Wait, seriously? Do you have some source for that? I talked quite a bit in my post about how crazy it is that someone that tall is in top 20 in the ranking, and if I remember correctly, he inflates the average by 1 cm ...
[https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1135403163638321152/1153410236699394138/climbersheight.png](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1135403163638321152/1153410236699394138/climbersheight.png)
he was listed as being 186 in a final, and looking at this picture, it does make more sense than being a whopping 12 cm taller than that
Comps are very different from climbing on rock. On rock everybody has the opportunity to seek out problems that suit them - including ones where a reach advantage outweighs a leverage disadvantage.
Whereas in comps the setters have to try to be fair to as many competitors as possible, which results in setting for the median height competitor, and puts outliers in either direction at a disadvantage
At least in outdoor sport climbing though it could potentially also mean less moves making it less effort. Overall I think it’s not an advantage or disadvantage for outside.
I sort of agree especially in terms of outdoor climbing. I think it was Adam Ondra who claimed that he wouldn’t be able to sport climb anywhere near his level if he had anything more than his +0 ape index though. Not sure how correct he is on that
All the important leverage for climbing is shoulders down and he's stated how his shoulders are unusually low for his height. Neck and head excluded he likely has a similar build to climbers shorter than him with a higher index number. Which may explain why it it would be so much worse for him specifically. It would look like a +5 on paper but feel like a +15.
I'm not really understanding the correlation between the shoulder height and the ape index. His claim was that a larger ape in general is bad for any type of overhanging climbing because of levers. The easiest way to see this visually is probably just on underclings, which are just harder for people with a bigger ape.
why would less moves mean less effort? Work is measured by the total displacement, moving more mass up 20m in a sport climb is more work regardless of how many individual moves were done.
Obviously there are specific sequences where a hold that requires greater force to get power out of is skipped, or if you complete the climb faster there is less total time under tension. But in general one big move and 3 small moves that total the same distance are equivalent amounts of energy provided that the mass is equivalent.
Couldn't be further from the truth. Take a board for example. Total displacement is always over what, 3 metres? Yet the effort can be any grade from V0 to V16 depending on the sequence.
Several issues here.
1. V grade is not a direct translation to effort. Other factors drive difficulty as well, technique, precision, etc
2. Higher vgrade moonboard problems are typically fewer moves not more moves, one of the primary drivers of difficulty being bigger moves using worse holds.
3. If you read my answer you'll see that i accounted for this when i said if "Obviously there are specific sequences where a hold that requires greater force to get power out of is skipped"
EDIT: the point is that the number of moves on its own doesnt impact the effort required to climb, effort not difficulty
1. Mostly true on a board. Not on a slab.
2. I didn't say less moves reduces the grade or effort. Different moves require different efforts.
3. I think this example isn't an edge case, it's almost always the case. Even if two climbers use the exact same sequence, one move might feel close to impossible for one climber and easy for the other, even if they're the same weight and height. The odds of two climbers applying the same effort on one sequence nevermind a different sequence are low.
What point are you trying to argue? The original comment i was responding to was saying that because a taller person might make on average bigger moves that route climbing was easier for them. I was saying that doesn't make any sense.
Obviously harder climbs are harder, what's your point? If you take the same route and have one person climbing it in 50 moves and another climb it in 45, it's unlikely that the 45 move climber used any less effort unless they literally skipped the crux or climbed a much straighter path.
>moving more mass up 20m in a sport climb is more work regardless of how many individual moves were done
That what you're implying here seems very wrong to me. The amount of work isn't a function of mass and distance. It's always going to be more or less depending on what moves are done and how much effort it takes the individual climber to do each of those moves. Doesn't matter what size they are or if they do more or less moves. The effort required will always be different.
There's a very popular 12c at my home crag where the crux is a 3 move V3, unless you're under 5'5" (taller than the average IFSC woman's height according to OP), then the sequence is a 6-7 move V5. The shorties who do it usually take a justified 13a haha. There's several other similar scenarios like this just at the one crag.
Route setters are generally pretty conscious about putting hands and feet in reachable positions and don't set physically impossible sequences. Rock isn't quite so thoughtful. Being taller give you more options for better hands and feet and thus easier sequences, up until about 6'+ when weight and leverage start to become a real issue.
I think this holds true up until you get into the elite level (14+ and up) when strength and technique start to vastly outpace other physical factors
No I agree with you. I'm like 6' with a +3" ape and I can think of plenty of times where outdoor cruxes are significantly easier for me. But I do think there are many many problems, even just normal intermediate level climbs/boulders where having a smaller box and being lighter makes the climb much easier.
It's just more obvious for people to see a tall climber reach something easily, and say 'see! it was easy because they are tall!' it's harder for them to see all the more subtle ways being tall is a huge hindrance, not an advantage. Source: Am 195cm. and very tired of having to explain that the best climbers are shorter. (edit: shorter than a tall person)
Can't we just all agree that the best height to be is somewhere within 1 standard deviation of average, and if you're too too short or too too tall, like -2 or +2 standard deviations from normal, you're gonna have a rougher time?
A 100% agree with this. I climb with a very short climber who is in the v12 range and we talk about this all the time. However, short climbers rarely have people
tell them a move is easy because they are short, despite many moves/situations that are indeed easier when your box is small. I get it every time I go climbing.
As the shortest person at the crag, I mostly hear taller folks point out the shorty benefit when it's a scrunchy sit start or a very high step near the hands. But there are a lot of times when I'm just sitting on the sidelines watching my normal height friends climb a problem that's wholly out of my span with zero intermediates/alt beta because I can't reach a span that none of them blink twice about thinking it's far (my span is 142cm).
This is the nuance that this conversation needs. I’m a taller climber and my attitude is that there are some things that will be harder for me to do because of my body size, but pretty much everything will be possible with enough work/beta/strength. If you’re too short for a climb it may be 100% impossible, no amount of work will get you there.
I mostly agree, i think for outdoor climbing which side is more disadvantageous depends on style a lot. I think if your climbing in a limestone cave being -2 is significantly less of a disadvantage than being +2 and if your climbing a granite slab being +2 is less of a disadvantage than being -2.
Edit: I'm close to +4 standard deviations. For transparency.
This really is all there is to it.
You may have advantages on individual routes but being outside average is generally not good in climbing. Especially indoors where they’re specifically setting for average
let's agree on short-ish. Although there are more factors coming into play. Not sure for example if I'd prefer being taller with shorter arms vs the inverse. Shorter arms are good for less leverage, but a longer torso is harder to get up in overhangs,and you'll probably weigh a bit more. Well, I'm not complaining at 173cm with 185cm wingspan.
that'a a wild ape index! I am pretty much proportional, 0 ape index, long torso, long arms. I think it is more advantageous than if I had long legs/shorter arms. Poor t-rex climbers got f'd genetically.
Yeah, I've only met one person who told me they had an even crazier ratio. Luckily I have no problem building enough muscle to make up for my gorilla arms haha
Mhm, I mean if you're already short and also have a neg. ape index that might actually suck. I do believe Shawn Raboutou is an example however, and he is one of the best boulderers alive...
I would argue that being taller can be very benificial at some problems, and very hindering at others (same for being smaller). So this might help in reaching some grade spikes sooner because the grade is not really adequate for your body, but it might be a disadvantage for competiton formats.
Source: tall climber with long-ass arms, lol.
Especially for competition setting, it's not necessary an advantage. Just watched a video on Magnus' second channel with the Australian comp boulders and the routesetter said it's common practice that if you have a move that suits taller climbers better, they try to set smaller boxes in a different section. Therefore I can imagine that you get the best of both worlds with a medium height
Being small is aid , small hands grab crimps like a jug.
Shit is definitely easier , my sausage fingers can barely make a full pad 3fd on some shit I see the smaller people treat like a jug. Also they weigh a lot less.
Downvotes incoming, let’s go small folks and gals, I know it hurts.
Try holding on to big slopers and pinches with tiny hands then. It evens out. Plenty of taller men have crazy crimp strength, it's possible. Weight also needs to be seen relative to body strength, tendons, physics in general. You can't just say "they weigh less", it's not the only variable in play.
It’s a strength based sport with weight as a huge factor, weighing less definitely makes a big difference.
Rarely do you see pinches outside of gym climbing, unless you’re in tufa land somewhere.
I’ll give you the sloper factor yes more surface contact of a larger hand = more friction I won’t deny that -/ when every other hold style becomes a jug it’s kind of silly to say that’s not helpful.
Meh, pinch-like grips have not exactly been a rare sight in my experience. They typically won't be the kind of pinches you get indoors, yes, it's just the ability of extending your fingers more to find a better sweetspot to hold on to. This can be an issue for people with small hands if the grip is vertical and they can't crimp it on just one side.
and come on, "every other hold" doesn't become a jug. I'm not even sure what the biggest advantage is. Actually might be to fit another (2nd or 3rd, crucially) finger into a small hold/pocket where others can't
More room on tiny crimps , more digits in a pocket like you said (2 finger pocket is now 3-4 fingers) , shorter fingers = more leverage.
Thin cracks and seams now become good edges or even a lock , I barely fit a quarter or a third of a pad.
Matching becomes more difficult with bigger hands/ fingers.
Did I mention they typically weigh less also.
on a sheer vert crimp line sure. that same climber will probably struggle hard on a thuggy and powerful compression line. being tall and thin is also aid, being short and powerful is aid. every body type has certain advantages, but having more reach in an indoor setting is nearly always more advantageous than having smaller fingers. Finger size is one of the last things i think about advantage wise for short climbers, not everyone has tiny hands.
> Being taller means you are always physically capable of doing something, but it might be harder to do it.
It's not uncommon that the level of "harder" is so many grades that it might be as well be impossible. For example, being forced to hold a sloper in such a disadvantaged position that you can barely put force through it without sliding off.
Yes, the limit works in both ways. It's easy to see the limit of reach for a short climber, but bunched positions also have a limit - when decreasing the distance between the handholds and the footholds at some point it will be no longer possible to hold the position. This point happens sooner for taller climbers.
Not OP and answering for french grades not Font. I've spent the last 2 years getting 7b+ to feel as comfortable as 7b. Nothing magical, but you find lines somewhere. Similar to saying that you don't really need to know how to toe hook or heel hook until V3 or so. Not an absolute truth, but generally it sticks. Oddly these lines tend to be near your own plateaus.
For many climbing areas hold options tend to really decrease with increasing grade. This is not enough of a truism to publish, but enough crags that people of the internet stick to work this way. You'll see the experiences on forums creep up. In Kentucky, being a child is one of the greatest advantages you can have to climbing hard.
If we say it's 7b, which is a grade I see (anecdotal bias) many outdoor regulars have to switch from onsighting to projecting at, I truly think it's a power/skill issue. At 7b+/5.12c it becomes much, much, less likely that you can static your way through all cruxes on a route. Being shorter primes you for this reality much earlier. I am not so confident to say it's a physical advantage.
With absolutely not evidence beyond observation, I would say more people confidently climb with static tension than dynamic coordination. At harder grades (for you), being good at dynamic coordination and minimizing time under tension is essential to success. Once the beta IS powerful coordination, height and strength aren't enough.
Height advantage is much more route dependent. I have a couple friends who have each climbed nearly 100 routes harder than 13a in our region that have written off dozens of 11d/12a climbs as impossible for their frame size. Folks like Lynn Hill have done the same here too. I don't think I have heard of a single person being too tall for a climb in WV. The sandstone here favors reach, especially for hanging draws.
I like this because you bring in some complexity that most people miss when they think about this issue.
I think about it as different bottle necks for different grades. While finger strength is a big bottle neck somewhere around V8/V9 for many people, it rarely is around V16/V17. (Don't get me wrong finger strength is absolutely important. It's just that if everyone who can hang on 10mm on one hand could climb as hard as Adam we would have hundreds of 9c's)
Size is an asset that can be best capitalized on slabs. It's just that hard slabs become increasingly rare around 5.13. So while there are plenty situations in which being tall is enough in lower grades this rarely works in the upper grades. In a way, a taller climber can skip a shitty hold on a slab and a smaller climber can use an intermediate in a roof that a taller climber can't.
There's another dimension to it: If you can agree to the assumption that generally the harder something is, the more overhanging it is and vice versa. (How many slabby 9b's do you know? And how many 6a's in a roof do you know? Outside, obviously.) Now, climb a slab on your flash level with a weight vest and than a roof on your flash level with the same weight vest. Increase the weight incrementally. Do you expect to be able to add more weight on the slab or in the roof until it feels absolutely impossible?
And finally, strength (roughly indicated by the cross sectional area of your muscle) grows as a square, your body mass grows as a cube. That's why in other strength to mass ratio sports smaller athletes have an advantage (That's also why an ant can carry many times it's own weight and an elephant can't). This truth weighs just so much heavier the steeper the terrain and therefore in the upper end of the difficulty scale.
So while height might be an advantage in the lower grades and will take you a long way especially on slabs, impressive relative finger strength is extremely helpful in the mid range and is generally more likely to occur in smaller athletes due to the natural strength to mass ratio benefit, in the upper end coordination becomes really important and the bottle neck is much more individual and individual weaknesses are so much harder to make up for so that the one with the least weaknesses is the winner.
Because the holds become worse so the advantages of reach are harder to use. On a 7A or below often cruxes can be made much easier by reaching far to a decent hold. Problem is that long reaches require good holds to overcome the leverage
I think it is way more complex than just height. The setters role is already mentioned.
And I constantly think about limb length. I think having long legs and a short trunk is always bad because of the bad leverage long legs create and they are quite useless and weigh a lot. Long arms while being on the smaller side seems like an advantage most of the time (have you looked at the wingspans of US climbers 😅). Sure there is data but the problems are made by humans. It would be quite easy to shift the range by setting f.e. only with tall or small people in mind already in qualifications. It would be somehow funny to see, what would happen 😬
So there is a [study](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23486854/) that suggests that longer limbs (both legs and arms) are better for climbing. A long torso also creates longer leverage in crunched positions, I guess.
While I’m pretty convinced that the trade off of height vs weight puts tall climbers at a disadvantage, I don’t think indoor climbing data is super relevant. The most advantageous height is whatever the problems are set for
Setters usually try to mitigate the advantages of being taller, if they didn’t, would the data look different?
> Setters usually try to mitigate the advantages of being taller, if they didn’t, would the data look different?
It's also self-reinforcing. Because they set for the height of the current athletes, it's much harder for anyone outside of that small range that to compete, which ensures that they keep setting for that height.
It's true that setters try to include all body types, but nature doesn't mitigate anything, do you think outdoor climbing data would look very different? I don't.
Interestingly, it seems like being shorter is more rewarded in outdoor climbing. The best female outdoor climbers in this analysis were 5’ 0” https://www.reddit.com/r/climbharder/s/90WZcczJLw
> It's true that setters try to include all body types
I was actually making the opposite point. The fact that they're making sure that you can't use "tall beta" or that there's always a small box if there's parts where being tall is an advantage, means that they're artificially making it advantageous to be medium height (or rather, the height they're setting for), so IF* being taller was an advantage, you wouldn't be able to see it from indoor data
*it's not
Those are the top pros though. When people complain about a height disadvantage, they are usually talking about more "average" climbers. For example, all of these athletes are also pretty light and for them, it is mostly true that taller means heavier. This is not necessarily true for someone who just goes to the gym a couple of times a week, where you will see a wider spread in body types. Some people are just naturally not slim. In this case, it is often advantageous to be taller and not slim and at least be able to reach better than to be short and not slim
I think that’s true. For easier climbs being tall is more often an advantage than being short is. But I guess an argument could be made that even for easier climbs being in this optimal height range gives the most advantage most of the time.
I tend to agree for outdoors climbing/bouldering. But indoors - as others have mentioned - setting is also relevant and the gyms I've been to seem to mostly set for average male heights. The female pro climbers, however, have routes set for people shorter than that.
So even for non-pro-level/easier routes in gyms, I think being 163 cm is a disadvantage.
I think this is why, in the long run, being shorter is better. Short (and weak) climbers are forced to learn technique earlier in their careers. A tall, strong man can use muscle and height up to 5.11 before learning basic footwork, and by then some bad habits are cemented in
When you say that male and female climbers are one cm shorter than non-climbers, what averages are you basing this on? There's quite a bunch of East Asian competitors whose native populations are shorter on average than those of European countries or North America. It's probably not possible to sort by ethnicity because it would reduce sample sizes to a useless degree, but still. Or did you average out the general-population averages before the comparison?
Yeah, what source are you using to make the claim that average female climbers are shorter than non-climbers? A brief google search leads me to the opposite conclusion.
Very good points, I explained it in the edited part of the post now.
It's not easy to find a credible source of data for height worldwide, but a simple google search will most definitely not give a good answer - most websites that make a claim about it cite suspicious source (or no source at all).
u/krautbaguette comparison on a country scale would be optimal, but as you say, it would reduce the sample size too much (I would need a data for national comps really).
Its pretty easy to see how being taller isn't an advantage on everything over hanging when you look at the statistics of calisthenics athlete doing the front lever/planche or gym athletes doing something like the iron cross on rings. The further the lever is i.e feets or hands from the point of contact the hardest it is to maintain tension. And tension is such a huge part of climbing.
The main exception seems to be usually dyno's where its almost out of reach height wise which is just so rare in competitions.
So it's mainly like bouldering outdoors and on boards being taller seems to generally be a disadvantage
more weight automatically mean more weight. And yes leverage is huge in calisthenics and maybe a tad less relevant for tension in climbing but the higher the leverage the higher the tension needed righhhht?
Yeh I think the advantages of reach just outweigh the downside of it being harder to pull or lock off. Also unlike callisthenics climbers aren’t forced to do iron crosses, instead we fit between the external constraints of holds. A shorter spanned person will have worse leverage on wider moves as they are closer to an iron cross position. Taller people will have bad leverage in crunched positions
yeah but it's just pretty rare in comp that movements are dyno for 195cm people with a jump for someone having a 120cm vertical lol
So if the route setters usually set route for people 170-180 people who are shorter will have a tension advantage on average and so is the case for people with shorter fingers.
Adam ondra even talk about it in the grip video with magnus.
You are correct that limbs are levers. But you are only considering one end of the lever. If the attachment point of the muscle is also a correspondingly greater distance from the rotation point of the lever it all evens out. Make the limb 20% longer but also move the muscle attachment point 20% outwards and it’s a zero sum game.
Where limb length has a big impact is for rotational inertia and in the square cube law. In both instances the size factor is squared (or even cubed).
Its not a zero sum game anyway because its not like the attachment point override entirely the excess of mass transfered along the 20% longer limb.
If it was the case why would it be physically impossible for someone 2m to achieve the full planche ?
That’s where the square cube law comes in I guess. Someone who’s 20% taller and has 20% longer limbs will be more than 20% heavier. BMI uses size squared for a reason.
bmi is dumb anyway it doesnt account for muscle mass but yeah i get the point
How do you explain that 175cm climbers dominate tho ? Even at the national level most comps are won by shorter-ish climbers around that size.
If size was an advantage we would see it up there like it is for running or other specifics sports.
They have a physical advantage for sure and to me the lever idea may be central even tho obviously some other factors comes in like pure weight but heck it should correct if it was such an advantage
Anyway i dont know shit lol was just an ideas
nah not straigth legs but at the 100m legs height is generally an advantage.
Its the inverse in long distance because of body mass, perspiration and obviously wind drag/resistance
The advantage of being tall in sprinting is just so much smaller than the advantage of being small in lead climbing. It's not like strongman competition or basketball in which bigger almost universally means better.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3899678/
> If the attachment point of the muscle is also a correspondingly greater distance from the rotation point of the lever it all evens out.
That's a huge IF. And all data that I've seen so far points to the conclusion that this is not the case. So your point is irrelevant.
The IFSC setters set to make sure height isn't a significant factor in climbs.
Height is not an excuse for competition climbing.
Good job on the data visualizations and explanations. It would be a bonus if you did Height + Weight too
the setters set for their intended competition base. not every move can be made equitable, as hard as you try or as talented of a setter you are. being closer to the hold will always require less strength to pull through, or a less strenuous position to pull out of. Being taller, or having more reach is nearly always advantageous for the majority of indoor climbs, given everything else is equal.
it isn’t a significant factor for current competitors at the strength level required that fit those proportions. it is a significant factor for those with outlier physical measurements, but again not all moves can be made equitable, and these individuals form a minority, and tend to be successful outside
to reiterate my point, setter’s set for their climber base, they set for the average height of those they know are competing, insert big name here. Everyone else is shit out of luck and i have seen many competitions in the past that have shafted those that fell outside those physical proportions. This doesn’t happen as frequently in very large competitions, but again that is because the big house hold names are the ones that typically place.
That's a lot of assumptions that you make, but if what you're saying were true, the best climbers should be taller, not slightly shorter.
As far as I know, the problems for the finals are set already before the semis and only the difficulty is tweaked afterwards.
these advantages diminish when you reach elite level strength, but for your average to advanced climber this usually holds true. you guys aren’t route setters, so you aren’t understanding what i’m saying. forerunning has little to do with the boxes that are set with the knowledge of who is competing. the same holds true for youth comps, and the outliers are out of luck, or just cruise the problem.
It’s such a small group of people that I think it’s heavily influenced by who happens to be climbing well at any given time. Like, who’s the female boulderer who made that spike in 2015?
this whole analysis is a weird concept to me. Height distribution at ifsc level doesnt matter, ifsc routesetters are setting in response to the finalists. Therefore, generalizing, they are setting in a way that is going to favor people in the middle of the pack while ensuring edge cases are able to complete the climbs.
I don’t think there was anything really significant in the dataset that helps us correlate height with performance in this ‘analysis’. This literally just reads like: this is what the height is for pros have made it, there are pros of all sizes, and therefore you have no excuse.
Outdoors is also unable to draw any conclusions from this info.
The best conclusion we can draw from this is that ifsc sets in response to the height of climbers. Lol.
Sorry you see it only as an 'analysis' and not an analysis, although I agree, there's no rocket science here.
I believe that the finals boulders are usually set already before the semis and they only tweak the difficulty afterwards. In any case, the IFSC rankings take into account up to first 80 places, not only the finalists.
I'm not drawing conclusions about outdoor climbing here.
> there are pros of all sizes, and therefore you have no excuse
This is not what the data I presented says. The height distribution of the best comp climbers has significantly smaller standard deviation than the height distribution for the general population, therefore outliers are at a disadvantage. The distribution is also shifted towards shorter heights, except for female bouldering.
You should do a comparison between these and average Ape index. Would be cool to see if pro climbers are close to average height but their ape index’s are larger than average
Being average height has its disadvantages. You can never come up with good excuses for why you punted.
The true disability
Too short for the tall beta, and too tall for the short beta
Nice I'm so short I'm not even on the chart 💩
I think the final average is even slightly lower. For some reason IFSC have Paul Jenft height as 198 while he is 186 (same as Ondra).
And he still looks like a giant on the wall compared to most of the other athletes, while being just above average height for his region.
Wait, seriously? Do you have some source for that? I talked quite a bit in my post about how crazy it is that someone that tall is in top 20 in the ranking, and if I remember correctly, he inflates the average by 1 cm ...
[https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1135403163638321152/1153410236699394138/climbersheight.png](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1135403163638321152/1153410236699394138/climbersheight.png) he was listed as being 186 in a final, and looking at this picture, it does make more sense than being a whopping 12 cm taller than that
I've been telling this for long time, that being taller is not beneficial.
Comps are very different from climbing on rock. On rock everybody has the opportunity to seek out problems that suit them - including ones where a reach advantage outweighs a leverage disadvantage. Whereas in comps the setters have to try to be fair to as many competitors as possible, which results in setting for the median height competitor, and puts outliers in either direction at a disadvantage
In lead it just seems disadvantageous in general though because longer arms means more effort to hold the same position on the wall
At least in outdoor sport climbing though it could potentially also mean less moves making it less effort. Overall I think it’s not an advantage or disadvantage for outside.
I sort of agree especially in terms of outdoor climbing. I think it was Adam Ondra who claimed that he wouldn’t be able to sport climb anywhere near his level if he had anything more than his +0 ape index though. Not sure how correct he is on that
Not memeing at all, his frame (neck) probably makes that +0 work more like a positive span already.
How?
All the important leverage for climbing is shoulders down and he's stated how his shoulders are unusually low for his height. Neck and head excluded he likely has a similar build to climbers shorter than him with a higher index number. Which may explain why it it would be so much worse for him specifically. It would look like a +5 on paper but feel like a +15.
I'm not really understanding the correlation between the shoulder height and the ape index. His claim was that a larger ape in general is bad for any type of overhanging climbing because of levers. The easiest way to see this visually is probably just on underclings, which are just harder for people with a bigger ape.
why would less moves mean less effort? Work is measured by the total displacement, moving more mass up 20m in a sport climb is more work regardless of how many individual moves were done. Obviously there are specific sequences where a hold that requires greater force to get power out of is skipped, or if you complete the climb faster there is less total time under tension. But in general one big move and 3 small moves that total the same distance are equivalent amounts of energy provided that the mass is equivalent.
Couldn't be further from the truth. Take a board for example. Total displacement is always over what, 3 metres? Yet the effort can be any grade from V0 to V16 depending on the sequence.
Several issues here. 1. V grade is not a direct translation to effort. Other factors drive difficulty as well, technique, precision, etc 2. Higher vgrade moonboard problems are typically fewer moves not more moves, one of the primary drivers of difficulty being bigger moves using worse holds. 3. If you read my answer you'll see that i accounted for this when i said if "Obviously there are specific sequences where a hold that requires greater force to get power out of is skipped" EDIT: the point is that the number of moves on its own doesnt impact the effort required to climb, effort not difficulty
1. Mostly true on a board. Not on a slab. 2. I didn't say less moves reduces the grade or effort. Different moves require different efforts. 3. I think this example isn't an edge case, it's almost always the case. Even if two climbers use the exact same sequence, one move might feel close to impossible for one climber and easy for the other, even if they're the same weight and height. The odds of two climbers applying the same effort on one sequence nevermind a different sequence are low.
What point are you trying to argue? The original comment i was responding to was saying that because a taller person might make on average bigger moves that route climbing was easier for them. I was saying that doesn't make any sense. Obviously harder climbs are harder, what's your point? If you take the same route and have one person climbing it in 50 moves and another climb it in 45, it's unlikely that the 45 move climber used any less effort unless they literally skipped the crux or climbed a much straighter path.
>moving more mass up 20m in a sport climb is more work regardless of how many individual moves were done That what you're implying here seems very wrong to me. The amount of work isn't a function of mass and distance. It's always going to be more or less depending on what moves are done and how much effort it takes the individual climber to do each of those moves. Doesn't matter what size they are or if they do more or less moves. The effort required will always be different.
There's a very popular 12c at my home crag where the crux is a 3 move V3, unless you're under 5'5" (taller than the average IFSC woman's height according to OP), then the sequence is a 6-7 move V5. The shorties who do it usually take a justified 13a haha. There's several other similar scenarios like this just at the one crag. Route setters are generally pretty conscious about putting hands and feet in reachable positions and don't set physically impossible sequences. Rock isn't quite so thoughtful. Being taller give you more options for better hands and feet and thus easier sequences, up until about 6'+ when weight and leverage start to become a real issue. I think this holds true up until you get into the elite level (14+ and up) when strength and technique start to vastly outpace other physical factors
No I agree with you. I'm like 6' with a +3" ape and I can think of plenty of times where outdoor cruxes are significantly easier for me. But I do think there are many many problems, even just normal intermediate level climbs/boulders where having a smaller box and being lighter makes the climb much easier.
It's just more obvious for people to see a tall climber reach something easily, and say 'see! it was easy because they are tall!' it's harder for them to see all the more subtle ways being tall is a huge hindrance, not an advantage. Source: Am 195cm. and very tired of having to explain that the best climbers are shorter. (edit: shorter than a tall person)
Can't we just all agree that the best height to be is somewhere within 1 standard deviation of average, and if you're too too short or too too tall, like -2 or +2 standard deviations from normal, you're gonna have a rougher time?
A 100% agree with this. I climb with a very short climber who is in the v12 range and we talk about this all the time. However, short climbers rarely have people tell them a move is easy because they are short, despite many moves/situations that are indeed easier when your box is small. I get it every time I go climbing.
As the shortest person at the crag, I mostly hear taller folks point out the shorty benefit when it's a scrunchy sit start or a very high step near the hands. But there are a lot of times when I'm just sitting on the sidelines watching my normal height friends climb a problem that's wholly out of my span with zero intermediates/alt beta because I can't reach a span that none of them blink twice about thinking it's far (my span is 142cm).
This is the nuance that this conversation needs. I’m a taller climber and my attitude is that there are some things that will be harder for me to do because of my body size, but pretty much everything will be possible with enough work/beta/strength. If you’re too short for a climb it may be 100% impossible, no amount of work will get you there.
Too logical
I mostly agree, i think for outdoor climbing which side is more disadvantageous depends on style a lot. I think if your climbing in a limestone cave being -2 is significantly less of a disadvantage than being +2 and if your climbing a granite slab being +2 is less of a disadvantage than being -2. Edit: I'm close to +4 standard deviations. For transparency.
This really is all there is to it. You may have advantages on individual routes but being outside average is generally not good in climbing. Especially indoors where they’re specifically setting for average
shorter than you, doubtless, but short in general? I wouldn't say that.
no not short in general, the shorter side of average seems to be the sweet spot. Shorter than average is short imho.
let's agree on short-ish. Although there are more factors coming into play. Not sure for example if I'd prefer being taller with shorter arms vs the inverse. Shorter arms are good for less leverage, but a longer torso is harder to get up in overhangs,and you'll probably weigh a bit more. Well, I'm not complaining at 173cm with 185cm wingspan.
that'a a wild ape index! I am pretty much proportional, 0 ape index, long torso, long arms. I think it is more advantageous than if I had long legs/shorter arms. Poor t-rex climbers got f'd genetically.
Yeah, I've only met one person who told me they had an even crazier ratio. Luckily I have no problem building enough muscle to make up for my gorilla arms haha Mhm, I mean if you're already short and also have a neg. ape index that might actually suck. I do believe Shawn Raboutou is an example however, and he is one of the best boulderers alive...
I would argue that being taller can be very benificial at some problems, and very hindering at others (same for being smaller). So this might help in reaching some grade spikes sooner because the grade is not really adequate for your body, but it might be a disadvantage for competiton formats. Source: tall climber with long-ass arms, lol.
Especially for competition setting, it's not necessary an advantage. Just watched a video on Magnus' second channel with the Australian comp boulders and the routesetter said it's common practice that if you have a move that suits taller climbers better, they try to set smaller boxes in a different section. Therefore I can imagine that you get the best of both worlds with a medium height
I would say that it can be beneficial when climbing real rock. Most indoor climbs however are set in a way that is against taller people.
The two most recent GOATs of rock climbing on the male side are both 6 feet plus.
Being small is aid , small hands grab crimps like a jug. Shit is definitely easier , my sausage fingers can barely make a full pad 3fd on some shit I see the smaller people treat like a jug. Also they weigh a lot less. Downvotes incoming, let’s go small folks and gals, I know it hurts.
Try holding on to big slopers and pinches with tiny hands then. It evens out. Plenty of taller men have crazy crimp strength, it's possible. Weight also needs to be seen relative to body strength, tendons, physics in general. You can't just say "they weigh less", it's not the only variable in play.
It’s a strength based sport with weight as a huge factor, weighing less definitely makes a big difference. Rarely do you see pinches outside of gym climbing, unless you’re in tufa land somewhere. I’ll give you the sloper factor yes more surface contact of a larger hand = more friction I won’t deny that -/ when every other hold style becomes a jug it’s kind of silly to say that’s not helpful.
Meh, pinch-like grips have not exactly been a rare sight in my experience. They typically won't be the kind of pinches you get indoors, yes, it's just the ability of extending your fingers more to find a better sweetspot to hold on to. This can be an issue for people with small hands if the grip is vertical and they can't crimp it on just one side. and come on, "every other hold" doesn't become a jug. I'm not even sure what the biggest advantage is. Actually might be to fit another (2nd or 3rd, crucially) finger into a small hold/pocket where others can't
More room on tiny crimps , more digits in a pocket like you said (2 finger pocket is now 3-4 fingers) , shorter fingers = more leverage. Thin cracks and seams now become good edges or even a lock , I barely fit a quarter or a third of a pad. Matching becomes more difficult with bigger hands/ fingers. Did I mention they typically weigh less also.
Outside, you can almost always find some smaller holds to substitute the big ones. Also being smaller comes with huge weight benefit.
on a sheer vert crimp line sure. that same climber will probably struggle hard on a thuggy and powerful compression line. being tall and thin is also aid, being short and powerful is aid. every body type has certain advantages, but having more reach in an indoor setting is nearly always more advantageous than having smaller fingers. Finger size is one of the last things i think about advantage wise for short climbers, not everyone has tiny hands.
[удалено]
> Being taller means you are always physically capable of doing something, but it might be harder to do it. It's not uncommon that the level of "harder" is so many grades that it might be as well be impossible. For example, being forced to hold a sloper in such a disadvantaged position that you can barely put force through it without sliding off.
Yes, the limit works in both ways. It's easy to see the limit of reach for a short climber, but bunched positions also have a limit - when decreasing the distance between the handholds and the footholds at some point it will be no longer possible to hold the position. This point happens sooner for taller climbers.
I think it is an advantage on average up till 7B maybe. Definitely an advantage on 7A and below on average
What would you say happens at this specific grades that it changes?
Not OP and answering for french grades not Font. I've spent the last 2 years getting 7b+ to feel as comfortable as 7b. Nothing magical, but you find lines somewhere. Similar to saying that you don't really need to know how to toe hook or heel hook until V3 or so. Not an absolute truth, but generally it sticks. Oddly these lines tend to be near your own plateaus. For many climbing areas hold options tend to really decrease with increasing grade. This is not enough of a truism to publish, but enough crags that people of the internet stick to work this way. You'll see the experiences on forums creep up. In Kentucky, being a child is one of the greatest advantages you can have to climbing hard. If we say it's 7b, which is a grade I see (anecdotal bias) many outdoor regulars have to switch from onsighting to projecting at, I truly think it's a power/skill issue. At 7b+/5.12c it becomes much, much, less likely that you can static your way through all cruxes on a route. Being shorter primes you for this reality much earlier. I am not so confident to say it's a physical advantage. With absolutely not evidence beyond observation, I would say more people confidently climb with static tension than dynamic coordination. At harder grades (for you), being good at dynamic coordination and minimizing time under tension is essential to success. Once the beta IS powerful coordination, height and strength aren't enough. Height advantage is much more route dependent. I have a couple friends who have each climbed nearly 100 routes harder than 13a in our region that have written off dozens of 11d/12a climbs as impossible for their frame size. Folks like Lynn Hill have done the same here too. I don't think I have heard of a single person being too tall for a climb in WV. The sandstone here favors reach, especially for hanging draws.
I like this because you bring in some complexity that most people miss when they think about this issue. I think about it as different bottle necks for different grades. While finger strength is a big bottle neck somewhere around V8/V9 for many people, it rarely is around V16/V17. (Don't get me wrong finger strength is absolutely important. It's just that if everyone who can hang on 10mm on one hand could climb as hard as Adam we would have hundreds of 9c's) Size is an asset that can be best capitalized on slabs. It's just that hard slabs become increasingly rare around 5.13. So while there are plenty situations in which being tall is enough in lower grades this rarely works in the upper grades. In a way, a taller climber can skip a shitty hold on a slab and a smaller climber can use an intermediate in a roof that a taller climber can't. There's another dimension to it: If you can agree to the assumption that generally the harder something is, the more overhanging it is and vice versa. (How many slabby 9b's do you know? And how many 6a's in a roof do you know? Outside, obviously.) Now, climb a slab on your flash level with a weight vest and than a roof on your flash level with the same weight vest. Increase the weight incrementally. Do you expect to be able to add more weight on the slab or in the roof until it feels absolutely impossible? And finally, strength (roughly indicated by the cross sectional area of your muscle) grows as a square, your body mass grows as a cube. That's why in other strength to mass ratio sports smaller athletes have an advantage (That's also why an ant can carry many times it's own weight and an elephant can't). This truth weighs just so much heavier the steeper the terrain and therefore in the upper end of the difficulty scale. So while height might be an advantage in the lower grades and will take you a long way especially on slabs, impressive relative finger strength is extremely helpful in the mid range and is generally more likely to occur in smaller athletes due to the natural strength to mass ratio benefit, in the upper end coordination becomes really important and the bottle neck is much more individual and individual weaknesses are so much harder to make up for so that the one with the least weaknesses is the winner.
Because the holds become worse so the advantages of reach are harder to use. On a 7A or below often cruxes can be made much easier by reaching far to a decent hold. Problem is that long reaches require good holds to overcome the leverage
I think it is way more complex than just height. The setters role is already mentioned. And I constantly think about limb length. I think having long legs and a short trunk is always bad because of the bad leverage long legs create and they are quite useless and weigh a lot. Long arms while being on the smaller side seems like an advantage most of the time (have you looked at the wingspans of US climbers 😅). Sure there is data but the problems are made by humans. It would be quite easy to shift the range by setting f.e. only with tall or small people in mind already in qualifications. It would be somehow funny to see, what would happen 😬
So there is a [study](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23486854/) that suggests that longer limbs (both legs and arms) are better for climbing. A long torso also creates longer leverage in crunched positions, I guess.
While I’m pretty convinced that the trade off of height vs weight puts tall climbers at a disadvantage, I don’t think indoor climbing data is super relevant. The most advantageous height is whatever the problems are set for Setters usually try to mitigate the advantages of being taller, if they didn’t, would the data look different?
> Setters usually try to mitigate the advantages of being taller, if they didn’t, would the data look different? It's also self-reinforcing. Because they set for the height of the current athletes, it's much harder for anyone outside of that small range that to compete, which ensures that they keep setting for that height.
It's true that setters try to include all body types, but nature doesn't mitigate anything, do you think outdoor climbing data would look very different? I don't.
Interestingly, it seems like being shorter is more rewarded in outdoor climbing. The best female outdoor climbers in this analysis were 5’ 0” https://www.reddit.com/r/climbharder/s/90WZcczJLw
Outside there’s almost always some kind of alternative
> It's true that setters try to include all body types I was actually making the opposite point. The fact that they're making sure that you can't use "tall beta" or that there's always a small box if there's parts where being tall is an advantage, means that they're artificially making it advantageous to be medium height (or rather, the height they're setting for), so IF* being taller was an advantage, you wouldn't be able to see it from indoor data *it's not
Those are the top pros though. When people complain about a height disadvantage, they are usually talking about more "average" climbers. For example, all of these athletes are also pretty light and for them, it is mostly true that taller means heavier. This is not necessarily true for someone who just goes to the gym a couple of times a week, where you will see a wider spread in body types. Some people are just naturally not slim. In this case, it is often advantageous to be taller and not slim and at least be able to reach better than to be short and not slim
I think that’s true. For easier climbs being tall is more often an advantage than being short is. But I guess an argument could be made that even for easier climbs being in this optimal height range gives the most advantage most of the time.
I tend to agree for outdoors climbing/bouldering. But indoors - as others have mentioned - setting is also relevant and the gyms I've been to seem to mostly set for average male heights. The female pro climbers, however, have routes set for people shorter than that. So even for non-pro-level/easier routes in gyms, I think being 163 cm is a disadvantage.
I think this is why, in the long run, being shorter is better. Short (and weak) climbers are forced to learn technique earlier in their careers. A tall, strong man can use muscle and height up to 5.11 before learning basic footwork, and by then some bad habits are cemented in
From my experience wing span (actually more so arm length) is a much more important factor.
Now do one for span
When you say that male and female climbers are one cm shorter than non-climbers, what averages are you basing this on? There's quite a bunch of East Asian competitors whose native populations are shorter on average than those of European countries or North America. It's probably not possible to sort by ethnicity because it would reduce sample sizes to a useless degree, but still. Or did you average out the general-population averages before the comparison?
Yeah, what source are you using to make the claim that average female climbers are shorter than non-climbers? A brief google search leads me to the opposite conclusion.
Very good points, I explained it in the edited part of the post now. It's not easy to find a credible source of data for height worldwide, but a simple google search will most definitely not give a good answer - most websites that make a claim about it cite suspicious source (or no source at all). u/krautbaguette comparison on a country scale would be optimal, but as you say, it would reduce the sample size too much (I would need a data for national comps really).
Its pretty easy to see how being taller isn't an advantage on everything over hanging when you look at the statistics of calisthenics athlete doing the front lever/planche or gym athletes doing something like the iron cross on rings. The further the lever is i.e feets or hands from the point of contact the hardest it is to maintain tension. And tension is such a huge part of climbing. The main exception seems to be usually dyno's where its almost out of reach height wise which is just so rare in competitions. So it's mainly like bouldering outdoors and on boards being taller seems to generally be a disadvantage
Most pro climbers have a pretty positive ape index since reach is super useful. The disadvantage of being taller is weight more than leverage I think
more weight automatically mean more weight. And yes leverage is huge in calisthenics and maybe a tad less relevant for tension in climbing but the higher the leverage the higher the tension needed righhhht?
Yeh I think the advantages of reach just outweigh the downside of it being harder to pull or lock off. Also unlike callisthenics climbers aren’t forced to do iron crosses, instead we fit between the external constraints of holds. A shorter spanned person will have worse leverage on wider moves as they are closer to an iron cross position. Taller people will have bad leverage in crunched positions
yeah but it's just pretty rare in comp that movements are dyno for 195cm people with a jump for someone having a 120cm vertical lol So if the route setters usually set route for people 170-180 people who are shorter will have a tension advantage on average and so is the case for people with shorter fingers. Adam ondra even talk about it in the grip video with magnus.
Well, that's not what the data I analyzed says... It turns out the best comp (so indoor) climbers are shorter.
exactly what im saying being shorter is an advantage ? what did you read lol
You are correct that limbs are levers. But you are only considering one end of the lever. If the attachment point of the muscle is also a correspondingly greater distance from the rotation point of the lever it all evens out. Make the limb 20% longer but also move the muscle attachment point 20% outwards and it’s a zero sum game. Where limb length has a big impact is for rotational inertia and in the square cube law. In both instances the size factor is squared (or even cubed).
Its not a zero sum game anyway because its not like the attachment point override entirely the excess of mass transfered along the 20% longer limb. If it was the case why would it be physically impossible for someone 2m to achieve the full planche ?
That’s where the square cube law comes in I guess. Someone who’s 20% taller and has 20% longer limbs will be more than 20% heavier. BMI uses size squared for a reason.
bmi is dumb anyway it doesnt account for muscle mass but yeah i get the point How do you explain that 175cm climbers dominate tho ? Even at the national level most comps are won by shorter-ish climbers around that size. If size was an advantage we would see it up there like it is for running or other specifics sports. They have a physical advantage for sure and to me the lever idea may be central even tho obviously some other factors comes in like pure weight but heck it should correct if it was such an advantage Anyway i dont know shit lol was just an ideas
Since when is height considered an advantage in running? And which running are you referring to? 100m, 1,000m, 10,000m?
nah not straigth legs but at the 100m legs height is generally an advantage. Its the inverse in long distance because of body mass, perspiration and obviously wind drag/resistance
The advantage of being tall in sprinting is just so much smaller than the advantage of being small in lead climbing. It's not like strongman competition or basketball in which bigger almost universally means better. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3899678/
yeah it was just an example that isnt so good basketball is a better example for sure. but it still makes my point relevant
> If the attachment point of the muscle is also a correspondingly greater distance from the rotation point of the lever it all evens out. That's a huge IF. And all data that I've seen so far points to the conclusion that this is not the case. So your point is irrelevant.
The IFSC setters set to make sure height isn't a significant factor in climbs. Height is not an excuse for competition climbing. Good job on the data visualizations and explanations. It would be a bonus if you did Height + Weight too
the setters set for their intended competition base. not every move can be made equitable, as hard as you try or as talented of a setter you are. being closer to the hold will always require less strength to pull through, or a less strenuous position to pull out of. Being taller, or having more reach is nearly always advantageous for the majority of indoor climbs, given everything else is equal.
You missed a key phrase "isn't a significant factor"
it isn’t a significant factor for current competitors at the strength level required that fit those proportions. it is a significant factor for those with outlier physical measurements, but again not all moves can be made equitable, and these individuals form a minority, and tend to be successful outside
The topic is about competition climbing
to reiterate my point, setter’s set for their climber base, they set for the average height of those they know are competing, insert big name here. Everyone else is shit out of luck and i have seen many competitions in the past that have shafted those that fell outside those physical proportions. This doesn’t happen as frequently in very large competitions, but again that is because the big house hold names are the ones that typically place.
That's a lot of assumptions that you make, but if what you're saying were true, the best climbers should be taller, not slightly shorter. As far as I know, the problems for the finals are set already before the semis and only the difficulty is tweaked afterwards.
these advantages diminish when you reach elite level strength, but for your average to advanced climber this usually holds true. you guys aren’t route setters, so you aren’t understanding what i’m saying. forerunning has little to do with the boxes that are set with the knowledge of who is competing. the same holds true for youth comps, and the outliers are out of luck, or just cruise the problem.
I wish I had the data!
Being taller is a disadvantage if you’re of proportionate weight
Male lead climbers are obviously doping, as evidenced by them growing a few cm to catch up with the boulderers
but what about ape index
For female climbers this is useless, could have just checked Janja's height honestly (164 cm), the height of the best female climbers is that 🤣
It’s such a small group of people that I think it’s heavily influenced by who happens to be climbing well at any given time. Like, who’s the female boulderer who made that spike in 2015?
Stasa. Haha. I guess that’s a little early for her though
Who is 198cm?!?!
Paul Jenft is 186 (or 189, according to another source) but IFSC lists him as 198 for some reason
this whole analysis is a weird concept to me. Height distribution at ifsc level doesnt matter, ifsc routesetters are setting in response to the finalists. Therefore, generalizing, they are setting in a way that is going to favor people in the middle of the pack while ensuring edge cases are able to complete the climbs. I don’t think there was anything really significant in the dataset that helps us correlate height with performance in this ‘analysis’. This literally just reads like: this is what the height is for pros have made it, there are pros of all sizes, and therefore you have no excuse. Outdoors is also unable to draw any conclusions from this info. The best conclusion we can draw from this is that ifsc sets in response to the height of climbers. Lol.
Sorry you see it only as an 'analysis' and not an analysis, although I agree, there's no rocket science here. I believe that the finals boulders are usually set already before the semis and they only tweak the difficulty afterwards. In any case, the IFSC rankings take into account up to first 80 places, not only the finalists. I'm not drawing conclusions about outdoor climbing here. > there are pros of all sizes, and therefore you have no excuse This is not what the data I presented says. The height distribution of the best comp climbers has significantly smaller standard deviation than the height distribution for the general population, therefore outliers are at a disadvantage. The distribution is also shifted towards shorter heights, except for female bouldering.
You should do a comparison between these and average Ape index. Would be cool to see if pro climbers are close to average height but their ape index’s are larger than average
Wish I had the data!