|
|
|
|
clausti
Jan 11, 2008, 4:58 AM
Post #26 of 213
(22110 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2004
Posts: 5690
|
my two cents on this argument (disclaimer: total opinions add up to more than .02) :
There are not very many *really* tall climbers because there are not very many really tall *people.*
If the question is "do persons with a height of greater than two standard deviations above average have more disadavntages than persons greater than two standard deviations below average" i would tenatively hypothesize yes? because at that point you are talking about freakishly tall, but I do NOT think it is an increasing degree of impediment correlated with increasing height.
I think two very important confounding variables here are weight and flexibility. MOST of the problems "tall" (6'+) climbers encounter are not, really, height problems. I pull moves with my knees at my face all the time. They are flexibility problems, because the tall ppl dont know how to put their knees in their face without falling off. Also, doesnt strength to weight ratio generally decrease with increasing height? that sounds like a problem to me. Danny Dancer that is 5'8 or 9 and weighs 140 has a hell of an easier time than a Joe Football that is 5'8 or 9 and wieghs 180. and which one of those is the important variable? Hint: not height.
Not a lot of routes outside are actually height dependent in any way, though bolt-clipping sometimes is. :)
I find gym climbing and bouldering to be more height dependent against short people, sit-starts not withstanding.
|
|
|
|
|
carabiner96
Jan 11, 2008, 5:00 AM
Post #27 of 213
(22108 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2006
Posts: 12610
|
Can't you two just....you know....talk? ;)
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Jan 11, 2008, 5:07 AM
Post #28 of 213
(22105 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
I'm not convinced it is a real effect. That is, it seems that taller climbers are less flexible or have an inconvenient centers of gravity, but what's actually at work is that taller climbers are used to skipping holds and reaching farther and so forth. So when presented with a situation that requires them to reach less and stay closer in, they're not well prepared for it because it is a technique they simply don't practice much.
I'm 6'1", and I refuse to believe that the thing stopping me is simply an inconvenient corporeal geometry. I've only met one problem that was actually more difficult due to my stature, and it was because keeping my ass off the ground forced me into a position that really interfered with my ability to reach the good jams. If Nats roof crack at Vedauwoo was farther off the ground, it would be noticeably easier for me, but wouldn't change in difficulty at all for my shorter friends.
|
|
|
|
|
clausti
Jan 11, 2008, 5:08 AM
Post #29 of 213
(22103 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2004
Posts: 5690
|
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
gymnasts are not a completely analogous situation, in no negligible part because the intensity of their training is part of the *cause* of them being short, not necc correlary.
also the forces involved in flipping onceself around are not *exactly* the same as hanging off of one's fingertips.
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Jan 11, 2008, 5:23 AM
Post #30 of 213
(22094 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
It has a lot to do with mechanical advantage. Look at all the top weight lifters. None of them have long arms, the further away from you the weight your trying to move, the more work it takes. Try doing a curl with your elbows flush with your back. Now take the same weight and do the curl with your elbows flush with your stomach. The further out your elbows are, the more force required. Same in reverse for climbing, the shorter your arms, the less work at moving your weight.
|
|
|
|
|
swede
Jan 11, 2008, 11:54 AM
Post #31 of 213
(22022 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 1, 2003
Posts: 133
|
I am short and a friend of mine is long (6´5"). I think we pretty much has agreed that height advantage/disadvantage firstly depends on the route.
But generally it is easier for a long person to do easy routes and for a short person to do difficult routes. The mechanics of overhangs are one factor. The other factor being that on easy routes the crux often are shorter (one grip/move) - the next grip is much better and reachable for the long person. On harder routes you often have to do several moves until you arrives at a better grip (simply too long too reach even for a long person).
|
|
|
|
|
munky
Jan 11, 2008, 12:10 PM
Post #32 of 213
(22020 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 26, 2006
Posts: 358
|
Dean Potter 6'5"
Jim Holloway 6'4"
John Dunne 6' 218 lbs
Chris Sharma 6'
Nate Gold 6'3"
Tim Kemple 6'
Tommy Caldwell 5'10"
Alex Huber 5'9"
Dave Graham 5'9"
Ethan Pringle 5' 11"
Paul Robinson 5'10"
Daniel Woods 5'7"
Kevin Jorgenson 5'7"
Joe Kinder 5'9"
Lynn Hill 5' 1"
Katie Brown 5' 2"
Jason Kehl 5' 7"
Fred Nicole 5'11" 180lbs
blah, blah, blah....
All have climbed 5.14 and V10.
Weight and height will be limitations when you let it be that. If you accept your size, not use it as an excuse and try as hard as possible everytime you climb; then you will learn technique, consistently get stronger through the years, and realize that the only disadvantage in rock climbing is NOT BELIEVING IN YOURSELF.
(This post was edited by munky on Jan 11, 2008, 5:49 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
themadmilkman
Jan 11, 2008, 2:04 PM
Post #33 of 213
(21983 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2006
Posts: 510
|
This whole argument started because a tall climber kept failing on a contrived gym move. Yes, this happens. But since you're height is one of the few things that you can't change, learn to deal with it. I'm 6'5", I know full well that I can't do the exact same moves that shorter climbers can. I just find different ways to do it.
A guy I used to climb with (he was roughly 5'5") would constantly tell me that there was no thing as a reach move, just strength moves. I'd simply respond that there were no strength moves, just reaches.
(This post was edited by themadmilkman on Jan 11, 2008, 3:16 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
colatownkid
Jan 11, 2008, 2:19 PM
Post #34 of 213
(21977 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2007
Posts: 512
|
In reply to: ...the only disadvantage in rock climbing is NOT BELIEVING IN YOURSELF.
i agree entirely. my group of climbing partners is a little eclectic; i'll compare myself (6'3 170lb) with a partner who is 5'3 140lb. basically, the comparison is that we climb the same stuff. anything i've ever led, including overhanging 5.12, he can and has followed. i can think of one particular 5.11 that i found to be fairly easy because of my height that took a little more work for him, but he still got up it. by the same token, he can pull some very "compressed" moves that pretty much dick me over completely.
in other words, your stature is what you make it. i tend to reach and crank; my partner tends to create a hold out of nothing wherever he needs one. to be honest, i would love to be able to take a bump the size of a dime and turn it into a bomber handhold like he does. we both climb with a style that suits us best.
(plus, when people tell me i'm only good because of my height, i enjoy mentioning my friend who's a foot shorter.)
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Jan 11, 2008, 2:50 PM
Post #35 of 213
(21954 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
I think a better question is, are there more "tall" routes, or more "short" routes? But even then, it seems to make sense to qualify the answer with rock type and difficulty range. For example, rather than stating, "Tall climbers have an advantage," you have to narrow the field drastically. "Tall climbers have an overall advantage on 5.11 and higher face climbs at the New," is a more accurate -- and valuable -- conclusion.
Unfortunately, I base it on far fewer years of experience than jgill. 
|
|
|
|
|
aBrokedwnMelody
Jan 11, 2008, 3:08 PM
Post #36 of 213
(21939 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 11, 2008
Posts: 6
|
I'm 6'4" and it's true some moves get the best of me, but alot of times i can make long reaches to grabs which my friends have to dyno to
|
|
|
|
|
norsk
Jan 11, 2008, 3:16 PM
Post #37 of 213
(21927 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 25, 2005
Posts: 33
|
munky wrote: Dean Potter 6'5" ... Weight and height will be limitations when you let it be that. If you accept your size, not use it as an excuse and try as hard as possible everytime you climb. Learn technique, consistently get stronger through the years, vary the type of rock and style, you will realize that the only disadvantage in rock climbing is NOT BELIEVING IN YOURSELF.
I will only speak from my experience. I am 6'3, 200 lbs., and very fit. I have probably 10 lbs of 'extra' muscle weight; the least I have weighed in the last 10 years is 190+/-. I can say that absolutely my height has been a factor many times in my climbing. Some times it is an advantage, but just about an equal number of times it is a disadvantage. It is a disadvantage in the sense that there are many moves that seem much harder for me than similarly skilled/experinced but shorter climbers. On the other hand, it is rare that the disadvantage means the difference between making the move or not. But, it has happened. Imagine an overhanging route with a move consisting of two crimps about head level and then a really high step. If I do the high step, now I am really scrunched up- my butt is really hanging out in space even if I flag my other leg under. So now my mass is pulling me off the wall much more so than a shorter person's would be. Moreover, it is pretty hard to move out a such a srunched up position.
I also think heigth matters in the weight/strength ratio. For example, I can climb harder grades than some of my smaller and lighter friends (say, .12 versus .10), but they can easily campus (on the Metolius rungs) where I can barely hang onto them. I simply don't have the strength to hold my body weight by my finger tips. And remember that I am not in any way out of shape or fat. I am simply dragging a lot more weight due to my larger body size.
So, overall I say that hieght can be a disadvantage because 1) you can get really scrunched up, and 2) worse weight/strength ratio. Accordingly, there are some (but not all) moves that I simply can't "believe" myself through.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jan 11, 2008, 3:47 PM
Post #38 of 213
(21914 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
When I was in HS, on the wrestling team, there was a strategy we all used. Because you wrestled based on your weight category - everyone artificially dropped weight right before the matches, so as to wrestle in a lower weight category.
You might think this would put you at a disadvantage, because you'd be weak from dehydration and lack of food. Well you'd be right! So why do it? Look at it this way - if I normally weighed 125, and didn't drop to 112 before a match, I'd be at full strength. But I'd be wresting someone at 125 who's got the size and musculature 140 lbs. Even in their weakened state, they'd most likely kick my ass. So even though the overall level of competition suffered, everyone had to keep doing it.
So what's this got to do with climbing and height? In wrestling, it's your strength compared to the other guy's strength, at a given weight, that (in addition to technique and drive) is the determining factor. But in climbing, it's only strength to weight for yourself, for your given body, and everyone knows that favors the smaller person. At least to the degree that they're tall enough to reach usable holds.
Well here's the thing - I'm pretty short - at between 5'6" and 5'7" and the more muscle mass I put on, the harder I climb. I'm not exactly a beefcake, but at 140 lbs, I weigh the same amount as a lot of much taller climbers I know. But because I'm shorter - a lot more of that mass is useful - muscle.
Taller climbers are at a major disadvantage if they're not very lean. But by being lean, they're sacrificing power.
So it may well be that for the human build (which is somewhat different for males and females) there is an optimal tradeoff between the advantage in being able to access more holds (which favors height) and strength/weight ratio (which favors the short).
And of course, as j_ung says, it may be possible to further qualify that by type of climbing (crack versus face, overhanging vs slab, etc), and maybe even to areas (the Creek versus the Gunks).
GO
|
|
|
|
|
cameltoe
Jan 11, 2008, 4:12 PM
Post #39 of 213
(21906 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 13, 2006
Posts: 79
|
as a tall high ape-indexed individaual I find yes i can reach things others can't and it's an advantage..
I find also that my long arms create big levers that mean some moves are harder (more weight on levers someone mentioned the physics)
So as someone else mentioned, deal with the differences, each body type has it's advantage, frankly just climb with your body and get a grip...
My only gripe - short people telling em I have the advantage.... damnit all so do you .... stop bitchin and get climbin...
(p.s. my short-@$$ climbing partner climbs way harder than me, not cause he's short and advantaged, but cause he's just better than me.. barsta@ff....)
|
|
|
|
|
chouca
Jan 11, 2008, 4:48 PM
Post #40 of 213
(21882 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 12, 2003
Posts: 149
|
Taller climbers ARE at a disadvantage on some climbs. Climbing is a gymnastic sport, and it does favor people with a flexible, gymnast physique minus the bulky muscle mass. It has as more to do with a persons center of gravity than their weight. You rarely see Olympic male gymnasts over 6'. I doubt you would even if they designed bigger pommel horses.
One thing that is overlooked is that most of the free climbs were established by climbers who were the average height of their era. That can put tall climbers at a disadvantage. The moves on a given face climb are not going to be the same for a 5'8" climber and his 6'3" partner.
I suspect some of the existing hard aid routes will be freed by good tall climbers who can reach the holds guys my height can't reach. Tall guys could also put up hard reach/dyno fests for the rest of us if they were so inclined.
|
|
|
|
|
clausti
Jan 11, 2008, 4:50 PM
Post #41 of 213
(21877 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2004
Posts: 5690
|
norsk wrote: On the other hand, it is rare that the disadvantage means the difference between making the move or not. But, it has happened. Imagine an overhanging route with a move consisting of two crimps about head level and then a really high step. If I do the high step, now I am really scrunched up- my butt is really hanging out in space even if I flag my other leg under. So now my mass is pulling me off the wall much more so than a shorter person's would be.
What I find incredible is how people consistently cite that as a disadvantage of being tall. Do you really think that that is not a move that short people have to do all the time? it is a skill short people developed to compensate for feet not being everywhere we want it. Tall ppl usually dont have to do it, so when they do they're shocked. But by no means is that an awkward position for just tall ppl. Foot at your butt is awkward for everyone, but tall ppl who arent flexible fall off then go "man this is too hard for tall people!"
that is definitely more a case of lacking the skill to do a particular move, not a height disadvantage.
I think bouldering is slightly less friendly to short people, overall, simply because there is less canvas to work with. On a longer route, you have things you can try, other moves you can do, but when the problem only has four holds- well it becomes more like gym climbing, where you are limited by your feet, and reach counts for more.
Other than the actual action of clipping a bolt, which favors the tall, I think everything pretty much evens out on route climbing.
|
|
|
|
|
norsk
Jan 11, 2008, 5:22 PM
Post #42 of 213
(21848 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 25, 2005
Posts: 33
|
clausti wrote: norsk wrote: On the other hand, it is rare that the disadvantage means the difference between making the move or not. But, it has happened. Imagine an overhanging route with a move consisting of two crimps about head level and then a really high step. If I do the high step, now I am really scrunched up- my butt is really hanging out in space even if I flag my other leg under. So now my mass is pulling me off the wall much more so than a shorter person's would be. What I find incredible is how people consistently cite that as a disadvantage of being tall. Do you really think that that is not a move that short people have to do all the time? it is a skill short people developed to compensate for feet not being everywhere we want it. Tall ppl usually dont have to do it, so when they do they're shocked. But by no means is that an awkward position for just tall ppl. Foot at your butt is awkward for everyone, but tall ppl who arent flexible fall off then go "man this is too hard for tall people!" that is definitely more a case of lacking the skill to do a particular move, not a height disadvantage.
clausti... I think you make some good points in response to my post, but let me add a couple clarifications.
First, I tried to stress that only *rarely* have I felt that my height 'shut me down' on a move (i.e. I simply couldn't do it); most times I have felt the move may be harder for me, but I have been able to deal with it. And I know of course that other moves may be harder for shorter climbers, like dynos.
More importantly though, while I agree that shorter people can get scrunched up too, it seems reasonable to say that 1) this happens to taller climbers more often, and 2) when it does happen it is more problematic. Consider two climbers, one tall and one short. Imagine that they were climbing identical routes, each having a high step move resulting in a 'scrunch' position. Further imagine that there is no other move possible; the climbers must use the exact same technique, a high step. It is fair to say that although both climbers will be scrunched, the taller one will be more scrunched. Because of what happens during a scruch move, the taller climber's body will be further away from the wall, resulting in the need to use more body tension and grip strength to stay on the wall. Now, also consider that even if the climbers have the exact same type of build and bodyfat percentage, the taller climber will weigh significantly more simply because there is more bone, skin, and so on. Therefore, the taller climber has to use more tension and strength than the shorter climber, making the move more difficult for him/her. This, to me, is the definition of a disadvantage- unequal effort required to make the exact same move.
So, yes I agree that more times than not making a move depends on figuring out how to do it, and I will even say that perhaps taller climbers can often get away with having poorer technique (because they can reach through sections, etc.). But, there are certain moves where the taller climber is disadvantaged; this is not an excuse for "lacking the skill to do a move." Regardless of the skill level, certain moves are simply harder for taller climbers.
|
|
|
|
|
crankingclimber
Jan 11, 2008, 5:58 PM
Post #43 of 213
(21826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2002
Posts: 237
|
From my point of view it's mostly common sense:
The harder climbs get, the smaller the holds, and the longer the section of rock with these smaller holds.
If you're taller, you probably weigh more. Often you'll be able to reach past cruxes or thin moves, but eventually, inevitably, you're going to have to make moves holding onto the same holds as a guy who's 5 foot 7 and weighs 50 pounds less. At that point it is a disadvantage: to climb as hard as the smaller guy, you just plain have to be stronger. Simple.
As for advantage/disadvantage on compression or reach moves: yeah, sometimes compression moves will spit you off, and sometimes it's a huge advantage to reach through a crux - ultimately though, it's weight, cause sooner or later, everybody is hanging onto the same holds.
Will
PS I'm 6 foot 4, and weigh around 200 pounds, depending on what activities I've been up to - I wouldn't trade an inch or a pound (ok maybe some pounds) because is sure as hell is fun to climb this way:) Oh and also, just cause you weigh a lot, doesn';t mean you can't get strong enough to keep up - Klem Loskot was (I think) 6 foot 4, 200 poundsish, and climbed V14 - ultimately, you just need to get stronger and don't let go:)
|
|
|
|
|
clausti
Jan 11, 2008, 6:01 PM
Post #44 of 213
(21819 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2004
Posts: 5690
|
what I am saying is that yes, on the absolute height of a highstep, a taller climber has a harder time, however, short climbers do *proportionally equivalent* highsteps really often, simply because they are stepping on things the tall people didnt consider as holds.
shorter climbers highstep more often, because it is the only way to reach the next holds.
hence my lack of sympathy for the few times that a highstep is the only way for a tall climber, too.
remember- i think that overall, it equals out.
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Jan 11, 2008, 6:06 PM
Post #45 of 213
(21814 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
I've read some strange and wacky assumptions about physiological traits on here...
clausti wrote: gymnasts are not a completely analogous situation, in no negligible part because the intensity of their training is part of the *cause* of them being short, not necc correlary.
I don't know where you came up with this. Meta-analyses reveal no cause-effect relationship between gymnastics training and inadequate growth, even in elite gymnasts.
moose_droppings wrote: It has a lot to do with mechanical advantage. Look at all the top weight lifters. None of them have long arms, the further away from you the weight your trying to move, the more work it takes.
This is exactly correct. People who are taller and longer limbed have longer moment arms through those limbs, which reduces their mechanical leverage. It also increases their physical work in certain movements since physics defines work as Force x Distance.
A basketball player I trained once asked me why he could never bench as much as the shorter dudes. I told him he was actually doing more work in each portion of the lift due to the fact that he had that much farther to lower and lift the resistance than they did, not to mention his leverage was reduced due to the length of his arms. Elite power lifters nearly always have the proportions of a mechanically advantageous body type.
Also, there is no correlation between height and flexibility. Not exactly sure where some comments about tall people possibly being less flexible than short people came from. Height has nothing to do with flexibility whatsoever.
BTW, I'm not crying for tall people here. I do think they often have reach advantages that reduce their effort expenditure by eliminating intermediate moves. I also find routes bolted by tall people give other tall people advantages when leading since the bolts were placed for clipping stances that are often best suited for similarly-sized climbers.
Additionally in trad, I've done three routes that contained a scary step-across which clearly would be effortfully easier for a taller, longer-legged person.
|
|
|
|
|
pylonhead
Jan 11, 2008, 6:08 PM
Post #46 of 213
(21812 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2004
Posts: 283
|
clausti wrote: I find gym climbing and bouldering to be more height dependent against short people, sit-starts not withstanding.
My height deprived partner solidly agrees with this. She kicks ass outside where it matters, but on gym problems that are set with particular moves in mind (often by a person many inches taller than her) she gets really frustrated.
|
|
|
|
|
rckclimber380
Jan 11, 2008, 6:10 PM
Post #48 of 213
(21809 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 13, 2007
Posts: 7
|
its really a toss of a coin i think i am 5 foot 7 and i boulder around a v7 but i have friends way taller than me who can flash v9s and some of them suck so it really just depends
|
|
|
|
|
clausti
Jan 11, 2008, 7:14 PM
Post #49 of 213
(21756 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2004
Posts: 5690
|
aerili wrote: I've read some strange and wacky assumptions about physiological traits on here... clausti wrote: gymnasts are not a completely analogous situation, in no negligible part because the intensity of their training is part of the *cause* of them being short, not necc correlary. I don't know where you came up with this. Meta-analyses reveal no cause-effect relationship between gymnastics training and inadequate growth, even in elite gymnasts.
i'd actually be really interested in reading those studies- Everything I've been told (not studies just coaches) says that intense training, which elite gymnastics is, will delay puberty and stunt your growth.
In reply to: Also, there is no correlation between height and flexibility. Not exactly sure where some comments about tall people possibly being less flexible than short people came from. Height has nothing to do with flexibility whatsoever.
didnt say that. said that difficulty high stepping is a flexibility problem and not a height problem. there are def tall people with plenty of skills that highstep well. those that don't and blame it on their height are missing the point. [though, yes, there is a difference between difficulty "highstepping" and difficulty "with the highstep from hold x to hold y on route z at location x" ]
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Jan 11, 2008, 7:15 PM
Post #50 of 213
(21756 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
caughtinside wrote: I think being smaller might result in better coordination/faster reflexes.
Oh, yeah... As for this:
Among factors that influence reflexes (i.e. reaction time), size is not one of them, but does include arousal (not the erotic kind; think of it as being "warmed up" and mentally focused enough to perform optimally), age, gender, fatigue, practice, distraction, illness, dominant side used, and direct and peripheral visual cues, among other things.
Coordination, OTOH, has a lot to do with skill acquisition methods, age of skill acquisition, and amount of practice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
