Does being taller make climbing easier? Answering this question with data!

Adam Rwrote:

Leverage?

Strength?

As a very short male climber, I'd like to start by saying

Not Not MP Adminwrote:

Strength?

Torque

J W wrote:

The average height of IFSC comp climbers shows us . . . the average height of IFSC comp climbers. 

This implies nothing at all with respect to the question of height as it relates to rock climbing.

The range of heights may be indicating an interpretation, since in this highly select population the variables relating to genetics, motivation, training, and ability to achieve a top skill level are certainly considerably narrower than in the general climbing population. The wide range MAY be indicating that height is not a dominant factor.  Looking at the heights of the Top 30 climbers in the 8a.nu rankings for either bouldering, trad climbing or sport climbing MAY be indicating that height is not the dominant factor.  You can find their heights by googling (name + height).  

(Won't see your response, I'm checking out of this thread. )

Phylp, thanks for tallying up all the data.

If height was that much of an advantage for intermediate to advanced amateur sport climbers, every climber would be tall.

Since that’s not the case, unlikely that it makes a difference overall?

Also agreed, that for much traditional climbing, height is even less of an advantage. I fact on lie backs, possibly a disadvantage?

J W wrote:

Well, that makes two of us who won’t see my response because I’m typing with my eyes closed.

I don’t think height is a particularly relevant metric, as I stated up thread. I’m just saying we can conclude nothing about the role of height in rock climbing by citing the average height of IFSC gym comp climbers as those disciplines diverge too significantly and in too many ways.

So the vast majority of the relevant IFSC competitors don't/can't/haven't climb at an elite level outdoors? lol 

J W wrote:

Read again and think whether your response follows from what I wrote. (It doesn’t, lol.)

Read again and think whether your response answers what I wrote. (It doesn't, lol.)

Not Not MP Adminwrote:

So the vast majority of the relevant IFSC competitors don't/can't/haven't climb at an elite level outdoors? lol 

I think our confusion is this? Is outdoor climbing somehow significantly different? If so, what’s the connection you are making?

Frank Steinwrote:

Where did you get this? Average male World Cup climber is 5’10”. Ondra is 6’1”. Janja is 5’4”. 

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/14/13/5603

Multiple studies by David Giles and NIH.

The ideal morphology for any sport is measured by the elite of that sport. There will be antecdotal points where people are outside norms, Sharma is the best example of this as he stands out huge around elite climbers at 6ft and 165. However, among elite climbers, 8c+ and up, less than average height and lower than average bodyweight, are the ideal. Above average Height and bodyweight are biomechanical disadvantages when you are training at the highest levels of the sport. 

that guy named sebwrote:

Source? 

Lattice would disagree with your idea that light is right, in fact all their training media they put out also generally disagrees with you with them saying don't be concerned about putting on extra weight if it benefits strength gains. 

https://latticetraining.com/blog/bmi-and-climbing-part-3-all-8a-nu-climbers/?srsltid=AfmBOop56YL7VgPmi18qvXXqx3hppPXMThVyjYUMyN7ozoY725nVNZs-

The little work they did on height is much older than I remember but can be found here.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210120102100/ latticetraining.com/2017/08…

Thanks for responding. This study did not look at weight, it looked at BMI, which was ridiculed as a mistake as BMI was developed as a tool to estimate bodyfat, and is wildly inaccurate at both extremes, which elite climbers fall into.

David Draperwrote:

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/14/13/5603

Multiple studies by David Giles and NIH.

This data verifies what Phylp had calculated and posted earlier.

David Draperwrote:

The ideal morphology for any sport is measured by the elite of that sport. There will be antecdotal points where people are outside norms, Sharma is the best example of this as he stands out huge around elite climbers at 6ft and 165. However, among elite climbers, 8c+ and up, less than average height and lower than average bodyweight, are the ideal. Above average Height and bodyweight are biomechanical disadvantages when you are training at the highest levels of the sport. 

Anecdotally, beginning tall climbers definitely have the advantage over beginning short climbers, but as skill increases, the advantage seems to diminish, and apparently reverse as climbs become more difficult?

Li Huwrote:

I think our confusion is this? Is outdoor climbing somehow significantly different? If so, what’s the connection you are making?

You ask a lot of questions whilst answering none. My point is that the vast majority of elite IFSC competitors can, or have, also sent elite level climbs outdoors. Trying to differentiate them is just as silly as arguing tall or short climbers have a definitive advantage in all aspects of climbing. 

David Draperwrote:

The ideal morphology for any sport is measured by the elite of that sport. There will be antecdotal points where people are outside norms, Sharma is the best example of this as he stands out huge around elite climbers at 6ft and 165. However, among elite climbers, 8c+ and up, less than average height and lower than average bodyweight, are the ideal. Above average Height and bodyweight are biomechanical disadvantages when you are training at the highest levels of the sport. 

Where is your “average” derived from; the general population or a selected group of climbers? What is “average” height and/or weight? It would seem that some sort body composition measurement would be a far better metric in any regard as a 5’6” climber may weigh the same as a 6’2” climber but both be considered “less than average” weight by your metric even though one could be a muscle hamster while the other is a string bean and, thus, vastly different “morphology”. Additionally, two of the strongest boulderers on the planet are near or above 165lbs in Jimmy Webb and Matt Fultz.

Getting back on topic, As has been said numerous times thus far, height is only a small part of the many factors that lead to making climbing easier for an individual. Strength-to-weight ratio, mobility, injury prevention, and mental fortitude far outweigh any height advantage/disadvantage. 

David Draperwrote:

Thanks for responding. This study did not look at weight, it looked at BMI, which was ridiculed as a mistake as BMI was developed as a tool to estimate bodyfat, and is wildly inaccurate at both extremes, which elite climbers fall into.

The data is only looking at 8a onwards, pro's aren't particularly underweight anymore and sit at about average for BMI, for example ondra sits at just a hair over 20. Climbers are not powerlifters and don't carry huge amounts muscle on their skeletons compared to many athletes which is where BMI really falls down. 

Hey Trinidad...way to go after trying to figure out an answer to your question! And welcome to the life of a scientist where everybody kicks things off by telling you that you're doing it wrong. No doubt there are a number of ways to improve your survey--you've gotten a few good suggestions and a lot of criticism. If you haven't fled by now and are still game to try to understand the role that height might play in climbing performance, here are a few suggestions. 

Rephrase your question as, "do taller climbers climb harder grades?" Note that this skirts the issue of whether it is height that actually makes you a better climber. There are a host of explanations for why taller climbers might climb harder, some borderline (taller people enjoy social benefits that may make them more confident) and some more plausible (they can reach past marginal hold to gain better ones), but evidence that taller climbers climb harder grades is comparatively easy to find while testing indirect effects (social benies) or mechanistic ones (reaching better holds) gets complex really fast.

To help control for the many factors that likely affect climbing performance, try to address some of these in your survey: gender, experience, climbing style, and performance consistency seem both important and somewhat tractable to me. Obviously, ask for their height...and consider asking for arm span and body weight. In other words, ask your respondents how they self-identify, how many years they've been climbing, and what grade they currently redpoint after a couple days' effort. I'd constrain the latter by requesting a single pitch sport climb where factors like risk or endurance are less important. It's probably worth including an opportunity at the end for respondents to report on other factors they think you should know--hopefully the crusher who's just coming back from a debilitating injury and climbing 2 number grades easier than her usual max will explain. Bouldering isn't climbing, so...

By limiting the answers (eg excluding long, scary trad), you're controlling for some of the variables, but you're also asking about others (eg experience) that may also affect performance and have to be considered. Start by plotting your data like the Lattice folks did in the example below...but put the explanatory variable on the x-axis and the response variable on the y-axis--the OPPOSITE of what Lattice boy did. Sheesh. 

A simple statistical model will test for an effect of all of these (height, gender, experience) and identify how much of the variance in climbing performance is explained by each. With a little data, you might be able to say that taller cllimbers do (or don't) climb harder grades though it's more likely that even a simple survey will show that the real answer is "it's complicated." If you get some numbers, send me a PM and I'll help you run some basic stats. In any case, it should be a fun thing to try. Good luck!

Li Huwrote:

This data verifies what Phylp had calculated and posted earlier.

Anecdotally, beginning tall climbers definitely have the advantage over beginning short climbers, but as skill increases, the advantage seems to diminish, and apparently reverse as climbs become more difficult?

Thanks for responding. You bring up an interesting point, the dominant mythology that height helps climbing may be based on this. While skill sets are low, I think the upper body strength and height may allow beginner and intermediate climbers an advantage, but quickly dissipates to lower bodyweight, shorter height, and better skill sets. Many of the surveys noted here and elsewhere are actually looking at that, but are poorly controlled.

Folks, the original question here is does height help climbing? Every biomechanical factor in climbing worsens as you get taller. The research being argued over here demonstrates it as well. Since there is no governing body in climbing taking measurements, research is not ideal, but all of the data of elite climbers shows average males to range between 5ft 7 and 5 ft 9. If height helped climbing, then the worlds best would look like the American basketball associations.  The ideal morphology for any sport is shown in the best of that sport. Olympic male gymnast are 165 cm and 55kg, NFL tackles are 195 cm and 140 KG, NBA centers are 210cm and 98 KG, Why? Because biomechanically that is what the sport demands ideally. Height advantage is part of the dominant mythology in climbing and the crutch lamented at every crag primarily because of a lack of knowledge of biomechanics and sport physiology. 

David Draperwrote:

Folks, the original question here is does height help climbing? Every biomechanical factor in climbing worsens as you get taller. The research being argued over here demonstrates it as well. Since there is no governing body in climbing taking measurements, research is not ideal, but all of the data of elite climbers shows average males to range between 5ft 7 and 5 ft 9. If height helped climbing, then the worlds best would look like the American basketball associations.  The ideal morphology for any sport is shown in the best of that sport. Olympic male gymnast are 165 cm and 55kg, NFL tackles are 195 cm and 140 KG, NBA centers are 210cm and 98 KG, Why? Because biomechanically that is what the sport demands ideally. Height advantage is part of the dominant mythology in climbing and the crutch lamented at every crag primarily because of a lack of knowledge of biomechanics and sport physiology. 

Are you just chatGPT’ing your replies now?