However the number of women that are 5'1 and below that crank like mofos that I know are represented to a MUCH greater extent in the population of female climbers that I know vs. people that I know in general.

i'm kind of skeptical of if that's true. i suspect that we notice very short climbers more than very average climbers, because it strikes us as more impressive. it makes a bigger impression, and so we think we see it more often.

looks like you came to the same conclusion: that the height of climbers generally, and strong/pro climbers also, is representative of the height of women generally. average height for a woman in the US is about 5'4, with a standard deviation of less than 3 inches. which means that less than 5% of women will be taller than 5'7 or so. so maybe one in 20 female climbers will be taller than 5'7. and then only one in whatever of those will be "strong." so yeah, you don't see that many tall, strong women climbers, but it's not because it's inherently harder to climb if you're tall.

I've done the experiment. I can respect and believe that the results of yours vary from the results of mine.

i don't have results; i haven't collected any data. and i'm not saying i'm skeptical to be acrimonious, i just am skeptical because it's the kind of impression that could be really subject to sample or confirmation bias. i personally pay more attention to short climbers because i'm short and i like to steal other people's beta. if you did the experiment that i think you're referring to, that is, went and got the heights of a bunch of climbers, i'd be really interested in looking at the data.

but deviating equally on both sides of the mean is pretty much the definition of a normal curve. curves with uneven tails are called something different, but i forget what.

Hey clausti,

Think in terms of Olympic caliber gymnasts. The average female is close to 5 feet tall and the average male is around 5'6." Some taller individuals of both sexes do indeed excel, but they are the outliers.

Curt

as for gymnastics, curt, I think there is a directly identifiable variable that gymnastics has that climbing lacks where height makes a difference: you don't spin your whole body length around in the air or around things when you rock climb, so the radius you make is irrelevant. you know and i know that the force required to spin something longer is a greater force, and that is a gatekeeper in gymnastics for height. for this reason, i don't think it's a directly applicable comparison.

Rock climbing also has a directly identifiable limitation and that is weight and the usability of the position of holds.
Most small people have not experienced the debilitating combination of having your center of gravity two feet out from the wall whilst trying to hold onto something that is simply too low for you to effectively use, and will deride it's importance.

Also, a small feature will only support a certain weight before the shoe will deform and give way or the rubber simply slips.
There is a reason why racing cars and larger vehicles use fatter tyres. Unfortunately in climbers case, a wider tyre simply has not any extra road to grip on, as the size of the holds are smaller than the shoes, and therefore a constant for both size people.

When most routes are put up by average climbers, taller people will find a large amount of these simply impossible to hang onto and no amount of training will help.
We do just happen to get a helping hand every now and again through reaching past a crux, but from my experience this happens less often than finding a line that has holds that are simply too small to support our extra weight or are simply unusable, as a high hold for a short person to pull down on becomes a low hold for a tall person told pull in on.
Not too many holds have a lip that allows you to pull in on.

Not to mention how critical the size of a crack can be for the size of your fingers/hands.

So all you can do is pick your climbs to suit you.

finding a line that has holds that are simply too small to support our extra weight ...

I dare Clausti to put on a 20kg weight belt and stand on the same hold that she can just stand on without it.
Especially if the marginal hand holds are lowered as well.

Now consider that that same hold is much smaller to a larger shoe which means that the force is much farther away from the center line of the shoe.

Everyone knows that wearing a weight belt is not the same as having that weight evenly distributed... Though I am know that clausti with a trad rack does weigh quite a bit more than clausti without a rack, I have never seen her use THAT as an excuse for why it wasn't possible to stand on something.

Or, how about this: camhead, clausti's husband, outweighs her by ~40 pounds, is almost a foot taller, and has shoes several sizes larger than hers. To my knowledge, whatever clausti can stand on, he can stand on also.

So your point? No matter which way you look at it, you are just weak, my friend.

Here's the truths: tall women tend to weigh more and often have to work harder for that same strength to weight ratio that shorter (lighter) climbers have (FWIW lena, I'm weak too....it is what it is).

Short women climbers have reach issues to deal with. This can require them to acquire better core strength and lock off to make best use of their reach. There are times when even this isn't enough.

The short women covet the tall women's height for their reach. The tall women covet the short women's weight for their great strength to weight ratio.

It's a bad case of the grass being greener for both sides and can be argued forever it seems.

I dare Clausti to put on a 20kg weight belt and stand on the same hold that she can just stand on without it.
Especially if the marginal hand holds are lowered as well.

Now consider that that same hold is much smaller to a larger shoe which means that the force is much farther away from the center line of the shoe.

Are you trying to talk about lever arms? Because that might be an interesting discussion, but it would have to be one that steers clear of childish dares. clausti probably weighs less than 40 kg. What is adding on half her body weight going to prove?

Now if only we could measure lead/bouldering head issues. THAT is what truly holds people back no matter the height.

i think a lot of factors go into who ends up being an "Olympic caliber" rock climber, but i think there are a couple of distinct questions floating around in this thread that may not all have the same answer:

1. is it inherently harder to climb if you're tall? (re: whoever said they thought most of the 'pros' in the pro vs con of tall and short were on the 'short' side)

2. are women who are greater than 1 standard deviation below average height over-represented in the subset of climbers who are above average in skill, when controlled for time in the sport? (re:iamthewallress's quote at the beginning of this string)

3. does the height distribution of excellent/pro/olympic caliber rock climbers match the height distribution of the population from which they're drawn?


I suspect that the answer to 1. is that the relevant variable isn't height per se, at least with regards to the ranges referenced in this thread, but rather things that tend to correlate with height, like ability to build muscle mass and how much bone that muscle is hauling up the rock. "at least with the ranges referenced in this thread" because there are an awful lot of guys who are in the 5'10 range that climb quite well, and i dont think the difference between a 5'10 guy and a 5'10 girl and their individual struggles climbing is going to be height.

i suspect that the answer to 2. is also no, but that's pure speculation on anyone's part unless you come up with a data set, because the very nature of memory bias is that you don't notice it.

3 also needs a data set, but with regards to the studies referenced (which i haven't read yet), i again suspect that if they did come up with "smaller" than average, that still doesn't say whether height or height/weight ration was the key variable. and then even if pro climbers are shorter than average with respect to the population (correlation) that still doesn't tell you if they're pro climbers because they're too short to be pro soccer players or pro long jumpers or if the shortness itself has something to do with attainable skill level. (correlation != causation).


as for gymnastics, curt, I think there is a directly identifiable variable that gymnastics has that climbing lacks where height makes a difference: you don't spin your whole body length around in the air or around things when you rock climb, so the radius you make is irrelevant. you know and i know that the force required to spin something longer is a greater force, and that is a gatekeeper in gymnastics for height. for this reason, i don't think it's a directly applicable comparison.

clausti,

The ability of a shorter gymnast to tuck into a slightly smaller radius--and hence rotate slightly faster, has almost nothing to do with why smaller men and women tend to be better gymnasts. It is much more a strength to weight issue and a lever-arm length issue.

Curt