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

Nkane 1wrote:

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.

Most excellent questions, thanks for responding. This forum question has multiple citations, if height improved climbing ability, this would be evident among the averages of the few hundred elite of the sport of climbing. To say another way, if height was an advantage then the elite 250 climbers in the world would be taller than average. The cited materials in this thread, and others show this not to be the case, elite climbers are average to below average. Measuring average climbers will not reveal the optimal anthropometrics of the sport, only the averages of the average. 8a.nu/news/the-better-climb…

David Draperwrote:

Most excellent questions, thanks for responding. This forum question has multiple citations, if height improved climbing ability, this would be evident among the averages of the few hundred elite of the sport of climbing. To say another way, if height was an advantage then the elite 250 climbers in the world would be taller than average. The cited materials in this thread, and others show this not to be the case, elite climbers are average to below average. Measuring average climbers will not reveal the optimal anthropometrics of the sport, only the averages of the average. 8a.nu/news/the-better-climb…

But if you were right that climbing ability is negatively correlated with height, then the best-performing climbers would be tiny, not merely below average. And we don't see that either. Something else is going on.

The opposite of the basketball analogy above is horse racing: that sport selects for light weight, and all jockeys are tiny.* Elite male climbers are mostly bigger than jockeys (5'2, 113 lbs).

*It's not a free for all in horse racing, there are rules for how big a jockey can be:link

David Draperwrote:

Most excellent questions, thanks for responding. This forum question has multiple citations, if height improved climbing ability, this would be evident among the averages of the few hundred elite of the sport of climbing. To say another way, if height was an advantage then the elite 250 climbers in the world would be taller than average. The cited materials in this thread, and others show this not to be the case, elite climbers are average to below average. Measuring average climbers will not reveal the optimal anthropometrics of the sport, only the averages of the average. 8a.nu/news/the-better-climb…

We’re back to this again, huh? Got any data that’s not over a decade old. The hardest route when that chart was made was Jumbo Love. Ondra and Sharma were the only climbers to have even climbed multiple 5.15b‘s at the time of publication (I believe Dani Andrade may have as well but not certain). Every relevant cited material here has shown there is no ideal height and the distribution of height(s) is pretty evenly distributed above, at, and below average. It’s shown that the strongest climbers (in sport and bouldering) in the world heights are pretty evenly distributed between 5’7” and 6’1”.

Not Not MP Adminwrote:

It’s shown that the strongest climbers (in sport and bouldering) in the world heights are pretty evenly distributed between 5’7” and 6’1”.

ah, finally on the same page…

Li Huwrote:

ah, finally on the same page…

Notice, I didn't say this was average height for males....but rather this is the range of the most elite climbers.

Not Not MP Adminwrote:

Notice, I didn't say this was average height for males....but rather this is the range of the most elite climbers.

Hahaha, yes, I suppose so.

The height demographic may change in the future, but the chart, which is from 2023, not a decade ago, shows that 174.8cm is the average height for men competing and winning at competitive indoor climbing.

I do agree that a few of the hardest sends outdoors are being sent by 184cm climbers, but there are equally 170cm people sending those hard climbs as well.

Hard to say what will happen in the future?

Li Huwrote:

Hahaha, yes, I suppose so.

The height demographic may change in the future, but the chart, which is from 2023, not a decade ago, shows that 174.8cm is the average height for men competing and winning at competitive indoor climbing.

I do agree that a few of the hardest sends outdoors are being sent by 184cm climbers, but there are equally 170cm people sending those hard climbs as well.

Hard to say what will happen in the future?

Do you literally just make this stuff up or do you actually find these numbers from your own research (and not post it here). The link Draper posted, and I replied to, sends you to 8a which shows a graph from sept 26th 2012…

Li Huwrote:

Is this chart correct?

Gotta love arguments where you can't even tell what exactly the two sides disagree on

Nkane 1wrote:

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.

well said

Here is one that fits within this discussion, especially after seeing the quote above about taller being better on vertical and less than vertical face/slab. Forget about reach because your feet need to stick first in order to reach.  Say two climbers of the same height, skillset and same shoe size  are working out a friction move, one of the climbers weighs 20lb more than the other. Who sticks better? 

M Mwrote:

Here is one that fits within this discussion, especially after seeing the quote above about taller being better on vertical and less than vertical face/slab. Forget about reach because your feet need to stick first in order to reach. Say two climbers of the same height, skillset and same shoe size  are working out a friction move, one of the climbers weighs 20lb more than the other. Who sticks better? 

Whichever one has the original Stealth C4

M Mwrote:

Here is one that fits within this discussion, especially after seeing the quote above about taller being better on vertical and less than vertical face/slab. Forget about reach because your feet need to stick first in order to reach.  Say two climbers of the same height, skillset and same shoe size  are working out a friction move, one of the climbers weighs 20lb more than the other. Who sticks better? 

Was going to say you’re going to get trolled…   

11 pages and still no one has rehashed the final classic reply to these discussions: climbing is a skill sport.  Whatever variables exist among physical traits are dominated by the individual's skill.  

It's like the equation for climbing ability has 3 variables- "skill" which is raised to the third or fourth power. Controllable physical traits like max finger strength, power endurance, etc are maybe raised to the second power. And uncontrollable physical traits like "ape index", "height", etc are all raised to the first power. You can't say height doesn't matter at all, but you can say it hardly matters.

My hypothesis, which fails at being a hypothesis being that it's unable to be proven, is that no amount of data will ever "prove" that height provides an advantage in an activity that varies so widely- 80* slab vs wildly overhung cave, 100m enduro fests vs 6 move boulders. The premise that one physiology would be best suited for such different tasks is illogical to me, especially in the context of a skill dominated activity.

And at the same time, concluding that a question doesn't have a definitive answer doesn't mean nothing can be learned in attempting to answer it.

But height does matter…situationally. My 4’11” partner has climbed .12+, but we have encountered .11- routes (in her preferred style, no less) that she has zero chance of ever doing (think very high underclings and long reaches to poor holds with very low feet). I have never seen a competent taller climber encounter a situation where they are out of any options “because the box is too small.”

Frank Steinwrote:

But height does matter…situationally. My 4’11” partner has climbed .12+, but we have encountered .11- routes (in her preferred style, no less) that she has zero chance of ever doing (think very high underclings and long reaches to poor holds with very low feet). I have never seen a competent taller climber encounter a situation where they are out of any options “because the box is too small.”

Many years ago, I climbed with a 5’4”-ish dude, and we were climbing a 5.10-ish face climb with similar attributes. His claim was that to him it was like a 5.13 even though to me it was an easy 5.10. I watched him deftly dyno to the undercling grab it quickly and launch himself to the next hold from that undercling from where he could safely place his protection.

After this first climb, I had to ask him what difficulty climbs he could do? 5.13 was his reply, of course.

We climbed the rest of the day together, and he made 5.11/12 look like 5.13 time after time.

After that, I was convinced that being shorter is an advantage when you get to a certain level of climbing.

The next day, I was bouldering the same wall and a fellow named “Tree” climbed next to me and convinced me to high ball the top rope routes. He must have been 6’4”-ish. We ended up on some pretty sketchy climbs, but reasonably “safe”.  He glided so easily over the rock, and his long limbs made him look very graceful.

Li Huwrote:

Many years ago, I climbed with a 5’4”-ish dude, and we were climbing a 5.10-ish face climb with similar attributes. His claim was that to him it was like a 5.13 even though to me it was an easy 5.10. I watched him deftly dyno to the undercling grab it quickly and launch himself to the next hold from that undercling from where he could safely place his protection.

After this first climb, I had to ask him what difficulty climbs he could do? 5.13 was his reply, of course.

We climbed the rest of the day together, and he made 5.11/12 look like 5.13 time after time.

After that, I was convinced that being shorter is an advantage when you get to a certain level of climbing.

The next day, I was bouldering the same wall and a fellow named “Tree” climbed next to me and convinced me to high ball the top rope routes. He must have been 6’4”-ish. We ended up on some pretty sketchy climbs, but reasonably “safe”.  He glided so easily over the rock, and his long limbs made him look very graceful.

the reason for this is that shorter climbers have to develop technique (see: skills) sooner than tall people. tall folks who can just reach for holds don't necessarily learn the techniques because things come easily in the beginning, thus stunting their skill development in the long run. 

Andy Shoemakerwrote:

11 pages and still no one has rehashed the final classic reply to these discussions: climbing is a skill sport.  Whatever variables exist among physical traits are dominated by the individual's skill.  

Valid point, however, basketball is also a skill based activity that is height controlled (though that is because the goal/hoop in basketball is also height dependent, unlike climbing). 

It's like the equation for climbing ability has 2 variables- "skill" which is raised to the third or fourth power. Controllable physical traits like max finger strength, power endurance, etc are maybe raised to the second power. And uncontrollable physical traits like "ape index", "height", etc are all raised to the first power. You can't say height doesn't matter at all, but you can say it hardly matters.

I agree with everything you’ve said and would like to add that there are also “soft skills” of sorts that are harder to develop, in a sense, such as mobility, motivation, diet/nutrition, etc.. 

Li Huwrote:

Many years ago, I climbed with a 5’4”-ish dude, and we were climbing a 5.10-ish face climb with similar attributes. His claim was that to him it was like a 5.13 even though to me it was an easy 5.10. I watched him deftly dyno to the undercling grab it quickly and launch himself to the next hold from that undercling from where he could safely place his protection.

After this first climb, I had to ask him what difficulty climbs he could do? 5.13 was his reply, of course.

We climbed the rest of the day together, and he made 5.11/12 look like 5.13 time after time.

After that, I was convinced that being shorter is an advantage when you get to a certain level of climbing.

The next day, I was bouldering the same wall and a fellow named “Tree” climbed next to me and convinced me to high ball the top rope routes. He must have been 6’4”-ish. We ended up on some pretty sketchy climbs, but reasonably “safe”.  He glided so easily over the rock, and his long limbs made him look very graceful.

Wait, so your 5.13 partner of less than average height felt that the 5.11 you were on was more like 5.13 for him, and your takeaway from this is that being short makes climbing easier?

Frank Steinwrote:

Wait, so your 5.13 partner of less than average height felt that the 5.11 you were on was more like 5.13 for him, and your takeaway from this is that being short makes climbing easier?

Don’t forget the part where the little fella made 11/12 look 5.13 “time after time” and the 6’4” guy ”glided“ up climbs with ease lol