of flexibility and keeping your body into the wall, which disadvantage taller climbers, outweigh the physical limitations of reach that disadvantage shorter climbers? I would love to hear from the engineers and statisticians here (yeah, you jt512!)
Well, statistically, your results from a sample of only 15 climbers might not be significant. Data from the CDC for US males aged 20-29 -- not the best reference population in this case, but data that I can get my hands on quickly -- shows a mean height of 176 cm and a standard deviation of 11 cm. A quick 1-sample Z-test of your sample mean of 171.9 cm gives a 2-tailed p-value of 0.15. So, using this questionable reference population, the result is not significant. That said, I think that on overhanging routes, the shorter you are the less torque there would be on your hands, which would make staying on the rock easier. Of course there are other factors that come into play. For instance, a taller person can reach more handholds from his footholds. On the other hand, if the only next footholds are near the current handholds, the shorter person will tend to find it easier to use them.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Jan 12, 2008, 2:31 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
coastal_climber
Jan 11, 2008, 4:19 AM
Post #17 of 213
(18637 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 17, 2006
Posts: 2542
|
I'm 6'3 and I find most types of climbing easier due to my height advantage. Bouldering not so much.
>Cam
|
|
|
|
|
miavzero
Jan 11, 2008, 4:34 AM
Post #19 of 213
(18619 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 8, 2005
Posts: 624
|
Scott Blunk and Jim Holloway
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Jan 11, 2008, 4:44 AM
Post #20 of 213
(18599 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
the tallest climber I can think of off the top of my head is Dean Potter, who is 6'5" or so (not sure exactly, but the dude is TALL).
And, surprise, he is best known for a climbing style (cracks) that avoids many of the problems of short vs. tall.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jan 11, 2008, 4:46 AM
Post #21 of 213
(18596 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
camhead wrote: yeah, i thought of the overall muscle weight issue... but, in the gym the other night this tall guy was way strong, thin, but about 6'5"... and this move that the problem required was basically levering him off the wall. Do you think that this, the disadvantages of body position, is significant in top level climbers having lower average height?
Yes. Shorter, lighter climbers have better mechanical advantage. Take a look at how tall most male Olympic gymnasts are.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
carabiner96
Jan 11, 2008, 4:46 AM
Post #22 of 213
(18594 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2006
Posts: 12610
|
I guess it all depends on where you draw the line of short, normal, and tall.
I'm 5'6" and consider myself short. My bf is 6'4" and he's tall.
|
|
|
|
|
carabiner96
Jan 11, 2008, 4:47 AM
Post #23 of 213
(18591 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2006
Posts: 12610
|
curt wrote: camhead wrote: yeah, i thought of the overall muscle weight issue... but, in the gym the other night this tall guy was way strong, thin, but about 6'5"... and this move that the problem required was basically levering him off the wall. Do you think that this, the disadvantages of body position, is significant in top level climbers having lower average height? Yes. Shorter, lighter climbers have better mechanical advantage. Take a look at how tall most male Olympic gymnasts are. Curt
It's the ROIDS, bro!
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Jan 11, 2008, 4:53 AM
Post #24 of 213
(18585 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
graham, sharma and like Paul Robinson all have a decent ape index too.. though dave and paul are skinny and are more techy.. sharma is heavier and burls through shit. Kehl isnt a very big guy either
it's good both gymnasts put in their vote ;) (and i agree)
i could see really tall guys having issues with footwork.. thats alot of foot to deal with and a long lever to put your body weight on the end of
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
Jan 11, 2008, 4:56 AM
Post #25 of 213
(18576 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
The relationship between increasing height and increasing weight is not linear; I don't know off hand what the relationship is, but the increase in weight keeps increasing with increase in height. For example, the first inch you put on may incur a 5 lb. increase, but the second inch incurs a weight increase greater than 5 lbs.
So probably as you get taller it works against you.
Curiously, I also noted that those people who usually win the Best Ranger competition are usually around 5'9', and relatively lean.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
