[Johnny Brown]

being tall is a distinct advantage most of the time. Or do you also disagree with that?

If this were true all the best climbers would be tall, and short people would never reach the elite. Like basketball. And yet I can name brilliant midgets more easily than tall ones. Top ten tall climbers: ?

[tomtom]

More sherioushly...

Being tall may mean you can tick some wall/crag problems more easily than you 'should' but really you're only cheating yourself - and often you can miss out on why a problem is so good by lanking through a good move...

5-11 with a +6 ape has to be the ultimate size IMHO.

I can think of several problems (not all sit starts) where lank has counted against me... That having to fold all those arms and legs into a small space feeling...

[abarro81]

Weight scales with volume but strength with cross section (roughly), so if you're tall you can expect to be weak - it will make some moves significantly easier, but when you can't use the height the moves will be marginally harder. Not that any of this matters, since it's all just making excuses.

IIRC someone did the stats a few years ago on the top 8a.nu rankings and found, fairly unsurprisingly, that the average height of the top 20 or whatever ranked climbers was very similar to the average height for European men.

[r-man]

being tall is a distinct advantage most of the time. Or do you also disagree with that?

If this were true all the best climbers would be tall, and short people would never reach the elite. Like basketball. And yet I can name brilliant midgets more easily than tall ones. Top ten tall climbers: ?

No, that doesn't follow. T_B said "most of the time" - he's talking about average climbers. For most average climbers a tiny little bit of height is much more useful than a tiny little bit more skill. It's quite easy to imagine that non average climbers might have non average physiques.

Basketball is a bad analogy. It's the other players make it so size-ist, not the arena itself. And yet there are still shorties who excel at the top level.

[Bonjoy]

Is there really actually much to say about height?
Women are certainly on average smaller than men. It makes a lot of climbs harder, has virtually no effect on a few (eg a parallel crack) and is very occasionally an advantage. I don’t think any of that is a matter of debate, is it? It’s not correct to say that it doesn’t apply to men, just that it applies less on average. As far as outdoor climbing goes I don’t think it is particularly fertile ground for debate. It is a real effect but what’s to do about it? Short of chipping holds climbs are what they are, so no room there. It’s a fool’s game making grades specific to groups/individuals, so I doubt anyone of sound mind would give that more than the briefest consideration. All that’s left is acknowledging that the world isn't fair, dealing with the rock and your body as it is. Where's the debate?

[Bonjoy]

Weight scales with volume but strength with cross section (roughly), so if you're

IIRC someone did the stats a few years ago on the top 8a.nu rankings and found, fairly unsurprisingly, that the average height of the top 20 or whatever ranked climbers was very similar to the average height for European men.

I think it's a fair assumption that 8a.nu's largest demographic is european males, if that is the case then you would pretty much expect that result even if height had zero effect surely?

[r-man]

Height schmeight. I was more interested by the idea of using the example of elite climbers to say something about everyone else.

[Duma]

Is there really actually much to say about height?
Women are certainly on average smaller than men. It makes a lot of climbs harder, has virtually no effect on a few (eg a parallel crack) and is very occasionally an advantage. I don’t think any of that is a matter of debate, is it? It’s not correct to say that it doesn’t apply to men, just that it applies less on average. As far as outdoor climbing goes I don’t think it is particularly fertile ground for debate. It is a real effect but what’s to do about it? Short of chipping holds climbs are what they are, so no room there. It’s a fool’s game making grades specific to groups/individuals, so I doubt anyone of sound mind would give that more than the briefest consideration. All that’s left is acknowledging that the world isn't fair, dealing with the rock and your body as it is. Where's the debate?

But climbs are ostensibly graded for the average climber - and currently, that means one that's 5'10" ish.
Whilst it's true that "It’s a fool’s game making grades specific to groups/individuals" I guess it might have a non trivial effect on the motivation/participation of a group whose average height means a large proportion of climbs are harder for them than the grade suggests? Obviously if this can be overcome then the "average climber" would change, and so (should) grades to reflect this, but in the interim I suspect this might be considered a barrier?

[Paul B]

Is there really actually much to say about height?

Certainly not a symposium's worth.

[IanP]

Weight scales with volume but strength with cross section (roughly), so if you're

IIRC someone did the stats a few years ago on the top 8a.nu rankings and found, fairly unsurprisingly, that the average height of the top 20 or whatever ranked climbers was very similar to the average height for European men.

I think it's a fair assumption that 8a.nu's largest demographic is european males, if that is the case then you would pretty much expect that result even if height had zero effect surely?

Since this is for the top 20 climbers you'd expect this result ONLY if height doesn't have any correlation to climbing abilitity.  As opposed to say tennis where in the current top 10, 8 are 6 foot or taller and the shortest is 5'9".  As far as I can see there is absolutely no evidence that being tall is in any way confers a significant advantage in climbing beyond a possible initial period when starting out on easy/non steep routes. 

[tomtom]

Is there really actually much to say about height?

Certainly not a symposium's worth.

Damn right... we need a series of symposia!

[Bonjoy]

Is there really actually much to say about height?
Women are certainly on average smaller than men. It makes a lot of climbs harder, has virtually no effect on a few (eg a parallel crack) and is very occasionally an advantage. I don’t think any of that is a matter of debate, is it? It’s not correct to say that it doesn’t apply to men, just that it applies less on average. As far as outdoor climbing goes I don’t think it is particularly fertile ground for debate. It is a real effect but what’s to do about it? Short of chipping holds climbs are what they are, so no room there. It’s a fool’s game making grades specific to groups/individuals, so I doubt anyone of sound mind would give that more than the briefest consideration. All that’s left is acknowledging that the world isn't fair, dealing with the rock and your body as it is. Where's the debate?

But climbs are ostensibly graded for the average climber - and currently, that means one that's 5'10" ish.
Whilst it's true that "It’s a fool’s game making grades specific to groups/individuals" I guess it might have a non trivial effect on the motivation/participation of a group whose average height means a large proportion of climbs are harder for them than the grade suggests? Obviously if this can be overcome then the "average climber" would change, and so (should) grades to reflect this, but in the interim I suspect this might be considered a barrier?

Until such time as all guides are digital it's a non starter trying to simultaneously re-grade the world. But what is more important, such a regrade in seeking to cater for the short (in practice this would mean upgrading a lot of reachy things) you would just succeed in making tall climbers CV's look more impressive.

[a dense loner]

I'll give you the same question I gave my niece when watching some people climb, no overhangs were involved in any way. "Do you think he'll climb this" "yes he's taller than the other man" "does that matter?" "Of course it does he can reach the holds easier. I'm 11 I'm not an idiot"
The innocence of youth

[a dense loner]

And bonjoys talking sense.
To be fair, and no offence stu, I thought stu's posts on the symposium were rambling and didn't seem to have a point. Unluckily for you I normally like your blogs so will keep reading

[Johnny Brown]

No, that doesn't follow. T_B said "most of the time" - he's talking about average climbers. For most average climbers a tiny little bit of height is much more useful than a tiny little bit more skill.

Nonsense. If height was such an advantage, the best climbers would all be tall, whether we mean the best of all climbers or the best of you and your mates. But they aren't. In fact, our best male sport climber is a midget, our best male trad climber is a midget, our best female trad climber is a proper midget. That our best knee-bar cheat is tall only goes to prove the point further. I regularly get burnt off by the short, but I've rarely been burnt off by taller folk, even on dynos - because they are all heavy and malcoordinated.

Just because it is obvious when a move is easier if you are simply tall, doesn't mean all climbing is therefore easier for the tall. To me it suggests that the moves which are not easier for the tall are just less obvious.

Getting back to the more controversial point, I agree our top female climbers are currently unusually attractive. I think that's a coincidence. I don't agree British climbing has an organised or powerful enough sponsorship structure (yet) to favour the more attractive. Neither am I convinced that less obvious forces are holding back the less attractive.

It's interesting that men are more active on forums but women organise events for themselves. I suspect the up-and-coming young female climbers are far better informed about sponsorship and the reality of 'professional' climbing as a result though.

[SA Chris]

As far as I can see there is absolutely no evidence that being tall is in any way confers a significant advantage in climbing beyond a possible initial period when starting out on easy/non steep routes.

And the respective backlash when the routes get harder, as shorter climbers have already developed some skills where the tall ones have been relying on lank.

[abarro81]

I think it's a fair assumption that 8a.nu's largest demographic is european males, if that is the case then you would pretty much expect that result even if height had zero effect surely?

That was exactly my point - height has, IMO, pretty much zero effect. In some cases (moves/routes/problems) it is clearly a huge advantage; whenever it's not an advantage it's a disadvantage (see my first post with respect to strength to weight). Overall, for most routes, it will even out (less so for boulders, but who cares about them anyway).

As JB says, if a body type were particularly advantageous I think it would be evident anecdotally and statistically - like that most top climbers are distinctly not fat. I have no idea quite what r-man is getting at that would mean that wouldn't be the case?

[a dense loner]

Where the hell is all this the top female climbers are unusually attractive from? Forgive me for being no oil painting but what...? Now I think people are starting to tread into very murky waters indeed.

[Duma]

Is there really actually much to say about height?
Women are certainly on average smaller than men. It makes a lot of climbs harder, has virtually no effect on a few (eg a parallel crack) and is very occasionally an advantage. I don’t think any of that is a matter of debate, is it? It’s not correct to say that it doesn’t apply to men, just that it applies less on average. As far as outdoor climbing goes I don’t think it is particularly fertile ground for debate. It is a real effect but what’s to do about it? Short of chipping holds climbs are what they are, so no room there. It’s a fool’s game making grades specific to groups/individuals, so I doubt anyone of sound mind would give that more than the briefest consideration. All that’s left is acknowledging that the world isn't fair, dealing with the rock and your body as it is. Where's the debate?

But climbs are ostensibly graded for the average climber - and currently, that means one that's 5'10" ish.
Whilst it's true that "It’s a fool’s game making grades specific to groups/individuals" I guess it might have a non trivial effect on the motivation/participation of a group whose average height means a large proportion of climbs are harder for them than the grade suggests? Obviously if this can be overcome then the "average climber" would change, and so (should) grades to reflect this, but in the interim I suspect this might be considered a barrier?

Until such time as all guides are digital it's a non starter trying to simultaneously re-grade the world. But what is more important, such a regrade in seeking to cater for the short (in practice this would mean upgrading a lot of reachy things) you would just succeed in making tall climbers CV's look more impressive.

I'm not really arguing for a mass regrade for the short, I think if necessary it'll just (very) gradually happen as the height of the average climber changes. My point was that if grades are largely tougher for a group (women) than for the rest of climbers, it might discourage some and thus be a barrier (obviously not because nobody cares about grades do they...)

[Johnny Brown]

Where the hell is all this the top female climbers are unusually attractive from? Forgive me for being no oil painting but what...? Now I think people are starting to tread into very murky waters indeed.

Unusual as in 'than would be expected by chance', not as in 'extremely'. And no one said 'all'. In the interests of equality I should point out I have had this debate in the past about male climbers - would Sharma have been as successful if he'd looked like you?

[Will Hunt]

I am mildly disgusted by this thread. It seems that everybody, short arses and streaks-of-piss alike, can agree that being slightly taller than somebody is no distinct advantage.
Yet whenever I have ever burnt off somebody else, the same excuse gets trotted out.

"Ooo you properly lanked that", they quaver.

Never has anybody had the good grace to say "Gosh, you're climbing better than me today".

It's a fuggin' diz grace.

http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php?topic=10347.0
 

[Doylo]

Weighing fuck all is more of an advantage than being tall (unless you're talking proper midget). McClure having the strongest fingers in the UK and weighing 8 stone is not a coincidence!

[a dense loner]

Sharma possibly not, but the guy who apparently mostly resembles me has never been seen doing anything and has also become a legend

[Jaspersharpe]

Where the hell is all this the top female climbers are unusually attractive from? Forgive me for being no oil painting but what...? Now I think people are starting to tread into very murky waters indeed.

Unusual as in 'than would be expected by chance', not as in 'extremely'. And no one said 'all'. In the interests of equality I should point out I have had this debate in the past about male climbers - would Sharma have been as successful if he'd looked like you?

Surely Sharma got successful by being better than everyone else. His looks obviously haven't done him any harm from a sponsorship point of view but Ondra looks like Su Pollard / an ostrich / Screech off Saved By The Bell and it's not done him any harm, because he's better than everyone else.

[tomtom]

It's pointless making a special version of a guidebook for the short - when you just need to put the original guide on a lower shelf!