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

Does this not just boil down to different bodies do better on different climbs? Why do we have to say that more height= more advantage always? Can there be no nuance? 

Adam Rwrote:

Does this not just boil down to different bodies do better on different climbs? Like why do we have to say that more height= more advantage always? Can there be no nuance? 

No. This is MP

Everyone hurry and figure this out! I NEED empirical evidence showing I’d be a better climber than my friends if I were their height! 

Michael Abendwrote:

Everyone hurry and figure this out! I NEED empirical evidence showing I’d be a better climber than my friends if I were their height! 

Hahaha! Unfortunately all my empirical evidence points towards the shorter climbers I know are better. At 5’1” one of our top setters dances up 5.13s. So, going by me, shorter is more advantageous. You have more potential than you think  

Not Not MP Admin wrote:

No. This is MP

Nae, it’s just you.   

Go Back to Super Topowrote:

Climbing and gymnastics/powerlifting require very different body types (short and dense vs. normal, often lean, build) to be successful so that’s an odd comparison in my opinion, though not completely out of left field. Additionally, I would agree with you regarding adding increased flexion, if we were applying this to a fuller range of motion (such as bench press)…..but climbing rarely requires an individual to do a full muscle up without lower body assistance.

Think about the challenges of climbing as someone with T-Rex proportioned arms. They would be not be able to climb very well at all, whereas in the powerlifting realm they could still do quite well (given they could get the bar off the rack   )

People are missing the biomechanics point. Longer arms being a biomechanical disadvantage, isn't an opinion. The leverages produced, the stress on the pulleys, make it more difficult to do any given task requiring power. Also assumed that the the longer arms have larger hands, the pounds/sq inch also work against the longer limbed climber. 

David, I find your logic a little faulty. I climb primarily with two people. One is 6’1”, the other is 4’11”. We all climb at a relatively similar level, but guess who is the one who is at times completely shut down by a specific crux well bellow her max grade.  I believe that I do have relevant perspective climbing with these two  

Also, I agree that small hands have an advantage in certain contexts. However, when it comes to slopers, compression and pinches, large hands are unequivocally to one’s advantage. As for leverage, there is a reason why offensive linemen with freakishly long arms are valued…leverage. 

David Draperwrote:

People are missing the biomechanics point. Longer arms being a biomechanical disadvantage, isn't an opinion. The leverages produced, the stress on the pulleys, make it more difficult to do any given task requiring power. Also assumed that the the longer arms have larger hands, the pounds/sq inch also work against the longer limbed climber. 

Totally anecdotal, but to counter the above. Going back to my ( ancient) roots as a climber (early '60s); I and many of my peers had as our distant role models the previous generation of British climbers---the hard men of the Rock and Ice. Then considered ( at least in English-speaking countries) as the best free climbers in the world, Joe Brown, Don Whillans, and their peers were uniformly short with seemingly disproportionately long arms. (It is worth noting, though that they were all also manual laborers ( 'the climbing plumbers') with incredible grip strength and also gifted with excellent technique and a very strong 'mental game'). At the time there were multiple articles declaring that such a physique was necessary for top-level rock climbing---and they definitely didn't display any signs of biomechanical disadvantage!!!!

Of course, at the same time, on this side of the Atlantic, we had John Gill ---who clearly didn't fit into that physical mold, but back then few were aware of his prodigious feats on stone!!!!

In the long run, it is talent and commitment rather than any specific body type that matters.

David Draperwrote:

People are missing the biomechanics point. Longer arms being a biomechanical disadvantage, isn't an opinion. The leverages produced, the stress on the pulleys, make it more difficult to do any given task requiring power. Also assumed that the the longer arms have larger hands, the pounds/sq inch also work against the longer limbed climber. 

If this is the hill you wish to die on, go for it. However, “biomechanics” encompasses far more than arm length and climbing encompasses far more than just power. 

P.S. Brian Shaw is 6'8" with a +3 ape index and he seems to be perfectly powerful 

David Draperwrote:

People are missing the biomechanics point. Longer arms being a biomechanical disadvantage, isn't an opinion. The leverages produced, the stress on the pulleys, make it more difficult to do any given task requiring power. Also assumed that the longer arms have larger hands, the pounds/sq inch also work against the longer limbed climber. 

This is a good reason why heavier climbers can never really climb things like “Action Direct”.

For most of us climbing below 5.13, I agree that being taller mostly helps. Many years ago when I was a good climber I had noticed that up to mid 5.11s outdoors, it seemed like taller was mostly better. Yet, higher than 5.12s seemed to shut many taller climbers down cause of the barn door effect on overhanging routes with more than a couple moves of overhang. Most of the people climbing 5.12s were a bit shorter, or so it seemed?

People keep talking about Adam Ondra as an example of a tall climber. Joking aside, his body is more like a 5’10” climber or shorter even? His neck and arms are very long for his body. And he’s light and strong.

Of all the attributes, Adam being light and strong are probably his biggest assets.

I agree there are leverage issues, and more muscle mass and strength are required to hold the same pounds per sq inch, but on easier climbs below 5.12b (gym) taller is generally better. You just don’t need that much contact strength for easier climbs.

5.12c and above? That seems to be in the domain of mostly shorter, lighter and stronger climbers. Anecdotal? Yes. Most climbers attempting them seem to be on the shorter end of average or shorter.

Li Huwrote:

We are 8 pages in, but it’s just me, you right #adhomineming

 This is a good reason why heavier climbers can never really climb things like “Action Direct”.

What’s considered a “heavier climber”?

People keep talking about Adam Ondra as an example of a tall climber. Joking aside, his body is more like a 5’10” climber or shorter even? His neck and arms are very long for his body. And he’s light and strong.

Wtf does this even mean? The dude is 6’1” with a positive ape index….how is this “more like a 5’10" climber or shorter”?

Not Not MP Adminwrote:

What’s considered a “heavier climber”?

Are you going to argue another 8 pages regarding weight now???   

Not Not MP Admin wrote:

That entirely depends on how (poorly) you answer the question...or seemingly avoid it, like aways.   

You brought up the question. What is heavy to you?

Just so you can’t add more fuel to your fire, I consider 64kg or lighter to be a decent climbing weight (mass technically). 

Li Huwrote:

You brought up the question. What is heavy to you?

Just so you can’t add more fuel to your fire, I consider 62kg or lighter to be a decent climbing weight (mass technically). 

That doesn't answer my question, unless you want us to infer that anything over 62 kg's is "heavy" by your metric...

I'm also still hung up on your Ondra comment...

Frank Steinwrote:

David, I find your logic a little faulty. I climb primarily with two people. One is 6’1”, the other is 4’11”. We all climb at a relatively similar level, but guess who is the one who is at times completely shut down by a specific crux well bellow her max grade.  I believe that I do have relevant perspective climbing with these two  

Also, I agree that small hands have an advantage in certain contexts. However, when it comes to slopers, compression and pinches, large hands are unequivocally to one’s advantage. As for leverage, there is a reason why offensive linemen with freakishly long arms are valued…leverage. 

I really do appreciate the discourse, thanks. And anecdotal stories are fun, but also not used in research for a reason. The logic is not mine, its actual research results. I am an exercise physiologist who's focus was biomechanics, and a physical therapist by trade, and I have kept up with current work in these areas. The overwhelming 'common knowledge' that long ape index and height help in climbing is simply incorrect, its not even really a question. Joint mechanics worsen as the joints are larger and the limbs longer. 

As for football, strength to bodyweight ratio is not a factor in a lineman's role on a football field, as it is crucial in elite climbing. However, the same leverage creation principle applies there (I was also a SEC school college linebacker) the longer the lineman's arms are, the easier it is to break his frame down and get through him. The lineman must produce far greater muscle force to keep his arm extended than a lineman with shorter arms. 

Li Huwrote:

Hahaha! Unfortunately all my empirical evidence points towards the shorter climbers I know are better. At 5’1” one of our top setters dances up 5.13s. So, going by me, shorter is more advantageous. You have more potential than you think  

Nae, it’s just you.   

The word your are looking for is anecdotal. Don't want you getting beat up by tolls in the future confusing the two. 

Adam Rwrote:

Don't want you getting beat up by tolls in the future confusing the two. 

Its okay, were all just watching everyone beat themselves up in this thread. 

Go Back to Super Topowrote:

I understand the point given in this context. However, I would be highly skeptical of any reliable data comparing a developing (physically) individual when the primary developments during these times are often not exclusive to height, and arguably more hormonal than anything else. I just fail to see the correlation to height when examining someone climbing 5.14 at age 14 and then climbing 5.15 at age 30. There are just far more factors than height coming into play.

from a study design perspective, you'd want to compare the ages closest, before and after, to the growth spurt. i agree, the difference in skill between 14 vs 30 might be too large to have an apples vs. apples comparison. 

David Draperwrote:

I really do appreciate the discourse, thanks. And anecdotal stories are fun, but also not used in research for a reason. The logic is not mine, its actual research results. I am an exercise physiologist who's focus was biomechanics, and a physical therapist by trade, and I have kept up with current work in these areas. The overwhelming 'common knowledge' that long ape index and height help in climbing is simply incorrect, its not even really a question. Joint mechanics worsen as the joints are larger and the limbs longer. 

As for football, strength to bodyweight ratio is not a factor in a lineman's role on a football field, as it is crucial in elite climbing. However, the same leverage creation principle applies there (I was also a SEC school college linebacker) the longer the lineman's arms are, the easier it is to break his frame down and get through him. The lineman must produce far greater muscle force to keep his arm extended than a lineman with shorter arms. 

Are you aware of actual studies on climbing? Can you cite some sources for the idea that ape index is an advantage is "simply incorrect?" Because my intuition is the opposite.

Maybe it's true that "joint mechanics worsen as the joints are larger and the limbs longer." But if a tall person can just reach the hold with less efficient mechanics, so what? They can do the move. And maybe a shorter person needs perfect mechanics to do it. If a tall person is limited to using 85% of their theoretical extension because of the factors you mention, it might not matter because they can reach all the holds they need to.

I think that what makes the question of height versus climbing "ability" so fascinating and unresolvable is that the variables are confounding: height helps in some situations, but being small helps in others. And as I mentioned above, grades are assigned by actual humans (usually men), so the grade incorporates information about height. 

My personal theory is that being tall is a big advantage for less than vertical to vertical climbing. In that style, bodyweight, leverage, and center of gravity matter less because your weight is more on your feet. Reach is a huge advantage because there are more situations where you can use your full height without cutting feet and introducing a swing.

As the terrain gets steeper, my theory is that the advantage of height lessens. Shorter levers and a center of gravity closer to your hands become advantageous as you introduce more foot-cutting and swinging. If the climbing is jumpy and dynamic for everyone, then moving a smaller body might require less energy. Small fingers become more advantageous as being able to milk any positivity out of the hold gets more important. Climbing in 3-D space can sometimes introduce more options for creative beta: whereas putting a heel above your head on a vert wall is very energy intensive as compared to keeping your feet low and reaching, that's not necessarily true on steep terrain, where climbing in a really extended body position can be very taxing.

Does the advantage ever fully reverse, so that short climbers have an advantage over tall climbers? I don't think we'll ever know.

I like the idea of using growth spurts as a basis for a study. I agree that controlling for other variables would be hard. But I think if you had a population of pre-teens, some would grow 2 inches during puberty, some would grow 10 inches. Maybe with a big enough group, assuming they kept climbing, you could draw some conclusions. Although maybe you'd be measuring the effect of the change in height rather than absolute height.

I don't see what's so hard about this one.

NBA players are very tall (average height 6'7").  It is a safe assumption that top tier (NBA) players exemplify the "ideal body type" for basketball. This is because if there was someone in the NBA with a less than ideal body type, they would be worse than someone with equal skill and a better body type and quickly be replaced. It is only freak 1 in a million talents that are able to buck this trend (ie, Steph Curry who is still actually quite tall at 6'2"). Therefore, being taller is clearly an advantage for basketball. It doesn't matter that few people are very tall because we are looking at a pre-selected group of people who are all top tier basketball players.

Similar to NBA players, top climbers go through competitive selection pressure and it is reasonable to assume that top climber morphology approximates the ideal body type for climbing. All top climbers are muscular but lean; ergo, being muscular but lean provides an advantage in climbing. Top climbers are not *very* tall. Some are *sort of* tall (webb, hojer, sharma, fultz, ondra), but 6'1" is hardly the freaky tall heights found in basketball. Also fultz, hojer, and webb are not really at the very top of the game and ondra is arguably just as much a freak talent as Steph curry. Many top climbers are average height or smaller. Therefore, it seems unlikely that being tall provides a large advantage.

The reasons for this have been discussed ad nauseum. It is helpful when you can reach a hold from a lower position. It is harmful because you are heavier and cannot use higher feet that shorter climbers can use. Easier graded climbs are more on your feet on vert/slab terrain and the advantages of height are more clear. Harder climbs are steeper and the weight is more on your arms, favoring shorter climbers. 

szhengwrote:

I don't see what's so hard about this one.

NBA players are very tall (average height 6'7").  It is a safe assumption that top tier (NBA) players exemplify the "ideal body type" for basketball. This is because if there was someone in the NBA with a less than ideal body type, they would be worse than someone with equal skill and a better body type and quickly be replaced. It is only freak 1 in a million talents that are able to buck this trend (ie, Steph Curry who is still actually quite tall at 6'2"). Therefore, being taller is clearly an advantage for basketball. It doesn't matter that few people are very tall because we are looking at a pre-selected group of people who are all top tier basketball players.

Similar to NBA players, top climbers go through competitive selection pressure and it is reasonable to assume that top climber morphology approximates the ideal body type for climbing. All top climbers are muscular but lean; ergo, being muscular but lean provides an advantage in climbing. Top climbers are not *very* tall. Some are *sort of* tall (webb, hojer, sharma, fultz, ondra), but 6'1" is hardly the freaky tall heights found in basketball. Also fultz, hojer, and webb are not really at the very top of the game and ondra is arguably just as much a freak talent as Steph curry. Many top climbers are average height or smaller. Therefore, it seems unlikely that being tall provides a large advantage.

I just came here to say I agree with everything you laid out, except 3 specific things of note. 

First, Will Fultz being at the top of the game. I still don’t know why he gets so overloooked, maybe because he hasn’t sent V17, but he’s sent eight V16’s (which is more than some “V17 climbers). If he’s not up there with the very best, then I won’t argue as that’s subjective, but if he’s not S-Tier, he’s certainly A-tier in my eyes.

Secondly, Jimmy Webb was undeniably at the top of the game at one point, I agree he is on the backside of his prime, but he still deserves recognition for past accomplishments in my opinion. His height and previous accomplishments warrant relevance in this conversation imo. 

Thirdly, I would argue Megos is the Curry of climbing. Ondra has sent too many hard boulders (and Dawn wall) to be Curry. He’s more in the LeBron/Jordan kind of comparison for me.