Am I too tall? (Or is this a weight question in disguise? Will MP make a pinata of me?)

My friend is 6’2” 200lb (not all muscle..) and can climb 5.12. It’s not magic, you just need to try harder (no offense).

I'm 6'2", 185 and have been that size (+/- 15lbs) for virtually all my climbing career (began 1993 or so?). +4 ape index. I've done a few hard(?) routes. I've gotten the "you can only do it because you're tall"routine. So apparently there's a different rating scale for you anyway. Any 13s I've done are probably 12, and 12s are probably 11s. Nevermind if you can't get your man-fingers in a thin crack.

I just wish they made wheel barrow handles longer so my feet don't kick underneath.

But remember. Tall climbers reach. Short climbers bitch.

the schmuck wrote: Additionally, if you boulder legit v6, you should be able to reliably send .12+. 

I've heard this sort of thing before and do not agree.  There's more at play leading (trad or sports) than when bouldering. It's not ALL about pulling the moves. There's the head game. Some people are good at the head game others aren't and it holds them back. We've all seen the guy who boulders V8 but when you first take him out lead climbing he over grips, gets pumped, gets fearful and can't get up a grade 14.  This person may  be able to address this barrier and may not.  

bryans wrote: Pinata has taken the first hit! :)

With so predictable a comment I have mine all ready to go. Here it is, wait for it:

Lynn Hill is 5-4.

That's a terrible rejoinder. Lynn Hill is 5'2". But no matter...

Sharma is 6'. Ondra is 6'1".  Soo, the two most dominant climbers of the last 20 years are basically your height, and you're asking if you're too tall to climb hard? And let's not forget JWebb (6'+, 170#)

As to not having many or any partners that are over 6'... consider that the average male height worldwide is still in the 5'8" range.  Only 14.5% of the US male population is 6' or over.  Now consider all the sports where being tall actually provides a -distinct- advantage...

NFL average height: 6'2"
MLB: 6'2"
NHL: 6'1"
NBA: 6'7"
ATP (tennis): 6'2"

If you're a random dude over 6', do you think you're more likely to gravitate towards an easily accessible mainstream sport where your height is a decided asset, or a costly fringe sport where your height provides little to no discernible advantage?  My point is, I would wager that a much smaller proportion of the 6'+ populace chooses climbing as their primary sport than the sub-6' populace... so you're looking at a proportionately small percentage of a small percentage.

Compared to most sports, I'd say climbing is remarkably egalitarian when it comes to height. Now, BMI, on the other hand....

bryans wrote: I wasn't asking how i could climb harder. We all know hard sport climbing is all about losing weight and drinking less and getting divorced to get the weekends free. I was more interested in hearing that taller heavier people in general have to try harder than shorter lighter people. Or that there are common technical moves like sit starts and roof pulls and tight corners that are generally harder when tall. If anything look around the crag or gym and test my observation that the best climbers are the shortest ones. I already know I like my beer and food and family life too much to climb 12b. ;)

Go climb friction slab, the extra weight will activate the rubber more on those desperate smears 

Justin S wrote:

Taller climbers have an advantage, perhaps marginal, at least through 5.13, according to Lattice.  

As far as I can tell they're not even showing the plot anymore, perhaps because several commenters pointed out flaws in the analysis.  One of them did his own analysis and found (basically) the opposite result: http://climbstat.blogspot.com/2018/12/being-tall-and-carrying-more-weight-are.html 

As others have said, Jimmy Webb is probably the most inspiring "heavier guy" that climbs hard at 6' 170# or so. For my part, I'm 6'3 and about 175, up from 168 a year ago when I was running more seriously. Sometimes I'm screwed by height on sit starts to boulders, or exceptionally high feet, but I mostly find that it lets me reach through hard things more often than I'm rejected by some scrunchy move.

Greg Miller wrote: Have no fear John dunne is here youtu.be/3D0Mp0RrQRA

I was just about to post about John Dunne: he was 200+ lbs and still climbed 5.14d. 'Too heavy to climb hard' is just nonsense.

Andrei Steclaru wrote:

I was just about to post about John Dunne: he was 200+ lbs and still climbed 5.14d. 'Too heavy to climb hard' is just nonsense.

Natural finger/tendon strength is in no way nonsense.

I believe you're answering your own question when you speak to how your height helps up until the the 5.11 range, but then becomes a liability.  It's not your height, per se, but rather years of reaching past all the crappy little intermediate holds, sketchy high insecure feet, and weird body positions that shorter climbers have been using all along.  Moving past 5.12, these techniques become the norm and you simply don't have as much practice with them, even with years of climbing.

All of the examples given of elite taller climbers began climbing as kids, before they were tall, giving them the requisite time paying their dues using these less than ideal holds.  

Kai Lightner is 6ft 3in. Climbs hard. Will probably climb harder once he is done with college.

Jan Hojer, 188cm and 77 kg. The guy is crazy strong. Climbed Action Direct 9a.

Me, 186 and 65 kg and I redpointed one 5.12a, late summer. But I am weak and old.

6'5 240 here (coming down from 300lb offensive lineman for 8 years). If you're just looking to push grades, find routes that fit your style. Ive found that im plenty strong enough to do every sequence of moves on a bunch of 12's even at my weight (obviously trying to still lose weight) but my biggest problem is my technique and mobility in order to keep my hips in and not pump out. But ive found I prefer to be scared over gear or an ice screw than try to keep up with the gymnast body types clipping bolts.  

M Mobes wrote:

Natural finger/tendon strength is in no way nonsense.

What's your point? Are you suggesting that you can't get strong fingers unless you were born with them?

Have you seen this article from Lattice?

https://latticetraining.com/2019/02/04/training-series-finger-strength/

First paragraph: 'no significant correlation between BMI and finger strength'

bryans wrote: The background: I'm a shade over 6 feet and 185 pounds, been climbing 20 years. I redpointed my first 12a's after 4 years of climbing, and got to V6 bouldering pretty soon after (outside, i mean). I plateaued at 12a for a few years before life events (3 kids, marriage, aging, excuses, being soft) dropped me back to mid 5-11 sport, though i still climb V6s.

The problem: When I moved to Bend 5-6 years into my climbing, I noticed all my partners were 5-10 and under. Then I learned almost all these guys knew each other because they were guides. (I felt weak all the time) Thought about the height thing, figured it was a fluke or anomaly. Now back in Portland I notice almost my partners are under 5-10. It literally feels like the shorter my partners are, the harder they climb.

The question: Is it literally harder to climb if you are tall? (say, over 5-10). Up front, I totally think it HELPS to be tall up to maybe 5-11a or so, but after that being able to reach far between good holds isn't going to get you up the route, and the extra weight that comes with height is now a liability

Anyway, validate me (tell me you're "not tall" and crush, and all your friends are also "not tall" and crush,) or else tell me to buck up and quit whining (but only if you're tall). I've gotten discouraged lately that my height is getting in my way on certain crux moves, and wondering if that's just negative thinking or actually kind of a fact. Anyone else feel the same way? Do shorter monkeys climb better than taller monkeys?

P.S. My friend randomly sport climbed next to Honnold outside Vegas for a few routes last week and when I asked if Alex as my height - he's usually the first example of a tall climber that i hear when I ask about any tall climbers (RIP Dean) - and he said no way, they were the same height (5-10). Huh. So there's that, don't Honnold me.

Your assumptions are anecdotal. There the thread is over.

I am 6'3, weigh usually around 210. Can climb low 5.12. I am thinking about packing on more weight to get the fattest ascent of routes.

I used to think it was my weight holding me back but really it was just that I sucked at trying hard.

TIL I am fat and need to diet... How do you 6ft ppl weigh 160 or less??? That is insane! I am at 180 and get called scrawny all the time. 

Jon Hillis wrote: TIL I am fat and need to diet... How do you 6ft ppl weigh 160 or less??? That is insane! I am at 180 and get called scrawny all the time. 

gotta start skipping leg day my dude

Paul L wrote: 6'2" and about 185# here.  Have about a +4 ape index and all legs to go with it.  Haven't been able to touch my toes in 20 years.  

The issue I see with being tall, is that a lot of times that means also fairly inflexible/immobile (in a functional sense).  Anything requiring even moderately high feet, especially on vertical to overhanging routes, puts my ass out from the wall and center of gravity with it, requiring a ton of core strength that I would really have to train constantly to be able to make the moves.   Being able to stay as tight/compact as possible seems to be a key in moving into higher grades, and it is just harder when you're all limbs.
Sure, it's nice to have the wingspan on certain routes; nice to have big hands on certain holds; but it's definitely not always an advantage.  I feel like to be able to really push higher grades as a taller climber, requires additional focus on mobility/flexibility as well as core strength, that seems to come a little easier to my shorter friends.  

Where I really notice the disparity in tall climbers to short climbers is in high level bouldering.  I feel like all the guys really out there pushing that realm are 5'8" or less.  Only person that comes to mind that may be on the taller side is Matt Fultz, but there's probably others.  

Adam Ondra is the obvious plus 6' crusher, who methodically trains everything.   His mobility speaks for itself, and I think it's a direct result of training.  
Another that comes to mind is Dean Potter, and not to take anything away from any of his accomplishments  (and I'm not really familiar with them all), but I feel like a lot of his high level climbs were on cracks where height/size has a different relation to the climbing.  

OP here. Ah, this is the kind of feedback I was hoping to get. Discussion of high center of gravity, relative lack of flexibility - I'd add extra difficulty with hand-foot matches, compression aretes and pure mantles. 

I wasn't asking why i don't climb harder (must lose weight, must train more and better, must put aside other things in life, must truly desire to chase grades), I was curious if shorter climbers have an inherent advantage when it comes to climbing harder routes. I was hoping to hear tall climbers say yeah, i got to 5-12 or 5-13 but it took a ton of work and btw I'm skinny and train like a psycho.

Anyway I forgot there is a daily post limit so here's a scattershot of thoughts I had after reading the comments here. i'd love to reply to more comments directly but: post limit. Oh and thanks even to the snarky people who told me I was 'fat" without seeing me - I know you have to have thick skin to post on MP these days and I'm trying to take it well and I know you were mainly saying so in empathy, that we all feel fat when we can't climb something we once could, or we know we could lose 5 pounds if we gave up beer and junk food (I'll cop to that).

1 - But how about this: are the best climbing monkeys on our planet the short small monkeys, or the tall heavier  monkeys? Seriously. Analyze that. In Thailand I watched little monkeys solo all over 5-12 limestone between the bolts.  In my yard I watch squirrels climb anything. I don't see many large mammals climb anything. Hmmm.

2 -We all know know there are outlying crushers that are tall and/or heavy - many have been mentioned here - but they may have been blessed with outlying and freakish tendon strength - didn't Sharma more or less climb 5-12 his first day in the gym?

3 - I do find it funny that at least a dozen people mentioned my stated weight of 185 as an obstacle to climbing hard. It seems like this thread could be reduced to "lighter people climb harder." Which, to me, means height is less of an advantage than being light. It also seems lie unless i radically change my diet I may not get back to or exceed sending 12a. Fair enough, and we all know I knew that.

4 - I also liked how the tall 5-12 people also mentioned the importance of finding the right route for a tall person. But to me that's just a way to say you sent 5-12, it doesn't make you a 5-12 climber.

I heard the Lattice Training guys on a podcast (could dig it up if you want) and based on their data, taller climbers have relatively weaker cores and this is limiting on overhung routes (I may be conflating a few things...).  I am 6'2..." and definitely feel more comfortable on vert, but don't send 5.12 (YET!!!)