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

effective strategies for dealing with it

If it was me I'd be mentally repeating a mantra of "Lynn Hill. Lynn Hill. Lynn Hill." while climbing tough stuff. i.e. if she can do it, I can do it.

I'm an above average height male and in my opinion her first free ascent of the Nose was perhaps the most impressive climbing accomplishment of all time. Of course this is just my opinion, but: it's perhaps the most famous climb of all, has a ton of super high quality climbing, and was at the upper limit of what was/is possible. It was a mental/physical leap in climbing akin to the first ascent of El Cap or Half Dome, or the first free solo of El Cap, or the first 5.15, etc. But to me some the most difficult free climbing possible on a big wall is such a perfect example of what makes rock climbing so awesome, and this was such a ground breaking example of that. And she did it in such amazing style. Leading every pitch. After she did it she could have rested on her laurels, but then she went back and did it in a day. Bad ass. Period. She's only 1" taller than you.

There will always be reach dependent climbs and they will be harder for you. But everyone has strengths and weaknesses for different types of climbing. Some are great at slab, crack, overhanging jugs, crimpers, etc. and have weaknesses (comparatively) else where. I guess if I was at my limit I'd try to first think this is just a regular crux that everyone has to deal with first (and if you exhaust all possibilities to figure out the beta quickly), then think well maybe it's height dependent and harder for me (but I bet Lynn Hill could figure out moves that work for her and so will I). And only when you exhaust all possibilities and perhaps take a few falls should you think maybe this climb is so reach dependent that I won't be able to do it now or perhaps ever, and that's okay. You'll be better at other types of climbs or at different areas and that's where you can appreciate the aspects of your climbing that are your strengths.

As far as ratings go I don't think we should attempt any changes to the current system. Yes it's average us male centric, but that's okay because it's consistent. If you start changing ratings who knows how the rating was changed from ratings of different heights or if the climb is still geared to average male height? As mentioned people will climb in an area for a while to get a sense of the grades in that area, because they may all be sandbags or soft, etc. so again consistency is the most important thing. You can always mentally make the adjustment for yourself. e.g. if you climb at a new area and the nature of the climbing shows reachy moves you make want to mentally think: everything here is likely a number grade harder for my body type. I agree with above that comments are the best way to inform people that climbs may feel different for different types of climbers.

I don't know about strength training only being for 5.12 or above climbers. Technique and strength work together to get you up something. Anyone will benefit from increased strength.

Anonymous wrote:

Basically what John said, only more polite. 

Yes, with about the same amount of utility in response to the OP's question, though politeness is a plus. 

Aweffwef Fewfae wrote: 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.

I want to "repeat" this post because it says what I've been trying to say better than I did.  The bold emphases are mine.   (And if you disagree, I have someone to hide behind.)

So Aweffwef's post is covers the subject as the grade and steepness increases.  I want to add (again) that there are two other dimensions, at least:  1) rock type  (granite, sandstone, limestone, etc.)   2) crack vs. face.    

So, if you are short and climb in the New a lot, where there are often long reaches to crimps, you may think all climbing is reachy, but that's not true.   And if you were weaned in Indian Creek, you may be romping up 5.12 cracks with your small hands only to find 5.10 face climbing is way harder.

John Byrnes wrote:

I want to "repeat" this post because it says what I've been trying to say better than I did.  The bold emphases are mine.   (And if you disagree, I have someone to hide behind.)

[Aweffwef's post] 

I'm surprised you think Aweffwef's post was supportive of your points. That post implies that you, JB, have an advantage on everything you climb since according to Aweffwef you only climb "beginner" climbs (v5 / 5.12), and according to him tall people have an advantage sub-v6.

His post is basically bragaddocio that real climbers climb harder than v6 / 5.12, and a short person who trains hard enough (iron crosses, campusing, L-sits, front levers, etc.) will find shortness to be an advantage. Translation: be a short pro climber. 

Glowering wrote: If it was me I'd be mentally repeating a mantra of "Lynn Hill. Lynn Hill. Lynn Hill." while climbing tough stuff. i.e. if she can do it, I can do it.

I can't quite tell if you're serious, but I'll assume so. I respectfully disagree with you on the Lynn Hill mantra. "If she can do it, I can do it"? Should any intermediate person in a sport say to themselves "A person at the peak of performance in this sport can do X, therefore I can too?". No way. You may be able to tell yourself stuff like that, but the minute I said that to myself, I'd be laughing so hard, I'd fall off the route.

I am hopeful that I will improve in the sport, but I'm a realist. Lynn Hill can do a lot of things that I will never be able to do. If I started training now, with the best professional coaches in the world, I don't think I'd ever be able to repeat her performance on El Cap. You may want to call that a self-limiting belief. Well, if I could afford professional coaches, I'd give it a try. But I think the most likely result would be more injuries.

I do think it's useful to think "Maybe I can do this a different way from what people usually do" or "Is there some way I can do this?" without just giving up. But sometimes you have to retreat.

I don't know about strength training only being for 5.12 or above climbers. Technique and strength work together to get you up something. Anyone will benefit from increased strength.

I think this is the first time I've heard someone say that strength training is good for climbers below 5.12. People tell me over and over again that it's all about technique below 5.12. Would love to hear about your experience with this if you have any, although since you're a tall male I realize it may not be applicable for me as a short female. Before I started climbing, I had been weight training for many years, and I am pretty sure that it helped me when starting out.

Eric Chabot wrote: If you surround yourself with people who climb 5.12 / 5.13 where 5.11 is the warm up, then 5.11 will become your warm up. We are the average of the 10 people we spend the most time with.

There's a saying: "That which doesn't kill you makes you stronger." The people who say that forget the other saying: "That which doesn't kill you may injure you so badly that you'll be weaker for the rest of your life." People don't like to think about the latter possibility. It's a downer, and some people will call it a self-limiting belief. It also happens to be reality.

It may sound like I totally disagree with you, but I don't. I do think it helps to climb with people who climb harder than you - you'll learn different techniques (which I daresay you can also get on YouTube). However, you do have to be careful. I've injured myself climbing with stronger climbers. Pulling on a 5.11, far above my limit, when I was recovering from an injury led to me reinjuring myself. I don't blame the people I was climbing with, who were trying to encourage me; it is my nature to attack things with gusto. I should have known better.

There's a reason people have self-limiting beliefs when it comes to physical activities. Your brain tells you that what you're attempting may turn out bad for you. Sometimes your brain is mistaken, and sometimes it's really difficult to tell the difference.

dragons wrote:

I think this is the first time I've heard someone say that strength training is good for climbers below 5.12. People tell me over and over again that it's all about technique below 5.12. Would love to hear about your experience with this if you have any, although since you're a tall male I realize it may not be applicable for me as a short female. Before I started climbing, I had been weight training for many years, and I am pretty sure that it helped me when starting out.

More finger strength never hurt anybody. 

Whether weight training will help depends on your particular weaknesses.
Shoulder stability is a very good thing, both for performance and for injury avoidance.
Core stability is good for performance.

Training technique is always good, but 'going climbing' may not actually be improving technique.
You must be the judge of that. Maybe you're just having fun.

Some folks flourish just climbing (eg Sharma) but I think for most of us, including relative beginners, a mix of climbing for fun, climbing as training, technique training, and strength and finger training is ideal.
Getting the proportions right is an individual matter and not at all easy!

Finally, my advice is as useless as everybody else's.
Experiment and find what works for you.

L Kap wrote:

Hi Eric, I just want to note that my post was about a numerical reality - that the vast majority of climbers, and especially women, do not climb over v6, which is hard 5.12 for roped climbers. It does not make a person "lazy" if they are not working the v7s / 5.13s by training iron crosses and front levers. I climb at a gym in Boulder 2-3x / week and try to get outside at least 2-3x / month and have been climbing since 2002. I think I can count on one hand the number of women I've seen in person climbing 5.13 in a non-comp setting and they are mostly pros - Lynn Hill, Robin Erbesfield-Raboutou, and Sasha Digiulian come to mind. And even they aren't hitting the 5.13s at every session. If the OP or anyone else gets satisfaction from trying hard / pushing their physical limits, that's cool. What's not cool is tall men implying that the only reason short women aren't all Ashimas is that they are lazy self-limiting whiners. Which is not what you did, but is what I was reacting to. 

Lk that doesn't surprise me. Based on your profile you probably don't spend a lot of time at crags that are stacked with hard 5.12s and 5.13s, and areas with hard boulders. I mean no disrespect, I think all types of climbing are cool and it sounds like you have a lot of experience with the aspect of the sport that appeals to you. And I agree with you that being tall helps-- on moderate routes where the terrain is slabby. And on isolated harder routes as well.

What I wanted to emphasize is that short women are out there, crushing. And for what it's worth, I think the commenter you criticize is also right, that being small is an advantage when the climbing is overhanging on small holds. I disagree with his prescription for campusing below v6, I think movement practice and mental training are probably more important to get through the 'beginner' grades, for short and tall climbers alike. I'd say rather than lazy, climbers who feel height-limited are often times inexperienced in the movement skills needed to climb harder routes.

I think the reason you and jb arent finding common ground is that you might climb really different types of routes and areas. Go to rifle or pipe dream cave in Maple any weekend and I guarantee the ladies are gonna be out there crushing hard 12 and 5.13. at Joe's valley I see chicks climbing v7 all the time. To everyone that reads this thread, thinks 12a is a hard grade, and wants to climb harder, just go to a crag where high level climbers are working on routes and watch them doing their thing. It'll blow your mind and reset your frame of reference.

To the next generation, and the Euros, 5.12 are beginner routes. We need to face that fact and until we do the Euros are gonna keep blowing our doors at the comps. Sasha d talks about this in her interviews. When hard climbing is normalized, it isn't hard any more, and anyone can do it, even the shorties!

dragons wrote: There's a saying: "That which doesn't kill you makes you stronger." The people who say that forget the other saying: "That which doesn't kill you may injure you so badly that you'll be weaker for the rest of your life." People don't like to think about the latter possibility. It's a downer, and some people will call it a self-limiting belief. It also happens to be reality.

It may sound like I totally disagree with you, but I don't. I do think it helps to climb with people who climb harder than you - you'll learn different techniques (which I daresay you can also get on YouTube). However, you do have to be careful. I've injured myself climbing with stronger climbers. Pulling on a 5.11, far above my limit, when I was recovering from an injury led to me reinjuring myself. I don't blame the people I was climbing with, who were trying to encourage me; it is my nature to attack things with gusto. I should have known better.

There's a reason people have self-limiting beliefs when it comes to physical activities. Your brain tells you that what you're attempting may turn out bad for you. Sometimes your brain is mistaken, and sometimes it's really difficult to tell the difference.

Yeah injuries are a bummer for sure. In my last post I also urged patience and emphasized that everyone is on their own journey. I don't mean just start jumping on 12s and 13s, I mean look at the approach of strong climbers and emulate it.

I've also struggled with biting off more than I can chew and re injuring myself. It sucks!

Eric Chabot wrote:

Lk that doesn't surprise me. Based on your profile you probably don't spend a lot of time at crags that are stacked with hard 5.12s and 5.13s, and areas with hard boulders. I mean no disrespect, I think all types of climbing are cool and it sounds like you have a lot of experience with the aspect of the sport that appeals to you. And I agree with you that being tall helps-- on moderate routes where the terrain is slabby. And on isolated harder routes as well.

What I wanted to emphasize is that short women are out there, crushing. And for what it's worth, I think the commenter you criticize is also right, that being small is an advantage when the climbing is overhanging on small holds. I disagree with his prescription for campusing below v6, I think movement practice and mental training are probably more important to get through the 'beginner' grades, for short and tall climbers alike. I'd say rather than lazy, climbers who feel height-limited are often times inexperienced in the movement skills needed to climb harder routes.

I think the reason you and jb arent finding common ground is that you might climb really different types of routes and areas. Go to rifle or pipe dream cave in Maple any weekend and I guarantee the ladies are gonna be out there crushing hard 12 and 5.13. at Joe's valley I see chicks climbing v7 all the time. To everyone that reads this thread, thinks 12a is a hard grade, and wants to climb harder, just go to a crag where high level climbers are working on routes and watch them doing their thing. It'll blow your mind and reset your frame of reference.

To the next generation, and the Euros, 5.12 are beginner routes. We need to face that fact and until we do the Euros are gonna keep blowing our doors at the comps. Sasha d talks about this in her interviews. When hard climbing is normalized, it isn't hard any more, and anyone can do it, even the shorties!

Yes, it doesn't surprise me that if you frequent areas with hard climbs and surround yourself with people crushing hard 12s and 13s, that seems normal to you. Statistically, that is not the middle of the bell curve of climbers, it's on the far end. Yes, young climbers are pushing the outer limits of difficulty as they have always done, and better gear and training techniques makes it possible for people to climb harder safely. I'd still be surprised if the middle of the bell curve shifts much year by year, or decade by decade, because a) most climbers are recreational and not elite athletes, and b) human physiology evolves at a glacial pace. It would be an interesting survey project to see what the mass of climbers are climbing year over year. It's like speed or endurance running in that regard. Elite athletes are breaking records every year, but the vast pack of recreational runners is probably still running about as fast / far as they did twenty years ago.

ETA - The Boulder Climbing Community just did a survey of Colorado Front Range climbers. Check out the results for the question 6  "What is the upper end of your preferred range of climbing routes?" Fully 83% said 5.12 or lower. Which, according to Aweffwef, makes 83% of Front Range climbers wimpy undertrained "beginners". Over half said 5.11 or lower, including me. The fat belly of the bell curve is people who top out somewhere in the 5.11s to 5.12s.   drive.google.com/file/d/1Zd…

L Kap wrote:

Yes, it doesn't surprise me that if you frequent areas with hard climbs and surround yourself with people crushing hard 12s and 13s, that seems normal to you. Statistically, that is not the middle of the bell curve of climbers, it's on the far end. Yes, young climbers are pushing the outer limits of difficulty as they have always done, and better gear and training techniques makes it possible for people to climb harder safely. I'd still be surprised if the middle of the bell curve shifts much year by year, or decade by decade, because a) most climbers are recreational and not elite athletes, and b) human physiology evolves at a glacial pace. It would be an interesting survey project to see what the mass of climbers are climbing year over year. It's like speed or endurance running in that regard. Elite athletes are breaking records every year, but the vast pack of recreational runners is probably still running about as fast / far as they did twenty years ago.

ETA - The Boulder Climbing Community just did a survey of Colorado Front Range climbers. Check out the results for the question 6  "What is the upper end of your preferred range of climbing routes?" Fully 83% said 5.12 or lower. Which, according to Aweffwef, makes 83% of Front Range climbers wimpy undertrained "beginners". Over half said 5.11 or lower, including me. The fat belly of the bell curve is people who top out somewhere in the 5.11s to 5.12s.   drive.google.com/file/d/1Zd…

Wow that's an interesting survey! It is easy for any of us to just hang out in our own bubble. 

With survey results like that it can be interesting to cut things the other way. Almost half of climbers (48%) want routes 5.12 - 5.13 and harder! I'd say people there are pretty strong and that 5.12 might not be such a lofty grade after all if it is accessible to half of the climbing population.

I'd argue that climbing is in a very different developmental stage as a sport than running, with the last 20 years seeing the advent of research based training protocols, lots more performance oriented youth programs, large well equipped training facilities for everyone, exposure of the everyday climber to strong people, etc. We are about to be in the olympics for the first time and running has been in them since 776 BC

I don't buy those statistics from the BCC.
There are probably 100 people at Canal Zone and Little Eiger today climbing 5.10 and below vs 10 (or fewer) people at Easter and the Slab, mostly climbing 5.12s.
Maybe one party on 13s.

If I had to guess, I'd say the average sport climber around here leads 5.10 with the occasional hangdog session on an 11.
I'll bet even lower for trad, although I don't climb trad much any more.

Just look at which are the most popular crags?
People want to go to Other Critters (lots <5.9) that they are willing to climb in the blazing sun to do it.

L Kap wrote:

I'm surprised you think Aweffwef's post was supportive of your points. That post implies that you, JB, have an advantage on everything you climb since according to Aweffwef you only climb "beginner" climbs (v5 / 5.12), and according to him tall people have an advantage sub-v6.

I'm  a mediocre climber.  I admit that.  I walk around Rifle and I'm the worst climber there.  So, is there a point you're trying to make?  

His post is basically bragaddocio that real climbers climb harder than v6 / 5.12, and a short person who trains hard enough (iron crosses, campusing, L-sits, front levers, etc.) will find shortness to be an advantage. Translation: be a short pro climber. 

What he's really saying to you, L Kap, (since your reading comprehension is clearly lacking) is that only when you reach a certain level of competence do "you actually have a right to complain" about being short "until then, it's simply laziness."

Mark E Dixon wrote: I don't buy those statistics from the BCC.
There are probably 100 people at Canal Zone and Little Eiger today climbing 5.10 and below vs 10 (or fewer) people at Easter and the Slab, mostly climbing 5.12s.
Maybe one party on 13s.

If I had to guess, I'd say the average sport climber around here leads 5.10 with the occasional hangdog session on an 11.
I'll bet even lower for trad, although I don't climb trad much any more.

Just look at which are the most popular crags?
People want to go to Other Critters (lots <5.9) that they are willing to climb in the blazing sun to do it.

Your observations align with mine, Mark. I don't think half of Front Range climbers actually are competent 5.12 sport climbers. That's definitely not what I see at the gym or outside.

The survey asked what's the upper end of your preferred range of routes, so the 5.12s might be aspirational. Or maybe people who occasionally jump on a 12a on TR to get a good thrashing. There are a good number of people who climb harder, but they aren't the majority. Also, consider that the survey sample might be skewed to people who strongly self-identify as climbers, whereas the population of "people who have gone climbing outside" is probably quite a bit bigger.

Anyway. I don't want to hijack the thread - just providing some counterweight to the "I don't mean to sound elite but..." posts. 

John Byrnes wrote: I'm  a mediocre climber.  I admit that.  I walk around Rifle and I'm the worst climber there.  So, is there a point you're trying to make?  

That he specifically said your height gives you an advantage on everything you climb since you climb sub V6. Which I don't believe you agree with. Re-read his post. 

What he's really saying to you, L Kap, (since your reading comprehension is clearly lacking) is that only when you reach a certain level of competence do "you actually have a right to complain" about being short "until then, it's simply laziness."

I understood his point. Perhaps you didn't understand what I said, which is that his statement is a) braggadocio and b) an eye-wateringly unrealistic representation of the actual experience of the vast majority of actual climbers, especially women.

Yo, LK.

Arguing with Lord Slime is a waste of time.

And if you review Fewfae's other posts on 'average' climbing ability, you'll find he/she is totally out of touch.

Even so, their posts often contain worthwhile nuggets...at least as much as the rest of us.

amarius wrote:

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.

I'll give you two clear examples.  Back when I was young, 40, I was onsighting 11+ in Yosemite.    

1) I crossed the Merced to do a 5-pitch, 5.10 warm-up route.  The final pitch had a short "5.7 OW" that bulged out from the wall, undercut below and slab above.  No gear.   I could use my feet at first and pushed myself up into the slot.  But once my waist was slotted, my hips wouldn't fit through the constriction, my feet were dangling, and my hands had nothing to jam or grasp.  I had to do some desperate squirming and palming which felt like 5.12.  Edit: Oh, I forgot to mention the screaming.

2) Later that week I did Astroman.  As I remember the Harding Slot is rated 5.8+ and my partner (5'7") squirmed right up it.  But the thing was so tight I couldn't expand my chest to take a normal breath.   I was about 10' inside the wall, unable to breathe.  The hardest and scariest pitch I ever did.   I had bruises on my nipples, hip-bones and the tip of my nose was abraded.   I got out of that thing completely hypoglycemic and adrenaline scorched.

So a 5.7 and a 5.8 were absolutely desperate; hows that for some examples?

So all the elitist spraying aside, what are some real ways a short climber can improve and get better? I’m 5’7 wih 0 ape, so not as short as some of you… but sometimes I still run into the reach problem.

Lately I’ve been doing an exercise in the gym where I will repeat a single move on a boulder problem with every foothold in the vicinity of the move that I can possibly use. I start with problem 3-4 grades below my flash grade as to not make the move too desperate. I’ll do the move with the lowest foothold I can use while still standing on my tippy toes (other words, this is not a dyno exercise), the highest foothold I can reach (sometimes inverting and going feet out), furthest foothold to the left and to the right (sometimes heel hooks, toe hooks, bicycles), and every foothold in between, with both the left and right leg. Often times the move will not work or feel really awkward, but the idea is by forcing myself to use different footholds, I can come up with creative body position and movement. It also gives me the spatial awareness to know where I need to get my feet in order to reach a handhold a certain distance away. This is especially important for on-sight attempts.

I found this exercise pretty helpful.

Glowering wrote: As far as ratings go I don't think we should attempt any changes to the current system. Yes it's average us male centric, but that's okay because it's consistent. If you start changing ratings who knows how the rating was changed from ratings of different heights or if the climb is still geared to average male height? As mentioned people will climb in an area for a while to get a sense of the grades in that area, because they may all be sandbags or soft, etc. so again consistency is the most important thing. You can always mentally make the adjustment for yourself. e.g. if you climb at a new area and the nature of the climbing shows reachy moves you make want to mentally think: everything here is likely a number grade harder for my body type. I agree with above that comments are the best way to inform people that climbs may feel different for different types of climbers.

The thing is, cases like what you're describing--where the geology of the cliff means "everything here is likely a number grade harder for my body type"--are (in my limited experience) the exception rather than the norm. Although a lot of responses on this thread are suggesting that I argued that shorter climbers systematically have a harder time, that isn't an argument I've ever been invested in making.

Instead, the very factor that gives these grades consistency for many people around average male height/hand size makes them more inconsistent overall for shorter/smaller climbers. Most of the time routes climb pretty true-to-grade for the style/area, but in my experience occasionally one will be significantly harder or easier due to size differences.

Reading the route description and looking at the climb from the ground can help discern when this will be the case, but it isn't always as informative as one might hope. Stuff like crack size, or adjectives like "reachy" or "scrunchy" in the route description, can be helpful, but they often don't tell the whole story.

For instance, the crack on Beeline (5.7) at Echo Crag is a size that is usually better for me than my larger-handed partners, and if I'm just going off that I might expect it to be soft for the grade for me. However, the crux moves involve moving off a finger lock at the start to a high jug--in my case (IIRC) making an extra move or two through an intermediate jam with somewhat mediocre (for the grade) feet. I had fun climbing it, but if I'd chosen it last year as a 5.6-with-the-occasional-5.7 trad leader hoping that it would be a good route for me to work on breaking into 7's, I might have found it a bit more heads-up than I was hoping for. By contrast, Rhododenderon (5.6) at the Gunks is described as "hands to fists," which initially gave me pause when trying to decide whether to go for an onsight attempt. But thanks to its many face holds and irregularities in the crack, the crack size posed no extra difficulties; in fact, I felt that as a small climber I may have had an advantage on the crux layback (I could imagine taller climbers feeling a bit awkwardly scrunched).

Likewise, for "reachy" moves: I've heard the crux moves on the last pitch of Whitney-Gilman (5.7) described as reachy, and the route description made me a little apprehensive: "At one time the triangular stance held 1 ½ to 2 feet of rock blocks, so you stood much higher, making the crux first moves of the dihedral much easier!" However, I found that the body position, available feet, and positivity of the holds I was reaching for made the reach very doable, and it didn't feel any harder than 5.7 to me. By contrast, it would be hard to describe the 5.6 P2 roof on Drunkard's Delight at the Gunks as "reachy," since there are jugs everywhere; but the shorter climber has to commit to moving her feet off the good holds beneath the roof much sooner than a taller climber (I kind of swam up the crack like an offwidth/squeeze), which I suspect does make the climbing a bit more difficult.

I've named New England routes in the 5.6-7 range because it's within what I comfortably onsight on gear, and I've spent a fair amount of time (arguably too much!) on routes of this grade around here. My point is that it isn't as simple as "look for the crack that gives your tiny hands an advantage" or "avoid routes with long reaches." A big reach might still be doable at the grade for a small climber if the geometry of the rock makes it an easy deadpoint/dyno, while what might appear as a relatively tame reach can be hard if you have poor feet, are forced into a tricky body position, or are reaching for a hold in an orientation that isn't very positive. And unless you are climbing a straight up splitter (sadly rare here in New England), there are many factors in addition to crack size that can influence how the crack climbs.

I've taken to heart the comments in this thread that everyone experiences 5.WTF from time to time, and that coming in with too many expectations can detract from one's ability to be present and problem-solve on the rock. Even though this is a situation that is experienced by short climbers more often than others, it is an experience everyone does have from time to time! I also agree that working on tactics to deal with these kinds of situations--aiding, bail tactics, or just being able to pull harder than you were expecting to--is more useful than spending undue time and energy feeling frustrated by it. Ultimately, the goal is to have fun and get back down safely; anything else is just a bonus. An attitude that you "should' be able to send a route of a given grade is unhelpful mentally, and something I've definitely been guilty of in the past.

But, it's hard for me to agree with the idea that because male-centric grades are what we've ended up with, that's the best we'll ever have, and we should just accept them as is for the sake of "consistency." Maybe expecting an eventual future where women and men contribute equally to consensus grades is unrealistic, but I don't see a reasonable argument that working towards that, even if only incrementally, would be a bad thing. I'd expect most grades to stay the same: height/reach/size is rarely the primary factor influencing movement difficulty. But, in some cases, there'd be big or small changes (there'd probably be a lot more 10+/11- at the Creek as routes like IHC got upgraded and CC got downgraded, hahaha), and I don't see any problem with that.

L Kap wrote: That he specifically said your height gives you an advantage on everything you climb since you climb sub V6. Which I don't believe you agree with. Re-read his post. 

Whooooppeeee!  Yeah!  The reason I can't climb all those climbs I can't climb is because of my height!      Now I have a lame excuse just like you!     (Duh)

I understood his point. Perhaps you didn't understand what I said, which is that his statement is a) braggadocio and b) an eye-wateringly unrealistic representation of the actual experience of the vast majority of actual climbers, especially women.

I have NO empathy for this statement since I, and dozens of others, have provided many examples of actual short woman who climb just as hard as most the men.   Of course, you just ignore all that because it doesn't fit your platform.  

Your problem is not your height.

About 10 years ago I hired a professional coach.  He gave me shit about climbing "short".  He said, "Use your height to the best advantage because your weight (on overhanging routes) will defeat you if you don't."   So as I keep saying, it balances out.   So maybe, someday, if you ever get to the point of climbing long overhanging routes, you'll finally realize the advantages you have being short.  Of course with the attitude you have, that will probably never happen.