Do Skinny/Shorter people have easier time ascending?

In cycling, they typically do, power to mass ratio favorable to the lighter and shorter riders. I think this is true to a certain extent for rock climbing, but I'm wondering if this is also the case with alpine mountaineering. Or does the pack weight to a certain degree cancel out any benefits of being lighter on your feet?

Skinny, yes.  Short, no.

It's definitely true for rock climbing to an extent, I'm 6'3" and 170lb. or so; and when rock starts overhanging for a decent period of time, I start struggling. Overhanging, powerful climbing definitely favors a shorter frame. I have a nice advantage on reachy, face climbing but that's about it. I won't ever be a 5.13 climber, but that's okay.

 I haven't run into that problem with alpine mountaineering, and wouldn't think you would unless you had to climb some gnarly, overhanging ice or rock.

Gotta play to your strengths.

Look up Ueli Steck - he was neither tall nor heavy.
As to heavy packs - sherpas don't look that heavy, but typically carry more than their robust Western clients.
Perhaps fitness is the factor that determines performance?

All depends on the route. Generally being shorter is bad but there are a handful of routes where smaller hands or being shorter is a good thing. Small hands = good for small holds 3 vs 1-2 fingers in a small pocket. Big hands generally much better for sloppers / pinches (I can't even pinch some holds others can due to not getting fingers around it). I have a tall friend who can skip cruxes by reaching from one good hold to the next but at the same time is is sometimes is a bad thing trying to get through a tight section that you can't bypass bad holds and need high feet.

There are quite a few exceptions but typically you don't see many people above 5'10" who can climb 5.14. I'd go as far as to say you don't see many tall people even able to climb 5.12.

Reaching holds is secondary to the amount of extra weight a taller body requires.

Short people can often get their legs in superior positions and comfortably reach the next hold. Not at the gym but on real rock at least. I'm 5'9" and my wife is 4'9". I've found myself practically throwing to reach things that she can easily step up to, since she can get her feet in a better position. I can certainly do better hanging the draws though.

Smaller people tend to have a harder time carrying packs. You’re carrying a larger percentage of your body weight on your back. 

There will always be sequences that favor a certain body shape but I would imagine climbing will go the way of most sports as it gets more mainstream.  The top athletes will get bigger, faster, and stronger.  Ondra vs. Megos at 6'1" vs 5'7" and the routes they've been able to perform their best on are probably a good indicator as both are likely about as fit as you can get for climbing with what we know currently about training.  I could be mistaken as I don't follow it too closely but there have been Megos routes that were difficult / not done by Ondra due to not fitting his style but there are many more types and a variety of climbing Ondra has taken on at the highest levels that his bigger frame is likely better suited for.

Over time I think you have to assume that height will be independent of strength/weight ratio and I see many more areas it'll be an advantage than a disadvantage.

Looking for an excuse when you don't send? 

Hank Swayze wrote: In cycling, they typically do, power to mass ratio favorable to the lighter and shorter riders. I think this is true to a certain extent for rock climbing, but I'm wondering if this is also the case with alpine mountaineering. Or does the pack weight to a certain degree cancel out any benefits of being lighter on your feet?

Really?  The last 3 winners of the tour de France were 6', 6'1", and 5'11", hardly short, and this group has won the last 6 events.

There is an optimal height for each sport, and there are people that are outside those ranges that are among the best in the world.  Usain Bolt is freakishly tall for a sprinter, Lynn Hill was a wee lass compared to her climbing partners.

In terms of face climbing, being taller allows you to grab holds that might be out of reach for shorter individuals. But as others have pointed out, being short has its advantages as well.

However, height confers a definite advantage in terms of ascending a fixed line and aid climbing. For example, with the frog system, a taller person has a greater fingertip-to-croll distance which means increased vertical distance covered with each sit/stand cycle. The same applies to variations of the Texas system and Yo-Yo RADS, which are common among rock climbers. I want to say that shorter individuals may be at less of a disadvantage with ropewalker systems.

Tom and Ollie say that shorter climbers typically need to have stronger fingers than taller climbers who climb the same grade.
​https://www.trainingbeta.com/media/tom-ollie/?portfolioCats=72​​​

I feel like height really doesn't make much of a difference in climbing--but power to weight ratio does.

Lynn Hill and Dean Potter are both Yosemite climbing legends, and for good reason. LYnn is 5'2''. Dean was 6'5". Both were (are in Lynn's case) quite skinny for their size, body fat percentage-wise.

Sure, theses are anecdotes, but I haven't seen anyone doing any hard statistics on this question--and I'm not sure if the population is large enough to get reliable results without a census of all the 5.14 climbers in the world.

Basically, the "look at the famous people" test shows that just about any body type can succeed in climbing.

If you want to complain about something/feel exceptional, then complain/brag about how inherently strong/weak your tendons are.

Sorry, guys...

Ted Pinson wrote: Skinny, yes.  Short, no.

Less weight is always better than more weight, keeping all other things equal. I find I can give up a significant amount of strength if I weigh 50 pounds less.  The tendons in my fingers aren't getting any stronger, even if my muscles are.

I think really strong, skinny people of any height have an advantage. 

One thing to remember also it isn't so much about height for climbers but ape index. 5' 8" person with a +6 ape index would be really nice because they still have smaller body for getting high feet but still have the reach of your average person who is 6' 2".

I am 5' 10" but have a -4 ape index which means I know people who are 5' 7" and can reach holds that I can't. Big part of it is my tiny hands (makes finding gloves hard sometimes I normally wear M size kid glove) but those small hands also help me out in some climbs turning crimps into jugs for me.

Hank Swayze wrote: I'm wondering if this is also the case with alpine mountaineering.

I'm pretty skinny for my height (6'1'', 155 lbs) and it's a mixed blessing for alpine mountaineering. I don't have to work as hard going uphill, but heavy packs dig into my hips, and I get cold easily. I also have bigger feet than shorter people that weigh the same as me (size 12.5), so my boots are a lot heavier.

I guess it doesn't matter to me, as I am neither skinny, nor short! Climb on!

Martin le Roux wrote:

I'm pretty skinny for my height (6'1'', 155 lbs) and it's a mixed blessing for alpine mountaineering. I don't have to work as hard going uphill, but heavy packs dig into my hips, and I get cold easily. I also have bigger feet than shorter people that weigh the same as me (size 12.5), so my boots are a lot heavier.

Leukotape on your hip bones prior to heading out has been a life saver for me in that regard. I used to come back with no skin left on my hip bones, haha..
I feel ya with the boots, I wear a size 47.5-48 in nepal evos. They're heavy and bulky. The bigger foot size that often comes with being taller is another consideration too. Edging a size 47+ climbing shoe on a dime edge is tricky. 

I be smearing like a mofo tho.

I'm 5'9 and 140. I'm a bad mountaineer.

I get cold. I can't haul a big load. I need to eat or I bonk.

I do pretty good at rock climbing in Alpine situations but I suck on a glacier.

Matt Himmelstein wrote:

Really?  The last 3 winners of the tour de France were 6', 6'1", and 5'11", hardly short, and this group has won the last 6 events.

There is an optimal height for each sport, and there are people that are outside those ranges that are among the best in the world.  Usain Bolt is freakishly tall for a sprinter, Lynn Hill was a wee lass compared to her climbing partners.

Was talking about climbing. The yellow jersey or general classification is time accumulation over a month of racing and a very specific type of racing. The green jersey is awarded to the points leader, or typically the best sprinters (heavier riders), the polka dot jersey is awarded to the best climber that wins the most mountain stages. This year that was secured by Julian Alaphilippe who stands 5'8", 130lbs. It is common knowledge in cycling that lighter climb faster and heavier lay down more watts so faster on the flats.