Grades, information-gathering, and leading near your limit as a short/tall/non-"average" climber

Old lady H wrote:

Hey, it's a conversation, sir! I, and I'm not alone I dont think, am glad you participated. 

Thanks Helen.

I notice that Neeley's article says the same things I said in the beginning of this thread: get stronger, improve your technique and stop whining.  

So here's my cut at this issue, using the same "logic" as L and E:

I'm fat.   I can't climb those long overhanging routes with small holds because I'm not strong enough to haul my fat ass up them.  I'm also lazy and don't want to diet and workout to get stronger, or learn to knee-bar and drop-knee.  I see lots of small women romping up those same routes.  It's so much easier for them since they weigh 50 or even 70lbs less then I do.  And since the average man weighs so much more than the average woman, we need to adjust the grades so women don't have an advantage on those really steep routes.   That way I can lie to myself and feel better because I failed on a 5.13 instead of a 5.12.

I think that pretty much covers it.

Lena chita wrote: But it is about something completely different, IMO. The article looks at the MAX grade climbed by people of different heights. And says that it is about the same (1 letter grade difference, at most, for people outside the middle 80% range, 1 letter grade is not worth mentioning)

However, NOBODY in this thread was saying that person of a certain height CANNOT climb any specific grade. The question isn't whether someone short can climb 5.12c, of 5.13d,  (or whatever)--they can. The question is, WHICH climbs in that grade will be suitable for the hardest-redpoint to a person who is not average, and what percentage of climbs would feel about right for the grade.

For example, at the Red, if you are a tall guy, looking for a first 5.12, I'd say, go get Hippocrite. Or Dogleg. If you are my height, I would never recommend those. (Mike Doyle, at ~5.5, may have been the shortest person to have climbed Dogleg -- he said it felt like at least mid-13 to him. The route is so notoriously reachy that there was a bonus for the shortest person who climbs it, defined as someone 5'5" or shorter, during PETZL ROC trip pack in 2007. Mike Doyle did it around the same time he did an FA of Lucifer (14c), so he had a lot of room, in terms of skills/strength. I don't know anybody else shorter than 5'5" to send that route, and I don't even know anybody in the 5'5"-5'6" range. The comments are all saying  "if you are shorter than 5'7' it would be much harder..." Yet the consensus on that route is smack-dab 5.12a, no harder, and I know guys who pick it for their first 12a.

Now, let's flip this, and ask tall guys to name a route at the Red that has a consensus grade of 12a, but feels like mid-13 to them. Not just feels a bit harder, in the 12b range those I can probably guess, from conversations with some people. No, it has to be THAT far away from consensus. Find me a tall guy who knows what he is talking about, has enough experience at the grade, has climbed much harder than the grade, who thinks that a specific 12a at the Red is so much harder for him, due to his height, that it feels like a mid-13?

Your post is smack-dab in the bull's eye.   I can't talk about the Red but I was wandering around Rifle this week looking at all the routes I walked away from because they're harder for tall* people.      

Quickdraws, 12c, tiny crimps and no feet where I need them, knees hit the roof preventing using the higher feet.
Brothers Carrutherzov, 12c, tiny crimp, can't get a foot over the lip
Beer Run, 13a, The Tombstone says "RIP John" on it.  Not enough strength and flexibility
Pollynator, 12a, talk about Scrunch!!  (although I WILL get this one, goddammit!)
Poetic Justice, 12d (leg too long to get the essential knee-bar rest)

* Tall, fat, weak, inflexible, old people.    <-- that's not a whine, it's just the facts, Ma'am!

John Byrnes wrote: Thanks Helen.

I notice that Neeley's article says the same things I said in the beginning of this thread: get stronger, improve your technique and stop whining.  

So here's my cut at this issue, using the same "logic" as L and E:

I'm fat.   I can't climb those long overhanging routes with small holds because I'm not strong enough to haul my fat ass up them.  I'm also lazy and don't want to diet and workout to get stronger, or learn to knee-bar and drop-knee.  I see lots of small women romping up those same routes.  It's so much easier for them since they weigh 50 or even 70lbs less then I do.  And since the average man weighs so much more than the average woman, we need to adjust the grades so women don't have an advantage on those really steep routes.   That way I can lie to myself and feel better because I failed on a 5.13 instead of a 5.12.

I think that pretty much covers it.

Maybe you could share your mental thought processes when you are onsighting a rarely-climbed route and find that you're having trouble following the given route description and that the grade doesn't seem to make sense. Surely you've experienced that before. That would probably be more helpful than trying to dig the same hole that everyone already pointed out doesn't address the OP's concerns, but now with insults.

Edit: Just saw your second post. That's more like it.

John Byrnes wrote:

Your post is smack-dab in the bull's eye.   I can't talk about the Red but I was wandering around Rifle this week looking at all the routes I walked away from because they're harder for tall* people.      

Quickdraws, 12c, tiny crimps and no feet where I need them, knees hit the roof preventing using the higher feet.
Brothers Carrutherzov, 12c, tiny crimp, can't get a foot over the lip
Beer Run, 13a, The Tombstone says "RIP John" on it.  Not enough strength and flexibility
Pollynator, 12a, talk about Scrunch!!  (although I WILL get this one, goddammit!)
Poetic Justice, 12d (leg too long to get the essential knee-bar rest)

* Tall, fat, weak, inflexible, old people.    <-- that's not a whine, it's just the facts, Ma'am!

John,

It might be that your "not a whine, just the facts" comment is ironic, but I'll take it at face value. Personally, I wouldn't call it a whine - although by your standards, it is.

Why is it "whining" when someone else has a problem or complaint, but "just the facts" for you? I don't see any "whining" in this thread, and I don't see why you have several times put down people by saying they are "whining".

What I don't understand is why you have several times basically told someone to shut up about their problem. This is an internet forum. It is literally the online place to talk about problems and ask for advice. Telling people to "shut up and stop whining" is not advice, nor is it helpful in any way. It seems you are offended by the existence of this thread, so why not just ignore it? I find this thread interesting and so do others, so let people talk about it if that's what they want.

John Byrnes wrote: Thanks Helen.

I notice that Neeley's article says the same things I said in the beginning of this thread: get stronger, improve your technique and stop whining.  

So here's my cut at this issue, using the same "logic" as L and E:

I'm fat.   I can't climb those long overhanging routes with small holds because I'm not strong enough to haul my fat ass up them.  I'm also lazy and don't want to diet and workout to get stronger, or learn to knee-bar and drop-knee.....

Your argument is faulty because you can do things to correct fat/lazy/diet etc, but a short person cannot "correct" their shortness. Compare apples to apples: there may be routes where you are too tall, and that makes the route more difficult (this is what you said later in another post). I think the OP was trying to make the point that being "too short", on its own, is  more frequently a problem than being "too tall". I suspect this is true. I don't think OP was saying it's impossible to compensate. Personally, I find myself more frequently doing way harder moves than my taller partner (he agrees). That means I have to be the equivalent of say, a 5.10 climber, in order to climb many 5.8 routes. It may not be fair, but I'm not complaining here (sometimes, I still do). I just have to keep that in mind when considering whether I want to try leading a route.

You mentioned that short lean women romp up overhanging routes. That's a huge athletic accomplishment, and requires a great deal of upper body strength. I would love to see evidence otherwise (i.e. climbing an overhanging route doesn't require strength, just technique). Please ask your 5'5" climber if they can do a pull-up, and if so, how many in a row? Your average woman tends to have less upper body strength, proportionally speaking, than your average man. My completely out-of-shape, and slightly overweight boyfriend who never trains just got up off the couch and did two pull-ups in a row. I'm also kind of out of shape due to injury  - but I'm very light and lean! I just tried, and I still can't do a pull-up, even though I'm probably in better shape than he is, technically speaking. Brute strength can overcome so many disadvantages in climbing.

There's no point in complaining about any of this - it just is. But it is a good idea to talk about it and recognize it, otherwise you're just going to be flummoxed when you hear about people who just started climbing 6 months ago and are already doing 5.12, when you're barely able to fall up the occasional 5.9.

John Byrnes wrote: So here's my cut at this issue, using the same "logic" as L and E:

I'm fat.   I can't climb those long overhanging routes with small holds because I'm not strong enough to haul my fat ass up them.  I'm also lazy and don't want to diet and workout to get stronger, or learn to knee-bar and drop-knee.  I see lots of small women romping up those same routes.  It's so much easier for them since they weigh 50 or even 70lbs less then I do.  And since the average man weighs so much more than the average woman, we need to adjust the grades so women don't have an advantage on those really steep routes.   That way I can lie to myself and feel better because I failed on a 5.13 instead of a 5.12.

I think that pretty much covers it.

Dude, if you insist on continuing to mischaracterize others’ points instead of actually addressing them, maybe you could at least try not to be a jerk while doing so?

Personally, I’d rather climb with a partner who might “whine” on occasion than one who seems to derive satisfaction from calling people weak, lazy, and liars. 

Josh Rappoport wrote:

Speaking of Neely Quinn, did you see this:

https://www.trainingbeta.com/short-climber-training/

Yeah, it's a really useful post! Some of the specific training regimens she uses are definitely outside what's useful at the grade I'm climbing, but a lot of the more general points are really interesting. The discussion of aim on dynamic moves definitely resonated with me, especially since that's a situation where I think it's easy to fall into a vicious cycle of low confidence-->poor performance-->avoiding the moves-->poor performance-->low confidence.... 

I also really like the on-the-wall hover training for lock-offs and have integrated into my gym routine.

dragons wrote: 

I think the OP was trying to make the point that being "too short", on its own, is  more frequently a problem than being "too tall".

FWIW, in my OP I actually tried to avoid making any conclusions about which tends to be a bigger problem...I deliberately included tall climbers in the thread title and first paragraph because I was more interested in focusing on the mental aspect than rehashing the height debate for the nth time (so much for that...):

As a fairly short (5'1'') climber, from time to time I will encounter a move that, due to body size, climbs much easier OR harder for me than the guidebook/MP grade would suggest. I have a couple very tall (>6') partners who have had similar experiences. Our experience has been that there are advantages and disadvantages to being on either end of the height spectrum--but that overall, we tend to experience significantly more variability compared to the stated grade than climbers of more "average" (especially average male) height seem to.

The rest of the post focused on height/reach-dependent moves because that's what I have personal experience with.

Oh well.

That being said, I think it's kind of ridiculous that there is so much push-back against short climbers discussing challenges they face--or considering how a grading system developed primarily by and for men might affect people who don't fit those demographic norms. I can only speak for myself, but I certainly wouldn't have any issues if tall climbers wanted to start a thread discussing height-specific challenges they encounter and the strategies they find useful to deal with them. I wouldn't feel the need to comment "yeah, but you'd have an easier time than me on routes X, Y, and Z; so just stop whining, get stronger, and figure out how to fit in that awkward position you don't know how to move from. After all, Adam Ondra is 6'1'', and he onsights 5.14."

This is why I liked the Hazel Findlay quote I posted up thread ("if I think something is just a bit harder because the holds are spaced far apart and because I’m short, I’ll try not to complain about it but I don’t see why you should adjust your language for the sake of not sounding like you’re making an excuse"). I think a lot of shorter people (especially women) learn to adjust their language this way to avoid the kinds of responses on this thread and others like it ("stop whining," "suck it up," etc). I even did it in my OP--though it didn't do much to prevent things from going in the predictable direction.

Adjusting one's attitude towards challenging reaches is helpful for sure, as is reassessing whether reach is actually the issue in a given situation (which was one of the main points of my OP). Adjusting language because other people seem uncomfortable with acknowledging that certain individual moves may be harder for you due to height/reach...not so much.

Etha Williams wrote:

Yeah, it's a really useful post! Some of the specific training regimens she uses are definitely outside what's useful at the grade I'm climbing, but a lot of the more general points are really interesting. The discussion of aim on dynamic moves definitely resonated with me, especially since that's a situation where I think it's easy to fall into a vicious cycle of low confidence-->poor performance-->avoiding the moves-->poor performance-->low confidence.... 

I also really like the on-the-wall hover training for lock-offs and have integrated into my gym routine.

Etha, My understanding is that dynos involve more risk of injury, so be careful.

Also I just found an interesting research paper that advises you to aim higher when dynoing. Might be worth a try.

you point out ondra is 6'1 even though he is the outlier. the top performing men are all very short. woods is 5'6, koyamada is 5'4, megos is 5'6. i bring up woods and koyamada because combined they've covered most of the world's hardest routes. however - all of the top women are your height. 5'1 to 5'2.

being shorter is better if you climb harder. while being taller is advantageous in the beginning up to v6, it really disappears around the intermediate grades. this is because the big moves force everyone to go big, there will be barn doors and cut feet and tall people will start to struggle with the added weight. at the advanced levels, shorter is better. ondra is a rarity due to his neck length. once everyone is flying to micro crimps, it becomes obvious. the shorter levers of shorter fingers have better torque. lower body weight is better.

personally, most of the time i see short climbers complain is due to their lack of strength. i see a lot of climbers try to find a low effort 'solution' rather than simply pulling harder and training relevant skills. suppose a reachy hold - rather than training the shoulders to do reachy moves (which is hard work), most climbers try to adjust their feet so that the hold is within their center of gravity; this instead prevents long term progress. training an iron cross/wide pullup will serve you infinitely better regardless of grade because it increases the available holds to you. the same is true of lockoff and campus ladders - they're skills that need to be cultivated over years and solve most of the reach problems. if you can actually do an iron cross and you have a 147 campus and you can lock of at 90 45 10 with either arm then you actually have a right to complain. until then, it's simply laziness. this is why l sits, front levers, v ups and flexibility training are so important - it is the difference why even short pros never struggle on any supposedly 'reachy' move.

John Byrnes wrote:

Your post is smack-dab in the bull's eye.   I can't talk about the Red but I was wandering around Rifle this week looking at all the routes I walked away from because they're harder for tall* people.      

Quickdraws, 12c, tiny crimps and no feet where I need them, knees hit the roof preventing using the higher feet.
Brothers Carrutherzov, 12c, tiny crimp, can't get a foot over the lip
Beer Run, 13a, The Tombstone says "RIP John" on it.  Not enough strength and flexibility
Pollynator, 12a, talk about Scrunch!!  (although I WILL get this one, goddammit!)
Poetic Justice, 12d (leg too long to get the essential knee-bar rest)

* Tall, fat, weak, inflexible, old people.    <-- that's not a whine, it's just the facts, Ma'am!

I haven’t been to Rifle yet, so I have no personal experience of these routes, but I’ll keep this list in mind, for my eventual visit. 

But I think you are misunderstanding my question. I don’t want you (or anyone else tall) telling me that these are routes that you can’t do, and you think it is because of the height. 

I’m looking for someone tall who HAS done these routes, who would be giving them a grade 5-6 points above the consensus, BECAUSE of the height. 

You say that the Pollinator 12a is hard because it is scrunchy, for example. But then also add the old/weak/fat/inflexible as confounding factors. 

I want a 6 ft tall guy who is NOT old/weak/fat/inflexible to tell me that yes, I've redpointed 5.14s, have sent multiple 13s this season, as well as this 12a, and I’m telling you, this 12a took me as much effort as mid-13. I had to figure out the exact way to fold my knee into my armpit from that high foothold, and I just can’t see how anyone taller than me could possibly do this.
Basically, I’m looking for a tall equivalent of Mike Doyle. 

Aweffwef Fewfae wrote: until then, it's simply laziness.

Some people are simply not capable of the strength and power moves you're suggesting. It's not laziness if every time you start training harder you get injured. This applies to male/female/tall/short people.

I subscribe to Magnus Midtbø's youtube channel, and I've noticed that he claims he never gets injured. I would never be able to do what he does, even with years of training, and I really doubt I ever would have been when I was younger. Many people might try and do what he's done, and just wind up with a multitude of career-stopping injuries. You'll rarely hear about such people because no one follows the ones who quit gymnastics, climbing, power-lifting etc because their injuries were too serious to continue. World-class climbers are not just hard-working people, they are also genetically gifted.

PS Google says Chris Sharma is 6'0". Alex Megos is 5'8" (173 cm). Daniel Woods is 5'7". Magnus Midtbø is 5'9". Yes, it appears Dai Koyamada is 5'5".

dragons wrote: It might be that your "not a whine, just the facts" comment is ironic, but I'll take it at face value. Personally, I wouldn't call it a whine - although by your standards, it is.

Why is it "whining" when someone else has a problem or complaint, but "just the facts" for you? I don't see any "whining" in this thread, and I don't see why you have several times put down people by saying they are "whining".

I see lots of whining in this thread.   And clearly you don't see the sarcasm (and honesty) in my "just the facts"  comment.   We ALL have limitations to how hard we can climb but do you see other people wanting to change the grading system so they can say they climb harder?  

What I don't understand is why you have several times basically told someone to shut up about their problem. 

Maybe you need to look a little deeper.    The "problem" is not being short, it's being unwilling to do the work to become a better climber.  

This is an internet forum. It is literally the online place to talk about problems and ask for advice. Telling people to "shut up and stop whining" is not advice, nor is it helpful in any way. 

Way back at the beginning of this thread I gave the exact same advice that Neely Quinn gave in her article: get stronger, improve technique and change your attitude.   Did L & E listen?  No.  They don't want advice, they just want to whine about how they can't reach the same holds a tall person can.  Did they acknowledge that small people have other advantages over tall people, such as weight and finger size?  No, they just focused on reach and how hard (boo hoo!) climbing is for them so we should change the grading system.    So they are whining, not looking for advice.

It seems you are offended by the existence of this thread, so why not just ignore it? I find this thread interesting and so do others, so let people talk about it if that's what they want.

Since you haven't noticed, I'm not easily offended.  And if I wasn't commenting on this thread, it would have died by now and not been nearly so interesting.  So you can put a dollar in my cup, thanks.

Lena chita wrote:

I haven’t been to Rifle yet, so I have no personal experience of these routes, but I’ll keep this list in mind, for my eventual visit. 

But I think you are misunderstanding my question. I don’t want you (or anyone else tall) telling me that these are routes that you can’t do, and you think it is because of the height. I’m looking for someone tall who HAS done these routes, who would be giving them a grade 5-6 points above the consensus, BECAUSE of the height. You say that the Pollinator 12a is hard because it is scrunchy, for example. But then also add the old/weak/fat/inflexible as confounding factors. 

You're missing my point(s).   Being old, weak, fat and inflexible are not "confounding factors" they are my limitations.   I'm open and honest about them.   I can't change being old so I work on the things I CAN change.   I continually work to get/stay stronger, improve technique & flexibility.   I don't suggest changing the grade of the route.

I want a 6 ft tall guy who is NOT old/weak/fat/inflexible to tell me that yes, I've redpointed 5.14s, have sent multiple 13s this season, as well as this 12a, and I’m telling you, this 12a took me as much effort as mid-13. I had to figure out the exact way to fold my knee into my armpit from that high foothold, and I just can’t see how anyone taller than me could possibly do this.

I don't think the absolute grade matters at all, it could be 5.10.  

And sure, any specific route may be easier or harder for someone who's tall, or short.   My main point is that overall, across sport/trad, face/cracks, steeps/slabs, granite/limestone/sandstone/basalt, across the grades and thousands of routes, being short vs. tall evens out, all else being equal.

Bryce Adamson wrote:

Maybe you could share your mental thought processes when you are onsighting a rarely-climbed route and find that you're having trouble following the given route description and that the grade doesn't seem to make sense. Surely you've experienced that before. 

Yup, probably a hundred times on long trad routes.  Usually means I'm off-route or the description is wrong.  

Edit: Just saw your second post. That's more like it.

Good.

John Byrnes wrote: You're missing my point(s).   Being old, weak, fat and inflexible are not "confounding factors" they are my limitations.   I'm open and honest about them.   I can't change being old so I work on the things I CAN change.   I continually work to get/stay stronger, improve technique & flexibility.   I don't suggest changing the grade of the route.

I don't think the absolute grade matters at all, it could be 5.10.  

And sure, any specific route may be easier or harder for someone who's tall, or short.   My main point is that overall, across sport/trad, face/cracks, steeps/slabs, granite/limestone/sandstone/basalt, across the grades and thousands of routes, being short vs. tall evens out, all else being equal.

No, I’m not missing your point, but we are going in circles. 

I completely agree with you, as an individual climber of any height, or age, you should work in things you CAN change, in order to send routes. 

But I can ALSO have a theoretical discussion about the effect of height (or age, or anything else) on climbing.  Completely separate from discussion of what I need to work on, as a shorter climber. 

And while you and I agree that for all routes taken in total, at any grade, consensus grade is the same, regardless of the height, I am trying to make a point that the standard deviation is not the same for tall and short people. We have talked in nebulous non-specific terms: some climbs are harder for short people, some are harder for tall people; shorter people have less weight to carry up an overhanging climb, have smaller fingers, have easier time with high steps to compensate for lack of reach. Tall people have reach, but have more weight, and harder time using crimps.

Fine, all fine.  But being an analytical person, I am trying to quantify what I believe to be the difference. And for that, I’m looking to find specific examples of routes that feel much different than their consensus grade for tall people who HAVE sent them, because I have such examples for shorter people. 

The reasons I’m picking higher grade for this comparison isn’t because the same thing couldn’t happen at lower grade. It does. But I think going with a 11+/12- climb, and a judgement made by someone who routinely climbs 13+/14- eliminates some variables:
—A 5.11 climber pronouncing a 10a to be much harder than the grade may not have the variety of experience, technique, skills, that a 13/14 climber has. It is definitely possible to be a 5.11 climber and not know how to kneebar, etc. 

— I’m looking for a route that we redpointed, not onsighted, because on onsight it is easy to miss the best/most efficient/easiest sequence.

— and I’m looking in the grade range where that strong 13/14 climber still has a meaningful way to tell the difference between the grades. If you go much lower than 12 for a 5.14 climber, I don’t think they can accurately tell the difference between a 10a and 10c
— also, at lower grades you would more likely have multiple variations of sequences that are equally easy, for different heights, while at higher grades you start dealing with more limited choice of sequences. 

John Byrnes wrote: Maybe you need to look a little deeper.    The "problem" is not being short, it's being unwilling to do the work to become a better climber.  

So far as I can tell, my own problem is not being strong enough - of course it would help if I were taller, but I can't increase my height, so I'm not bothering to worry about that. Strength and power overcome almost anything, though.

I'm going to point something out, since you're not easily offended, you'll take this with magnanimity. There are short people who are discussing a problem in this thread and there are short people who are interested in discussing it. You're a non-short person telling people what to do, telling people they are whining, even though you have zero relevant experience in the matter. This is completely obnoxious. Also, the tone of your posts have generally been hostile. Why are you so offended by the discussion here? Is it really all just a fear that the grading system is going to change because of a post made on MP? Are you really so concerned that some short people are confused about why they don't climb better, and you feel a need to correct their ignorance of the facts - i.e. you are quite sure you know exactly what the problem is and how it should be solved (the gist being suck it up and train more, even though we have no info about how much any of these people are training)? I find this all really hard to believe.

...They don't want advice, they just want to whine... No, they just focused on reach and how hard (boo hoo!) climbing is for them so we should change the grading system.    So they are whining, not looking for advice.

It seems you are reading "whining" into what people have said. I, and several other people at least, did not interpret those posts as whining.

However: I did not see the remarks about changing the grading system. In this point, we agree. I strongly oppose changing the grading system. It's already too random, with huge differences from one climbing area to the next. I see absolutely no reason to change the system. Everyone can make a mental adjustment for themselves. I don't see any good way to equalize it for all the different body types.

I noticed that Etha said she used to look at route comments on MP to see if anyone short had beta for her. But it wasn't useful for her. I have done this, myself. I find it useful, and I will continue to do it.

Since you haven't noticed, I'm not easily offended.  And if I wasn't commenting on this thread, it would have died by now and not been nearly so interesting.  So you can put a dollar in my cup, thanks.

Actually you seem pretty easily offended to me, since up-thread you left in a huff. But now you're back. I don't find your comments helpful or interesting, though. I'm still reading the thread because I'm interested in what non-troll short climbers have to say.

Lena chita wrote:

No, I’m not missing your point, but we are going in circles. 

Lena, Yes, a thousand times yes. What you're saying is exactly what interests me as well.

shorter people ... have easier time with high steps to compensate for lack of reach. 

I disagree with this argument. Is there any correlation with flexibility and shortness? Women tend to be more flexible than men on average, I believe that is documented, although I'm sure there are plenty of less flexible women out there. Anyway, if it's a short man on a route, he may have just as much trouble high-stepping as his taller friend. Also, if I'm short, and I can do a high step, that may only get my foot exactly as far as my taller male friend who is not as flexible but whose foot can move up higher because his legs are longer. I'm not sure that I buy the high step argument as being an advantage for shorter climbers.

It is definitely possible to be a 5.11 climber and not know how to kneebar, etc. 

This is the second time in this thread where someone has mentioned the kneebar as a supposedly advanced technique. I don't buy this either. At best it's intermediate (i.e. a beginner won't do it but IMHO basically anyone who has an interest in climbing, after a few months, will surely know what a kneebar is, see the rare one when it's available, and use it when possible. Where are all these kneebars, BTW? I think I only recall doing this once outside, maybe a couple times in the gym? Do I have to get on more overhanging routes to find them?

OTOH how about the heel hook? An intermediate level climber may know how to heel hook, but may not be strong enough to pull off the move, especially if their heel is very high up. Actually, I could see the heel hook being a move that might be easier in at least some cases for shorter people.

dragons wrote: Is there any correlation with flexibility and shortness? ... I'm not sure that I buy the high step argument as being an advantage for shorter climbers.

I was thinking more in terms of “if you bring your feet really high in overhanging route, there is less of you/less lever hanging farther off of the wall, and creating a disadvantageous first on the arms. 
But I’m really not trying to say that any specific type of move is harder/easier for people of different heights. It would depend on the geometry of the rock.

This is the second time in this thread where someone has mentioned the kneebar as a supposedly advanced technique. I don't buy this either. At best it's intermediate (i.e. a beginner won't do it but IMHO basically anyone who has an interest in climbing, after a few months, will surely know what a kneebar is, see the rare one when it's available, and use it when possible. Where are all these kneebars, BTW? I think I only recall doing this once outside, maybe a couple times in the gym? Do I have to get on more overhanging routes to find them?

I think there is a difference between “knowing how to kneebar” and “knowing how to kneebar effectively in a variety of situations, how to find/use not just a perfect obvious kneebar, but also more difficult, weird, funky knee scums and such”. 
An intermediate climber may be able to slot her knee into a perfect kneebar, but that is far from really knowing how to kneebar. It depends on where you climb, of course, would be hard to find a kneebar on a slab. But I used to think that kneebars were rare at the Red, until I started climbing with a girl who is exceptionally good at kneebars. All of a sudden, the kneebars were everywhere. 
The same applies not just to a kneebar, but to almost every technique. I was simply saying that people who climb 13/14 obviously have a much greater array of skills in their repertoire, so they are less likely to be in a situation where think that a route that is well below their max ability is much harder than consensus, because they lack an essential skill that makes the route easier. 

OTOH how about the heel hook? An intermediate level climber may know how to heel hook, but may not be strong enough to pull off the move, especially if their heel is very high up. Actually, I could see the heel hook being a move that might be easier in at least some cases for shorter people.

Heel hook may be easier for short people sometimes, sure. Shorter calf/thigh makes pull more effective. But if you have to heel hook really far out to the side, then maybe not, again, it comes to the specific geometry on specific route. 

John Byrnes wrote: You're missing my point(s).   Being old, weak, fat and inflexible are not "confounding factors" they are my limitations.   I'm open and honest about them.   I can't change being old so I work on the things I CAN change.   I continually work to get/stay stronger, improve technique & flexibility.   I don't suggest changing the grade of the route.

OK, perhaps you have difficult time understanding Lena's point because she is a woman, and not tall.

So, I am going to translate it for you into man-talk. I also qualify because, I am, relatively weak, old, and inflexible.

Think of your hardest send.
Remember that grade.
If it is grade in 5.11+ range, take it down 1 number
Think of routes you did in that range.
Think of routes at that range that had awkward body positions.
Think of any that felt comparable to your hardest grade.
Count them
Post the number here.