|
da5id
Mar 12, 2003, 9:55 PM
Post #1 of 41
(3968 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 28, 2003
Posts: 155
|
I'm pretty tall, about 6'3", and I've always kinda wondered how much of a difference it makes in climbing. I'm able to make further reaches than some of my partners on gym holds, but outside its a different story. I've gotten the "that's easy for you cause your tall" thing a few times and I don't know how full of it that is or what.
|
|
|
|
|
jerrygarcia
Mar 12, 2003, 9:58 PM
Post #2 of 41
(3968 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 837
|
For sport climbing it can be. Smaller people are at more of a risk because of distance to the bolts. On the othe rhand my girlfriend who is at least a foot shorter than me can make some moves easier than I can. It all depends on the climb.
|
|
|
|
|
drkodos
Mar 12, 2003, 9:58 PM
Post #3 of 41
(3968 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 21, 2002
Posts: 2935
|
depends on the route.....and the moves...
I think the overall picture is that when something tends to be considered "height dependent" being tall is helpful more often than not.
personally, it's my fav stock excuse for failure.... 8)
|
|
|
|
|
climblouisiana
Mar 12, 2003, 10:15 PM
Post #4 of 41
(3968 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 3, 2002
Posts: 506
|
For really scrunchy sit starts, tall climbers don't have an advantage.
|
|
|
|
|
wigglestick
Mar 12, 2003, 10:20 PM
Post #5 of 41
(3968 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 1235
|
I have studied this extensivly and here are my findings. :wink: People 6'0" and over have an advantage on exactly 51.8% of the routes. People under 6'0" tall have an advantage on 47.4% of the routes. So clearly there is an advantage but it is not as great as you might think.
|
|
|
|
|
climblouisiana
Mar 12, 2003, 10:24 PM
Post #6 of 41
(3968 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 3, 2002
Posts: 506
|
What about the other 0.8%?
|
|
|
|
|
bentsid
Mar 12, 2003, 10:32 PM
Post #7 of 41
(3968 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 11, 2003
Posts: 82
|
Jumped on a 5.9 at the gym, got three moves up, and found I couldn't reach anything! Not even a bucket to hold to smear and dyno. Got back down and read the name of the route..... "Grow, Already"
|
|
|
|
|
wigglestick
Mar 12, 2003, 10:35 PM
Post #8 of 41
(3968 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 1235
|
People who are 5'9" and have a +9 ape index and are freakishly strong have an advantage on the other 0.8%.
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Mar 12, 2003, 10:45 PM
Post #9 of 41
(3968 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
Yes.
So do little climbers.
|
|
|
|
|
da5id
Mar 12, 2003, 10:53 PM
Post #10 of 41
(3968 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 28, 2003
Posts: 155
|
Cool, thats about what I thought. I've done some climbs where it definitely didn't help to be tall. One, called Rankin's Roof, has a small shelf 3 or 4 feet under a big roof. You need to get to the side of the roof to make it up though. My friend's were all mantling up onto the shelft, where they could stand doubled over, and traversing past the roof. I got up there and couldn't remotely get on the shelf! It made it a bunch harder.
|
|
|
|
|
whitefingers
Mar 12, 2003, 11:47 PM
Post #11 of 41
(3968 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 12, 2003
Posts: 124
|
IMHO reach is one aspect but have you ever noticed how guys with stubby arms can bench a ton of weight and guys with a huge wingspan have a tough time getting the bar up? Its called leverage and it works against long arms, and maybe even to a greater extent, long fingers. I have climbing partners much shorter than me (6' 3") who can really pull on two finger crimpers, when I try the same hold I blow my hand out. Just thought I would share my height biased opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
phoenix
Mar 12, 2003, 11:55 PM
Post #12 of 41
(3968 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 19, 2003
Posts: 23
|
I'm a small male climber; approximately 5 feet tall/110lb's...and have climbed up to 13a. I would agree that the majority of sport climbs are easier for those tall in stature. Crack climbing on the other hand seems to bring a balance to the force...then it pretty much comes down to finger/hand/foot size. I remember redpointing the alien roof 5.12 in the valley only to be shut down by a 5.10 reachy face move at the top. Guess we all have limitations...
|
|
|
|
|
easysteve
Mar 13, 2003, 12:56 AM
Post #13 of 41
(3968 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2002
Posts: 424
|
Yea, I'd say I have an advantage.
|
|
|
|
|
drector
Mar 13, 2003, 1:07 AM
Post #14 of 41
(3968 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 1037
|
Yes. I too have the advantage of height.
|
|
|
|
|
coldclimb
Mar 13, 2003, 1:24 AM
Post #15 of 41
(3968 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 6909
|
I see height as an advantage, and if you work at it enough, the leverage problem diminishes to nothing. I love being able to skip past the cruxes my friends have difficulty with.
|
|
|
|
|
da5id
Mar 13, 2003, 1:44 AM
Post #16 of 41
(3968 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 28, 2003
Posts: 155
|
yeah some of my friends get annoyed when i just skip right over cruxes that they have problems with without even realizing it
|
|
|
|
|
thegodfather
Mar 13, 2003, 1:45 AM
Post #17 of 41
(3968 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 200
|
look at guys like dean potter and jon staats, they're both 6'5, and can climb pretty much anything. sit starts dont bother me, either.
|
|
|
|
|
xanx
Mar 13, 2003, 2:00 AM
Post #18 of 41
(3968 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 6, 2002
Posts: 1002
|
two words: APE INDEX
|
|
|
|
|
john1987
Mar 13, 2003, 2:07 AM
Post #19 of 41
(3968 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2002
Posts: 613
|
I think it would be best to be like 4' 3" and have like and 8ft. wingspan 8)
|
|
|
|
|
kansasclimber
Mar 13, 2003, 2:28 AM
Post #20 of 41
(3968 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 21, 2002
Posts: 541
|
I am Also 6 3' and i know EXACTLY where you are coming from, at my gym, i can only climb 11's becasue i am tall. It sucks!!! I love being tall, but i think that maybe im not that good at climbing, maybe i am just tall. But the way i see it its a god goven gift so o well keep climbing. And when you start to get in the hard ratings, its alllllll about stregth, not length. I dont care how tall you are, To hit little crimpers you have to have abilities do do that type of climb. SO JUST KEEP CLIMBING!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
arostecrux
Mar 13, 2003, 2:36 AM
Post #21 of 41
(3968 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 8, 2002
Posts: 158
|
Its all relative. At the lower levels of climbing, the difference is hard to see. Yet as the grade increases, and move sequences become more defined and hard, height becomes an issue, sort of. Like the sequence could be spaced so that a tall person will have to hang in a more bent, bunched up position that will pump them out faster. This happens to me often (I'm 6'3") on harder boulder problems. Mostly, the problems that are overhanging, to completely vertical, that have few holds and tight spacing, give me the most trouble. What feels like a v6 to someone 5'7" feels like a v8 to me. I think its hardest to be tall when the holds require one to bunch up the body and make powerful moves from the wierd positions.
The best problems are the ones that are spread out (obviously) and/or have a large feature like an arete that will allow me to use many different holds spaced apart. Like I can slap wherever its comfortable, I get away from being bunched, and losing power.
Routes, on the other, the advantage is most often with tall persons, yet, as routes become harder and cruxes stiffer, again it goes back to whether the sequence requires me to bunch or not. My favorites are stiff, thin face climbing where my gogo gadget arms can make the long moves less strenous. But again all relative, just like ratings.
|
|
|
|
|
mr_phelps
Mar 14, 2003, 3:25 AM
Post #22 of 41
(3968 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2002
Posts: 112
|
I don't think height really matters all that much. How many times have you been struggling up a climb outside, just to see a spider walking right up the damn wall. I can't help but think, go to hell you stupid arachnid!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
tori
Mar 14, 2003, 6:48 AM
Post #23 of 41
(3968 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 23, 2003
Posts: 141
|
i'm 6'4" and it is nice to reach things my friends can't, but it is harder to get a ripped strength to weight ratio. i would have to have some serious muscle to get my 210 pounds to hug an overhang or roof problem, every time a route goes past vertical and starts to overhang i am the first to notice and have to work harder to get it done. of course technique can help but i think that having more body length on an overhang means that i am actually having to rech back even further than vertical compared to somebody with less length on the wall, if i used the exact same holds i would have to scrunch down more which would not be the right range of motion for the muscle, so i reach higher, and of course further back, ok dean potter is like what 6'5"? so really i am just making excuses, got to go work out now
|
|
|
|
|
climbergirl15
Mar 14, 2003, 1:35 PM
Post #24 of 41
(3968 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 24, 2002
Posts: 89
|
In my opinion they do have an advantage. Although on some routes there is a disadvantage. However a good climber can deal with the heght issue.
|
|
|
|
|
da5id
Mar 14, 2003, 1:37 PM
Post #25 of 41
(3968 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 28, 2003
Posts: 155
|
i fall into the tall and skinny white boy catagory, so weights not really an issue for me. Looking like a starved refugee can be an issue though. I used to be about 6' 130 lbs! Yeah, thats pretty skinny. Ever since i stopped growing upwards my daily diet of ridiculous amounts of bacon and steak has brought me up to 150, thank god. Let's just hope i can get as many years of unhealthy eating in as possible before it catches up to me
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
