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

I like to go back to routes that shut me down, after a few years. And it is interesting to see how your perspective changes.

This spring I sent 3 routes that I had tried 3-10 years ago, and thought to be reachy/harder than the grade because of it.

Route 1: there was a hidden crimp I repeatedly didn’t see before, because I was too freaked out. In retrospect, this was due to mental issues, and not reach. The route seems about right for the grade.

Route 2: kneebar! It turned a precise dynamic move, where I needed to deadpoint/bump to a sidepull slot, to just a matter of casually taking my hand off the lower hold, and placing it, at my leisure, in no rush whatsoever, as precisely as I wished, in a higher slot.  After sending it, it actually seemed easy for the grade.

Route 3: still reachy. I did it, but it felt like a low-percentage move, I might not be able to do it repeatedly. Harder than the grade, but not THAT much harder. Maybe a letter grade, at most?

So I was right about 1 time in 3? Not a very good track record!

From reading all the comments. It appears those complaining about being short/tall are mostly new or climbing lower grades. Lena's experience of only 1 in three routes actually being reachy upon her developing climbing skills is typical. I find it funny how fixed in opinion people are that they have come to the correct conclusion even when they have minimal experience.

Cpn Dunsel wrote:

Kewpie Doll awarded.

Climbing poses unique challenges to all of its participants.

What do you mean by Kewpie doll awarded? I'm unfamiliar with the phrase. 

I'm in agreement that we are all unique, however I have coach new climbers and often heard 'that doesn't work for me' insert any number of excuses. While sometimes this may be true usually something eventually clicks with the climber and what was impossible becomes easy. I'm always a bit taken back by how sure they are that it won't work because of lame reason, until it does and becomes a go to technique. This never seams to shake their confidence in being right for the next 'that doesn't work for me'. 

Apparently, short climbers often favor high steps:

(For real, though, I think I tend to overuse this kind of movement....)

Lena chita wrote: Re: grades.

You should vote what it feels to you. But seeing the outlier votes is of no help, unless you know the person who voted outlier. And short people are in the minority, so we would never shift a consensus anyway.

Comments on the route can be helpful. But again, unless you know the person...

For example, a funny story about This route. A few years back, I climbed it (not for the first time), and commented to my partner after lowering, something to the effect of “so much fun! I love doing it every time I come here!”

A random girl overheard me, and said:”well, it’s easy for you to say, but I’m only 5’3”, and that move at the top is just impossible!” I was rather confused, and asked her how tall she thought I was. She said 5’7”! I laughed and walked up to stand next to her, to show her that I was actually shorter than she was.

If you look at the comments for this route, there is even a mention of a dyno! I have no idea what the person is talking about. I’ve done the route many times, and never once did I think to dyno. I suck at dynos. Maybe I’m just doing one of the variations? I don’t think so, pretty sure I just go straight up...So all the research, and reading comments, might have led me to not climb this route. And it would have been a shame! Because it really is a fun route. And it’s not like I was a 5.12 climber back when I first sent the route, either...

So in the end, I would trust a personal recommendation of someone my height whose climbing style I really know, but not necessarily Internet comments. I’ve had couple partners who were taller than me, but had a really good sense for what would give me trouble. Overall though, taller people generally have no clue whether a route would feel reachy to me, or not, Despite best intentions.

I have had similar experiences with comments on routes. My thought with votes is that if women and men participated in climbing and consensus grade voting equally, eventually the consensus grade would shift to focus around ≈5'6.5'', and "short" people would no longer be outliers to the extent we are now. It is probably an unrealistic idea, but it's kind of interesting as a thought experiment if nothing else.

I think my track record is likely even worse than 1 in 3! I also think that even when I send a route, I sometimes feel a move was harder-than-grade due to reach when really it was harder because I didn't dial in the most efficient way to do it. I think it's slowly getting better, though--actually in large part thanks to some of the constructive comments on this thread (including yours--so thanks for that!).

Etha Williams wrote:

I have had similar experiences with comments on routes. My thought with votes is that if women and men participated in climbing and consensus grade voting equally, eventually the consensus grade would shift to focus around ≈5'6.5'', and "short" people would no longer be outliers to the extent we are now. It is probably an unrealistic idea, but it's kind of interesting as a thought experiment if nothing else.

I think my track record is likely even worse than 1 in 3! I also think that even when I send a route, I sometimes feel a move was harder-than-grade due to reach when really it was harder because I didn't dial in the most efficient way to do it. I think it's slowly getting better, though--actually in large part thanks to some of the constructive comments on this thread (including yours--so thanks for that!).

The thing about consensus grading of any kind is that it's always going to be some kind of bell curve. If you're an outlier in height, weight, strength, hand strength, courage, whatever, you'll rate things differently because you experience them differently. Just watch, for example, people beginning to hand-jam cracks rate their very first hand crack. To them it's borderline miraculous that they even made it up, 5.12 for sure! But get some practice under your belt and suddenly that's a 5.9 crack. Nothing has changed but your knowledge and level of experience. 

Señor Arroz wrote:

The thing about consensus grading of any kind is that it's always going to be some kind of bell curve. If you're an outlier in height, weight, strength, hand strength, courage, whatever, you'll rate things differently because you experience them differently. Just watch, for example, people beginning to hand-jam cracks rate their very first hand crack. To them it's borderline miraculous that they even made it up, 5.12 for sure! But get some practice under your belt and suddenly that's a 5.9 crack. Nothing has changed but your knowledge and level of experience. 

For sure. My only point on the height/size front is that right now that bell curve is based around average male height (and hand size, etc). That means that someone who is 5’2’ and someone who is 6’4’’ are at roughly equivalent places on this bell curve, even though 13.5% of the US population is 5’2’’ or shorter vs a mere 0.5% at 6’4’’ or taller.

If consensus grades were not overwhelmingly skewed male, the bell curve would be centered at about 5’6.5’’, so 5’2’’ and 5’11’’ would be at roughly equivalent places on the curve. This would be beneficial IMO because it would likely increase the consistency of the grading scale for a broader spectrum of the population, especially women. Of course, other factors (courage, fitness, familiarity with the rock/style, etc) would still be at play as well.

Etha Williams wrote:

For sure. My only point on the height/size front is that right now that bell curve is based around average male height (and hand size, etc). That means that someone who is 5’2’ and someone who is 6’4’’ are at roughly equivalent places on this bell curve, even though 13.5% of the US population is 5’2’’ or shorter vs a mere 0.5% at 6’4’’ or taller.

If consensus grades were not overwhelmingly skewed male, the bell curve would be centered at about 5’6.5’’, so 5’2’’ and 5’11’’ would be at roughly equivalent places on the curve. This would be beneficial IMO because it would likely increase the consistency of the grading scale for a broader spectrum of the population, especially women. Of course, other factors (courage, fitness, familiarity with the rock/style, etc) would still be at play as well.

Some examples to give support to the point Etha is making: Tennessee Flake at Rose Ledge is considered 5.9 or 10. The Rakkup guidebook gives it a 5.10 and writes, "climbers under 5'11" will be justified in calling TF 5.11 (interestingly, nobody has suggested 5.11 on MP). In the Gunks, Double Clutch is a 5.9+. According to GunksApps, "The first roof is 5.10 if you are under 5'8". In other words, although the consensus of Double Clutch is 5.9, an average-height individual will find it to feel like 5.10. Here, some Mountain Project graders have suggested 5.10, perhaps encouraged to do so by the general feeling that a lot of Gunks climbs are sandbagged. I think there will always be a bias towards those whose bodies are suited to a climb in the consensus grading system because they will be more likely to attempt a climb and more likely to succeed, but it is interesting how much grades currently skew towards representing the average height male rather than the average height individual more generally.

Etha Williams wrote:

For sure. My only point on the height/size front is that right now that bell curve is based around average male height (and hand size, etc). That means that someone who is 5’2’ and someone who is 6’4’’ are at roughly equivalent places on this bell curve, even though 13.5% of the US population is 5’2’’ or shorter vs a mere 0.5% at 6’4’’ or taller.

If consensus grades were not overwhelmingly skewed male, the bell curve would be centered at about 5’6.5’’, so 5’2’’ and 5’11’’ would be at roughly equivalent places on the curve. This would be beneficial IMO because it would likely increase the consistency of the grading scale for a broader spectrum of the population, especially women. Of course, other factors (courage, fitness, familiarity with the rock/style, etc) would still be at play as well.

A broader spectrum of which population? The climbing one or the USA or the world? Each of these groups have different averages. I would think the user group of climbers is most important to center grades around and that's accomplish already or would be if everyone voted without ego. Also a climb may not get harder or easier for each inch shorter you are. Often the best height is the one that can just reach on the biggest reach of a climb. Any additional size just makes holds smaller and you heavier.

Señor Arroz wrote:

Just watch, for example, people beginning to hand-jam cracks rate their very first hand crack. To them it's borderline miraculous that they even made it up, 5.12 for sure! But get some practice under your belt and suddenly that's a 5.9 crack. Nothing has changed but your knowledge and level of experience. 

I think most climbers realize when they are climbing something that requires familiarity with techniques they don't possess - slab, crack, offwidth - and don't try to rate it.

The first time I climbed Easy Jam in Vedauwoo (5.4 wide crack), I had no crack technique and was terrified. My hands and feet slopped around inside the crack so I tried to stick to the outside holds and climb it like a dihedral, which is super insecure and thin. Obviously I wasn't using the most efficient technique and I did not try to rate it. I later learned some crack technique, climbed it the right way, and can confirm that yeah, it goes pretty easy.

Likewise, I think that most experienced short climbers can judge when they are required to pull a move or use a technique that shouldn't be obligatory for the grade. When a 5.8 requires a huge dyno because you can't reach the jug from the ledge like your partner, that's pretty obviously not the sequence assumed in the grade. That's why guidebooks will say things like "this climb is a number grade harder if you are under X height". I've never seen a guidebook say "this climb is a number grade harder if you are heavy / inexperienced / timid / have weak hands". 

L Kap wrote:

I think most climbers realize when they are climbing something that requires familiarity with techniques they don't possess - slab, crack, offwidth - and don't try to rate it.

The first time I climbed Easy Jam in Vedauwoo (5.4 wide crack), I had no crack technique and was terrified. My hands and feet slopped around inside the crack so I tried to stick to the outside holds and climb it like a dihedral, which is super insecure and thin. Obviously I wasn't using the most efficient technique and I did not try to rate it. I later learned some crack technique, climbed it the right way, and can confirm that yeah, it goes pretty easy.

Likewise, I think that most experienced short climbers can judge when they are required to pull a move or use a technique that shouldn't be obligatory for the grade. When a 5.8 requires a huge dyno because you can't reach the jug from the ledge like your partner, that's pretty obviously not the sequence assumed in the grade. That's why guidebooks will say things like "this climb is a number grade harder if you are under X height". I've never seen a guidebook say "this climb is a number grade harder if you are heavy / inexperienced / timid / have weak hands". 

I can't count all the times I have been told I will have to dyno on a route only to find out that a dyno is not required. I have been forced to dyno on real rock on 2 routes so far. I have sent over 900 different routes in many areas up to mid 5.13. I am below average height. While height can effect the grade it's not the large factor new climbers try to claim it is.

Leron wrote:

I can't count all the times I have been told I will have to dyno on a route only to find out that a dyno is not required. I have been forced to dyno on real rock on 2 routes so far. I have sent over 900 different routes in many areas up to mid 5.13. I am below average height. While height can effect the grade it's not the large factor new climbers try to claim it is.

How tall are you, Leron? 4'11"? 5'2"? 5'6"? 

L Kap wrote:

How tall are you, Leron? 4'11"? 5'2"? 5'6"? 

5'7. So not short for a woman but short for a man. My climbing circle has heights ranging from 4'11 to 6'6. The funny thing is in this group there are two people that like to dyno outside one is 6'  the other is 5'6. I have never seen the 4'11 girl dyno. She is strong and has good technique which seems to be enough for her to climb 12s.

Do you think there is a magic height were dynos suddenly become required at high frequency?

My experience is that most new/less experienced climbers see only the dyno/reachy option where better climbers see options.

The 6' guy sets at our local gym. I always try to tell him to not set dynos. He will list outside climbs he's dyno'd on. I will inform him I did those same climbs without the dyno. He calls bs untill we go to the climb and I show him my beta. For some reason people can't believe they are missing options.

Leron wrote:

5'7. So not short for a woman but short for a man. 

I am also 5'7". The average US male height is 5'9". The average US human height is 5'6.5". You and I are a half inch taller than the average person in the US.  Your prior comment that you are shorter than average speaks to the OP's point that "short" tends to be considered in a male context rather than an actual human average. I don't think you or I have the same climbing experience as the women on this thread who are 4'11, for example, or 5'2".

My climbing circle has heights ranging from 4'11 to 6'6. The funny thing is in this group there are two people that like to dyno outside one is 6'  the other is 5'6. I have never seen the 4'11 girl dyno. She is strong and has good technique which seems to be enough for her to climb 12s.

Do you think there is a magic height were dynos suddenly become required at high frequency?

My experience is that most new/less experienced climbers see only the dyno/reachy option where better climbers see options.

The 6' guy sets at our local gym. I always try to tell him to not set dynos. He will list outside climbs he's dyno'd on. I will inform him I did those same climbs without the dyno. He calls bs untill we go to the climb and I show him my beta. For some reason people can't believe they are missing options.

This ground has been covered in this thread before. Short people can be great climbers, be strong, and have excellent technique. When a climb is "reachy", they tend to need to do extra moves, more powerful moves, or more advanced moves than the "average" beta. No one's saying they can't do most climbs, but reachy climbs objectively require the short person to be a better climber (stronger / more advanced / having stronger fingers or more endurance) than someone who can casually reach to the big jug.

Gym setters like dynos because it's a comp thing - the flashy moves are crowd pleasers. The kids who have grown up on YouTube like them for the same reason - they look cool. Some people also just like to dyno because they like to dyno, and they find places to do it where it isn't needed. Similarly, some people love heel hooks, or kneebars, or hands-free rests. I have friends who specialize in each and find places to do them where I would not think of it. Me, I love drop knees, and they definitely help with reach. I've still encountered climbs where if I were five inches shorter, latching a hold would be much more difficult. Maybe I'd deal with that by working on my dynos. Maybe I'd deal with that by working on using tiny chips and slopers and body tension. But I'd have to do something harder.

L Kap wrote: I am also 5'7". The average US male height is 5'9". The average US human height is 5'6.5". You and I are a half inch taller than the average person in the US.  Your prior comment that you are shorter than average speaks to the OP's point that "short" tends to be considered in a male context rather than an actual human average. I don't think you or I have the same climbing experience as the women on this thread who are 4'11, for example, or 5'2".

This ground has been covered in this thread before. Short people can be great climbers, be strong, and have excellent technique. When a climb is "reachy", they tend to need to do extra moves, more powerful moves, or more advanced moves than the "average" beta. No one's saying they can't do most climbs, but reachy climbs objectively require the short person to be a better climber (stronger / more advanced / having stronger fingers or more endurance) than someone who can casually reach to the big jug.

Gym setters like dynos because it's a comp thing - the flashy moves are crowd pleasers. The kids who have grown up on YouTube like them for the same reason - they look cool. Some people also just like to dyno because they like to dyno, and they find places to do it where it isn't needed. Similarly, some people love heel hooks, or kneebars, or hands-free rests. I have friends who specialize in each and find places to do them where I would not think of it. Me, I love drop knees, and they definitely help with reach. I've still encountered climbs where if I were five inches shorter, latching a hold would be much more difficult. Maybe I'd deal with that by working on my dynos. Maybe I'd deal with that by working on using tiny chips and slopers and body tension. But I'd have to do something harder.

I was thinking of average climber height which is skewed male no argument there not world average. But you make a good point shorter can lead to harder moves sometimes. You miss the point that small makes most non reachy moves easier. All crimps bigger. Less weight to pull. There is a reason the majority of pro climbers are below average height for their respective gender.

Leron wrote:

You miss the point that small makes most non reachy moves easier. All crimps bigger. Less weight to pull. 

This is not what the Randall and Torr data show.

There is a reason the majority of pro climbers are below average height for their respective gender.

Source for the assertion that the majority of pro climbers are below average height? For reference, average for an American man is 5'9". Average for an American woman is 5'4".

ETA - A quick look at this article of the "10 strongest climbers in the world" shows that 3 of 10 (Ashima, Sasha DiGulian, and Alex Megos) are slightly below average height for their gender. The rest all seem to be slightly to significantly taller than average.  

Just reopened this thread and am surprised to find some people have not yet realized this thread is just a support group for a few people who want to rally around an excuse not to train hard or learn.

dragons wrote:

That sounds like a good thing to do. I don't boulder (maybe I should, but I'm worried about landing wrong and getting injured). I've done something similar when top-roping outdoors. If you lead a route and then top rope the crap out of it, you can try to use a slightly different set of holds every time. I've found this very instructive in gaining confidence with my feet, in any case.

Don't think of it as bouldering, think of it as practicing. You don't even have to climb an entire problem if you fear injury, just do the moves close to the ground. You can certainly do this on a toprope with a patient belayer, and outside too. Although, when I'm outside I try to climb as much as I can, so I leave the practice and training to the gym.

Stephen C

and Senor Arroz, Thanks for clarifying the reach question. I will look to see what I can do to train lock-off strength. I can lock off at my waist when the wall is vertical    But it gets progressively more difficult as the route gets more overhung. However, locking off seems more about biceps strength to me, not so much core. I just tried this on my mini-wall downstairs, and it was definitely my biceps which felt the most stress trying to lock off at my waist, using a jug (can't imagine doing it with a small chip). I hardly felt any effort in my body anywhere else.

John Byrnes, "You're small, right?  You'd cruise it.  Might be a chimney for you".
- Yes, I'm 5'0" and weigh 93 lbs. So yeah I'd probably be okay on it. I'm not the best chimney climber, though; only done a few of them.

Lena Chita - "I was rather confused, and asked her how tall she thought I was. She said 5’7”! I laughed and walked up to stand next to her, to show her that I was actually shorter than she was.
- That story is hilarious!
"So in the end, I would trust a personal recommendation of someone my height whose climbing style I really know, but not necessarily Internet comments".
- My partner and I don't climb with anyone else (well, not in recent history), so all the beta I can get is random internet comments. Do you climb a route without reading the comments? In rare cases, comments will tell you about potential for X-rated falls. I'm just still in the "beginner" range for leading. I grab all the info I can get before leading something new.

Etha - "Apparently, short climbers often favor high steps"
- I sure do, but I'd think those would also be useful for people of all heights. Assuming they have the flexibility!

aikibujin - "You don't even have to climb an entire problem if you fear injury, just do the moves close to the ground"
- That's a great idea. I usually stay on the autobelay and do top-rope training because I want to mimic what I'm doing outside (longer routes, training for endurance), and also because I'm just worried about screwing up me knees on a long drop to the ground. It makes sense to train low down on the bouldering wall. I will plan to do this when I go back to training indoors after the outdoor season ends.

Leron wrote:

I was thinking of average climber height which is skewed male no argument there not world average. But you make a good point shorter can lead to harder moves sometimes. You miss the point that small makes most non reachy moves easier. All crimps bigger. Less weight to pull. There is a reason the majority of pro climbers are below average height for their respective gender.

Not really.  They tend to be all over the place.  Claire Buhrfiend and Alex Johnson are both 5'11," Kai Lightner is like 6'4," Dave Grahm is about 6'1," Klem Loskot is at least 6'2," the Nicole brothers are about 5'11," and Ondra is anywhere from 5'11'' to 6'1."  Kilian Fischuber, Jakob Schubert, Sharma and Janja Garnbret are very average in height.  The vast majority of pro males tend to be anywhere from 5'6" to 5'10," so the distribution of height is about equivalent or slightly less than the general population, and probably is not statistically significant.