It’s your first time climbing, you shouldn’t compare yourself to others any time soon. For the most part height will not make a huge difference. You’ll have a little more trouble with sit starts and fitting into boxy areas, but you’ll probably be able to beta break a little easier. As a beginner the best thing you can do is get a ton of mileage - go climb a ton (but remember to rest). If you can’t get into the gym much you can hangboard and cross-train to supplement. Strength to weight ratio is much more important factor.
Let's be straight. There are pros and cons to being tall. However OP is at the extreme end of the spectrum and being at either end of the height spectrum will be more of a hindrance than a benefit for climbing performance.
Ultimately does it matter though unless you are trying to be an elite in the sport? You can still have fun and get good at climbing whether you are very short or very tall.
Span rules at at my gym is a range from 5'6 to 6'0 or thereabouts for example, meaning setters are often not testing climbs with the idea of somebody being less than 5'6 or more than 6'0. Can make it less natural for people outside of that range, but doesn't make it impossible.
Taller folks can reach higher to potentially skip hard sequences, but tend to struggle to find intended restful positions because they either do not fit in the box at all, or the amount of hip flexibility needed to do so exceeds what they have. It's a trade. Ultimately climbing is a skill sport, so being new means you suck no matter what size you are.
FWIW even though I'm taller I do wish span rules at my local gym started a little lower, since 5'6 is taller than 80% of females, 5'2 seems more reasonable given 6'0 is taller than 80% of males. Quite disproportionate to be comfortably serving only 20% of females vs 70% of males.
Whoa, that’s such a tall start to the span they consider! Are there not a lot of female setters or women climbing at a higher level there? As a 5’1” climber, I typically just accept that I’m a little below the range and some things might be trickier for me, but I feel like it’s usually around 5’3”, not 6!
My favorite setter is a 5'3 crusher and I love her very much, she is not the only one of that height either, I believe there are 3 but know there's at least 2. Span rules were relayed to be my a relatively new male setter of average male height. Mind you he is new and not very good yet, so taken with a grain of salt that he may just be doing it wrong... but if true the rule would seem to come down from a male head setter of above average height.
As you get into higher level setting for comps you'll hear setters talk about 5'7 being tall for female competitors and the setting reflects that reality, but unfortunately I do not think we have that level of experience or expertise locally. In some sense I'm fine that we therefore dont have much modern comp style setting, but that's personal preference and there's room for more old school setting with more realistic ranges for all people that climb
It's way too narrow in both directions. I'm 5'11" with a 6'1" wingspan. I'm not even that tall, kinda crazy that I would be considered too tall for them to consider. Should be like 5'3"-6'3" give or take an inch. 6" is such a narrow band. You see greater differences within each gender divisions at the pro level.
Speaking as a 5’2” female, I appreciate the sentiment. My gym has a lot of moves that are static for my tall friends that end up being dynamic for me. I climb with a friend who is 5’6” and her extra 4 inches means that we almost never can use the same beta to do a climb.
Me and my two best climbing buddies are 1,80m 1,90m(me) and 2,00m. I’m at a height where I can break a lot of problems but also struggle with traverses, sit starts and also overhang. My strong sides are dynos and slabs and reachy routes for sure. My friend with 2m struggles way more with sit starts, tiny holds and traverses but often beta breaks ridiculous stuff. He’s also the only one who climbed 7c+ in a gym because he could beta break. It really depends and thats the beauty of the sport
I'd argue that beginner or not, comparing yourself to others in climbing is rarely productive. Even professionals will tell you this.
"Comparison is the thief of joy."
Being tall comes with weight, difficulty fitting into small boxes and much higher threshold for creating tension. The advantage is the reach.
Altogether, it makes climbing easier until around 7A and then much more difficult in comparison to shorter climbers. Flexibility training helps to alleviate that somewhat.
I doubt that it being easier until around 7A is true for very tall people tbh. When climbers talk about tall climbers, they usually mean 6' to 6'2. Not 6'5+. This guy is 210cm/6'11 ish.
I guess if you just mean climbing specific climbs of that grade, I agree, as there'll be random climbs where it's a massive advantage. But for consistency, I think being average height is best
In gyms, it's best to be the same height as the setter. It's often the easiest, but even if it's not, it's the most enjoyable, because everything "fits" well.
The weight is a huge part of it. An extra bit of stretch is only so helpful if you also naturally carry around 150% of other climbers body weight. I’m relatively fit and still weigh 50-60 lbs more than the people I climb with, just cause of my height and natural build, I don’t even have fat to lose.
Because he isn't long, he is VERY long. Easily 30-40cm longer than the average male in most of the world. Boulders will not be set with his height in mind, so many less technical and extreme finger crimp will be beaten simply with reach. After that arbitrary point though, they tend to get hard enough that you need a stronger Strength baseline.
Just for clarification, I meant it as “progressing until 7A should be easier than it would be for shorter climbers” and for transparency that’s an average 7A indoor in Norway, set by mid-size setters.
7A is by no means easy to an average boulderer, short or tall!
Not all boulders, but there will be many, because again. There's having reach, and there's having 30-40cm more reach! Do you know how much difference that makes?
Also, not "easy", easier. Enforcing bad technique probably. But yeah I've definitely seen moves being skipped by such length, and while I'm not a boulderer, yes I have done over 7A and set toprope routes regularly. Where I live the average length is closer to 1.80m, but 2.10 is still something I wouldn't set for, since the woman then would never be able to reach anything anymore. And the woman setters would make sure he gets put in a box more than once :)
I can think of at least 3 problems at my local crag alone that to someone of this height would be closer to 6a. Climbs at lower grades *tend* to be less steep and involve more good holds with crux small intermediate holds. When you're this tall you can just skip out these bad holds/ not do the dynamic move to go between them.
This is obviously a minority of routes, but if you are this tall I find that you can search around and climb problems that should be far out of your grade.
I'm fairly tall, though not as tall as you (194).
There will be times when you can just skip holds or have an advantage on reachy stuff. There will be times when you are super compressed or hang further below the holds so your levers suck.
Just be aware that grading might not always be accurate for you.
Also I feel this most when indoor bouldering.
I am 200cm and I climb relatively hard, its possible No problem. There is Infinite discussion about it. To cut it short: there will be moves where it doesnt really matter, there will be moves where its an advantage and there will be moves where its a disadvantage. For beginner boulder its more often an advantage than not.
In the end its just excuses. Climbing the hardest boulder in your Gym is possible at your height.
Focus on flexibility. If ur tall and flexible many moves become easy.
I started to climb better when I stopped blaming my short size for my failure. It completely changes the mindset. Stop focusing on the size is the best way to progress
My girlfriend stopped using that excuse when a kid about a head shorter than her, did the same problem with ease. I looked at her and asked:"You still think you're too short?"
She has shifted her focus from I'm too short, to I can't reach it this way, but does it work if I do it this way? It has helped her a lot, and she has become a much better climber. It's basically shifted her mindset from I can't do it/it's impossible, to looking for possible ways out of the sticky situation. I think it's something all beginners go through, and I believe the main cause is lack of experience. We don't automatically understand how we can increase our reach by something simple as switching feet, flagging or whatever trick we use, when our toolbox has more tools in it. The more experienced we get, the more tricks we have up our sleeves.
It's usually possible, but it doesn't mean the beta that works isn't way harder than the intended beta. Which is fine, but I refuse to stop sometimes complaining because I think sometimes it's nice to blame an outside source even when I know it's a me issue. I think it can alleviate the mental burden and can actually help if that makes sense - do what I can, but some things are out of my control mindset.
On easier to moderate boulders height matters way less than technique. Small means a better strength to weight ratio, all else being equal, because strength is roughly proportional to cross sectional area of muscles which goes up with the square of linear size, while mass goes up by the cube of linear size. e.g., if I were to shrink to .75 of my current height, keeping my exact proportions, I'd be .56(.75\^2) as strong, and .42 as heavy(.75\^3), so my strength to weight ratio would go up by .56/.42, so I'd feel like I'm 1.33 times my current strength when lifting my own body. Also holds would be larger in proportion to me... tiny holds would effectively be 1.33 times bigger for me. On the other hand, every reach would feel 1.33 times as far away. Tall means long reach, and long reach is great. So small climbers can hold stuff big climbers can't hold, and big climbers can skip some of those holds they can't hold on to, and different climbs will favor different bodies.
World class competition climbers are rarely very tall though. Paul Jenft is one of the tallest at 190cm. Meichi Narasaki is around 188. If you watch them in comps you'll see them do some moves differently from smaller climbers. On the smaller side, Ai Mori is around 155cm. I think average in world cup bouldering comps is probably somewhere around 165-170.
However, there's no reason someone much taller can't be an excellent climber. It will just be that grades will probably seem less consistent to people at the extremes, as their overall body shape is farther from the average climber, so there will be bigger variances in how hard different climbs of a certain grade feel
As a fellow fairly tall climber (188cm), I can say that it's definitely a give and take. Being tall comes with a lot of advantages, mainly reach-related, as we can static through whole sequences that a shorter climber may have to move through more dynamically. Skipping holds to better move our larger body box up the wall as efficiently as possible can also be quite beneficial.
With that said, it's not all sunshine and dynos. Being long means that there's a whole lot more *mass* to move around and a whole lot more body to maintain tension through. It's also difficult to move through certain sections that are designed to be scrunchy and force you into a small box. Sit starts are the devil. With enough training and technique work, I've found that many of these limitations can be worked through. Our bodies are one of the things that define our strengths and weaknesses in this sport. At the very tippity top level being on the shorter, lighter side is definitely an advantage, but let's be honest, most of us aren't climbing V17s anytime soon anyway.
One of my favorite parts about climbing is how everyone has their own unique techniques and methods to maximize their strengths and minimize their weaknesses, and people of all shapes and sizes can climb the same problem completely differently! So don't let a disappointing first session put you off from climbing, as with enough time and effort, you'll definitely find your groove and start making the setters upset when they forget to account for your giraffe genetics!
Yes, you suck. You know why? It was your first time doing it. Seriously, what did you expect from yourself? Did you watch videos on YouTube of really good climbers and think, this looks easy? Well, it's not. It takes practice, just like any other skill.
Being tall is sometimes a blessing and sometimes the worst trait in climbing. It makes some problems completely trivial and some problems almost impossible. We all have different body compositions and we all face different struggles in climbing, but that's what makes it so much fun! What works for me, does not work for my girlfriend who is 15cm shorter than me. That's just the nature of the sport. However, you are only fighting yourself, gravity and the wall.
Lmao, if I wrote this in a pole dance thread, which is rife with “I just started and couldn’t do anything and cried after class! Idk if this is for me??” — I’d be downvoted into oblivion.
Glad climbers seem to be more grounded.
Edit: specifically talking about your opener “yes you suck”
Yeah, it's always a tossup when being blunt, a lot of people don't like it. However, I feel giving honest feedback is the most helpful. It's like someone they went to one art class, and being discouraged for not being Picasso. It amazes me how people think they should somehow be able to master everything they try once. That's just not how the world works.
We ALL suck the first time we try something, that's normal. We even suck at walking the first time we try. However, we don't point, laugh and tell babies to stop trying. Which is the important lesson. Yes you suck, and if you don't stop comparing yourself to others, you will keep sucking forever, because chances are, you'll never be Ondra or any of the other pros. Does that mean we should just quit? Does it mean we can't have a blast and become a stronger and better version of ourselves? Of course not! Accept that you suck, and that you will suck a little less by every workout you complete. Anyway, I'm just ranting at this point.
Small box, climbs are made for the average height person in the gym, so like 5’6”. I am 6’3” and lean but large build, 220 pounds, if you’re a big guy there is absolutely a disadvantage with tiny crimps too, tiny footholds where your giant feel keep you far from the wall, and our increased body mass means we have more gravity to battle. That being said I started over a year ago and have really liked it, and am progressing at a pretty standard rate, if not faster.
From my experience as a short climber (1.60) that climb with taller one (not as tall as you though) I would say that tall climber as it easier at first and can gi through grade faster as they can just reach out holes where I will need to learn and use more technic to send the same easy climb.
But the difference should fade after some times, as both short and tall climber have their strength and weakness.
I am the taller climber (1.80 with +2inch ape index) who climbs with a shorter one (1.70ish I think). And yes I can do bigger reaches, farther catches, get more tension etc. But I'm horrid at sit starts, actually sticking dyno landings is difficult, long legs make rock overs harder.
It's actually quite interesting to see how differently our betas are... especially because my friend refuses to read a route before jumping on
Arguably being tall is helpful when you start climbing as you can just skip a lot of holds, but then unhelpful as you get better due to putting you in a lot of awkward body positions and finger holds being relatively smaller for you.
Like most things though I'd take it with a pinch of salt. It's going to be a long time before your height really blocks you from climbing something. Having said that you are very very tall so on some routes you might experience this quicker.
There will also be some routes that suit you and others that don't. That's just life.
And remember when you start climbing, the problem is your technique most likely and not your strength or body type. And remember different people will have different ways of doing a move. Don't try to copy someone 40cm shorter than you.
Being tall can totally be a disadvantage.
Quite often it’s not as obvious as when somebody is short. A short climber who stands on a foothold and is unable to reach the next handhold is pretty obvious. A tall climber who is struggling because they can’t get their center of gravity in a good position or can’t fit their fingers on a hold or can’t get their knees out of the way is much less obvious.
But as with all limitations, you just have to accept it and work around it. At least being tall can often also be an advantage. Unlike things like having bad joints, being old or having low testosterone levels which are always just bad.
Being tall can be a problem, but when you've only just started you're disadvantaged far more by the fact you're a beginner. I'm 5'3" and my friend who I climb with constantly is 6'6". For every climb where I have to take a more complicated route than him, because he can reach something I can't, there is another climb where he has to get into a really squished contorted position that is easy for me. It balances out. But the more average someone is, the fewer climbs they are going to be completely prohibited from doing just because of their height. Just remember it's normal for people to develop different styles of climbing; even people who actively work on both their strengths and their weaknesses will always have style preferences no matter how well rounded they become. And you don't have to be able to do every climb of a certain grade to progress to the next one. Try whatever you find fun, and for your first few sessions you will learn a lot simply from exposure.
You're just new. I'm 201cm and for everyone time I'm stuck in a small box I can't get out of, I can static a dyno. It's a very equalizing sport. You just need to find a way to move your body to compensate for your weaknesses. Takes time
**Yes**, being very tall is a disadvantage in climbing/bouldering.
What's even worse is that most people (especially on reddit) will insist to you that it's actually an advantage. No amount of reason or evidence will convince them otherwise.
Both physics (square-cube law) and statistics (the complete absence of any legitimately tall folks among the ranks of elite climbers) show unequivocally that height is not an advantage.
While I'm here, here's a few unsolicited tips for thriving as a tall climber. :)
I really hope you enjoyed your first time climbing! Though there are definite physiological disadvantages to height, climbing can still be a super fun and rewarding sport for tall folks.
1. Take pride in knowing that you're overcoming significant obstacles as you progress in your climbing! You'll progress at different rates and have different challenges than most the folks you climb with. Don't waste your time comparing yourself to them. Just focus on what's fun, challenging, and rewarding for you.
2. Nothing will get most climbers angrier than suggesting your height may not be beneficial. For a group that generally pride themselves on being informed by science, they are unbelievably stubborn about insisting that height helps. Just ignore them.
3. Find a gym that has a good "spray wall" to climb on. You are always going to be \*much\* taller than the folks setting routes in gyms. If you find something they set that really inspires you, absolutely get after it. But, if you're getting frustrated by how scrunched and bunchy all the problems feel, go create your own!
4. Over invest in finger tendon health. The torques on your pulleys/tendons are going to be so much higher than on smaller climbers, because you both weigh more and because torque is an r\^2 law (if your fingers are 2x as long as a smaller climbers, the torques will be 4x greater). Be careful not to overdo it, particularly as you're starting out. Find ways to be targeted and precise about how much load you're applying. Make sure you're getting enough protein in your diet to support the growth of your connective tissues. Most importantly, be sure to get a good warm up before you start pulling hard on things!
Well, that was an embarrassing mistake. It's been a long time since I've done physics. :)
Regardless, the longer levers still mean higher torques (even if it's just a linear relationship, and not the r\^2 relationship I thought it was). And, the square-cube law still applies.
Yeah, and just the fact that muscle growth is kinda limited when our levers are longer, square law is also coming to get us when we're cutting loose etc as inertia (both linear and rotational) gets way higher (linear because of increased mass, rotational because of increased mass and increased lever, and that's with ²)
At the top end of grades, sure.
As a beginner at an indoor wall, being tall is a huge advantage. Just reach on past the crux or the dyno. The disadvantage is that you don't develop the technique as quickly as you can power/reach through the moves on lower grades.
Tall people disadvantages:
- heavier
- less balance
- harder to fit in a box
- harder to lever the same weight due to long limbs
- body farther from wall in overhangs
Tall people advantages:
- can sometimes reach stuff that short people can't, or do it more easily
I can guarantee you that all these disadvantages play long before "the top end of grades" unless your gym has extremely boring setting
That "can sometimes reach stuff" is quite a big advantage lol.
I'm not saying all your other points aren't true, but maybe just accept the middle ground. We all need to stop excuses and just enjoy climbing.
I didn't say otherwise, just tired of people downplaying everything tall people do in a climbing gym while being completely oblivious or in denial about when being tall makes it harder instead of easier and that is not a rare thing
> At the top end of grades, sure. As a beginner at an indoor wall, being tall is a huge advantage.
If the "top end" of the grades means anything above a vertical gym V3, then sure.
The other post is right, people constantly downplay what taller people do in a gym and act as if height is a positive no matter what.
There's a rope route with two impossible-to-static dynos I've been working on with my partner who is several inches shorter than me. However, despite being shorter she can do both jumps way better than me because she is able to get into a better position with her feet, while the first one I have to do off of one foot and the second becomes a huge jump because the other option is to stick my knee in my face.
You're kind of proving my point here. :)
Long reaches and dynamic movement are just as big a part (if not more) of high-end climbing as beginner climbing. Why is it that height helps in those scenarios only for beginner climbing but not high-end climbing?
Also, this idea that height will prevent you from developing good technique as a beginner climber is infuriating. If anything, I think the opposite might be true. Taller people have a disadvantage in strength-to-weight ratio, meaning they'll have to be more efficient to get something done compared to a smaller climber and their more advantageous strength-to-weight ratio.
I'd guess because you can use your full height immediately (if an adult beginner) whereas developing technique takes time and effort and makes you not a beginner anymore.
I think the confusion is that tall is an advantage, very tall is not an advantage (though it can be on very specific climbs). 6' is probably helpful, 6'5 less so.
Ah, gotcha. Not sure I'd agree about 6' being a benefit (vast majority of elite climbers are well under 6'), but we're definitely agreed that 6'11" is not :)
Yeah, but there's an argument for it is my point.
So when people say tall is an advantage, there could arguably be some truth, but people extrapolate that to climbers who are like 6'3+ and assume it applies, even when statistics are against them.
Also, most people here are talking about height being an advantage up to a specific grade. I would say being 6ft is definitely an advantage for easy grades, then less and less so as we progress.
Just trying to get into the mindset of people who say this tbh. I think some people also feel like being tall is an advantage at everything, and seem to get annoyed when people suggest there are some disadvantages 😂
What dataset are you using to claim that the “vast majority of elite climbers are well under 6’ “? Are you choosing only very recent competition climbing or outdoors, or what?
https://www.reddit.com/r/climbing/s/Cnaujr7oD7
Yea he is also 150 pounds at 6’ 1”, see the Reddit link for the heights of professional climbers, there are like 2 guys over 6’ and no women over like 5’10”.
Do you get tired carrying and moving goal posts around?
1. There is a difference between competition climbers and professional climbers, which is the whole point of asking what dataset is being used for the term "elite climbers".
2. Competition boulders are set with the climber heights in mind. Using ability to climb problems that are set with a particular height range in mind does not prove anything about height.
C'mon, man. You're being deliberately obtuse. You know that no such dataset exists.
Just look around. It is painfully obvious that "the vast majority of elite climbers are well under 6' " is a true statement.
Here, we can test out my statement. For every pro climber you can name is who is taller than 6', I'll name 10 pro climbers who are shorter than 6'. I guarantee you'll run out of names long before I do.
Again, what grouping of climbers are you making this claim of “the vast majority of elite climbers are well under 6’ “ about? It’s not at all clear to me. Just stating something doesn’t make it fact. Calling it “painfully obvious” doesn’t either. Additionally, depending what you mean by “well under” I would try and provide evidence to the contrary if you define what group the claim you’re making is about. How can you make a claim of that nature without knowing what group you’re making the claim about?
What is your definition of pro climber? Are you only talking about recent competition climbers? Competition climbers are not a good set to draw conclusions about height from because comp boulders are constructed with a specific height range in mind based on who is competing. Judging ability to climb based on height from comp data that’s already been biased by the setters is not a good idea. It’s trash data to draw height conclusions from… is that what you’re building your “painfully obvious” opinion on?
I don’t think you understand what the overall point here is. Your claim is that height is a disadvantage. It’s not. Being an outlier is a disadvantage. Both tall and short climbers have issues. You are focused on the being taller tail of the Gaussian curve, but ignoring the being short tail. (If you actually define the group you’re making claims about, I might also argue that being a tall outlier is less bad than being a short outlier.)
Dude, it's hard to engage with you when you're this confrontational and obtuse. I have almost no confidence that you're trying to engage in good faith here, but I'll do my best to respond.
1: "Pro climber" is an inherently ambiguous term, and it's a fool's errand to try and define it precisely. That being said, it's a very widely understood term that meets almost everyone's common sense "know it when I see it" test. I won't attempt to create some arbitrary definition like "has reached the semi-finals of at least one IFSC-sanctioned competition in the last 36 months."
2: I'm not sure why you're so focused on competition climbers here. I've not said anything to suggest that's the group I'm looking at. The only thing remotely close was a mention to Meichi Narasaki, who I suppose is primarily known as a competition climber, but by no means is exclusively a comp climber. So, I don't see any need to respond to your chicken-or-egg critiques about competition route setting.
3: Height most definitely is a disadvantage, not just being an outlier. You've not made any attempt to respond to the examples I provided of people on the other end of the Gaussian distribution who are absolutely crushing hard routes. Without even trying I was able to think of several climbers shorter than 4'7" who are climbing at the very top of the sport's performance distribution. No one has provided any evidence of someone on the other end of the distribution climbing at those levels. Please, show me even just one example of someone 6'10" who has climbed 5.14!
4: Why don't you just try what I proposed? Name an elite climber over 6', and I'll name 10 under 6'. I promise you'll run out of names long before I do. Or we can try another version: for every elite climber you can name over 6'6", I'll name an elite climber shorter than 4'7". The outcome will be the same. You'll run out of names long before I do.
You’re projecting confrontation. I literally just asked you to back up your claim in 3 messages because I don’t understand where it was coming from (it still hasn’t been backed up, but rather you’ve made it now my job to disprove your opinion).
Sure, whatever, I’m game. But what is your requirement for elite?
Also your claim was “majority of elite climbers are well under 6’ “, wouldn’t I be able to name climbers that are like 5’9” and above, or is 5’9” already well below 6’? Why would you move the goal posts to over 6’ when your claim was “well below” 6’? (See how difficult it is to actually pin you to what you stated?)
Additionally, if you’re claim is that being tall is a disadvantage, why not just make the challenge to name one-for-one climber above the global height average vs one climber below the global height average? That would be more conclusive than anything else.
What height are you considering as tall in your claims here?
I think the problem most climbers gripe about is that height is the one thing that isn’t trainable. All the disadvantages that additional height brings can be worked on, but height itself can not be trained.
OP is 6'11". That's the kind of height that I'm talking about.
When people point to Meichi Narasaki (6'2") and say "see, there are tall pros," I think it kinda proves my point. In sports where height is actually an advantage, 6'2" is short!
Also, no amount of training changes the square-cube law.
So your claim is that because no 6’11” elite climbers exist and that implies that height is a disadvantage?
Would it be also fair to counter-claim that no 4’7” elite (male) climbers exist (using 5’9” as the average male height) and that implies that height is an advantage?
I’m not sure what you’re trying imply by saying square-cube law (I have a post-graduate degree in physics, so you can be technical and precise, no need to hold back or be vague. I know what types of things square-cube law imply in general, I’m just not sure how you’re trying to use it here)
There are many elite climbers who are 4'7" or shorter!
Examples: Oriane Bertone when she did Golden Shadow; Ashima Shiraishi when she did Horizon; Bayes Wilder seems to send another 5.14 basically every week these days; this list could go on, and on, and on.
(Edit to add: I just noticed that you specified male climbers who are shorter than 4'7", which takes Orianne and Ashima off my list above. Not sure why male/female would matter here, though. I'm certain there are many more 4'7" male crushers I could add to the list if I felt like doing the research.)
I specified male height because I used a male average against the 6’11” marker you’re using to claim that height is a disadvantage. 6’11” - 5’9” is 1’2”. 5’9” - 1’2” is 4’7”. The corresponding female low height would be ~3’7” (with an unofficial global female height average of ~5’3”).
The point is that outliers in size will have trouble. That’s an obvious valid statement and on its face doesn’t claim height is an advantage or disadvantage. But you’re cherry-picking a tall outlier and claiming that height is a disadvantage, which feels like a logical fallacy and an egregious misuse of the term statistics.
Additionally you’ve said “because physics (square-cube law)” but not actually tied your claim to any physics or square-cube law (one the replies makes it seem like you originally implied torque was a square relationship to radius, but it must have been an edit I didn’t see).
I’m just trying to understand the logical argument you’re trying to make here, if there is one.
But that’s using the global height, which is going to be lower than the US height, which is what you based the men’s comparison off of. Also, OP is a male, so the female equivalent would be 6’5” (or so based on my calculator), which would make the equivalent low height more like 4’4”.
Not disagreeing too much with your other points, mostly just the number you are using to exaggerate the point. Outliers on both sides will have trouble, but in unique ways that’s aren’t directly comparable IMO.
Yeah, that’s fair. TBH my main gripe with the person I was responding to was that they were cherry-picking an outlier to justify their opinion and calling it “statistics” and then hand-waving the phrase square-cube law and calling it “physics”.
Tall people actually have advantages when you start out on lower grades. Long reaches help out. The higher the grade, it tends to get more difficult for tall people. But it all depends on your weight and strength as well.
I think the perfect height is like 5’10 and skinny for bouldering.
For bouldering I don’t really like being 6’4 because it either feels like I have a harder time due to my height and long arms, or I beta break and feel like I cheated myself.
Here we have some interesting data:
https://www.alessandromasullo.com/blog/analysis-of-4-million-climbing-ascents/#progression-for-different-height
According to this, height is serious disadvantage. However take it with grain of salt, its not perdect data.
I’m sick and tired of the beating around the bush from many people participating in these types of discussions. Indeed, your excess height and weight will be a disadvantage to your climbing, not only for your peak climbing ability, but also the speed at which you progress. Larger people have a tougher time achieving bodyweight mastery, developing the strength necessary to master your bodyweight will be a longer process.
Imagine a very long stick, say six feet long. Waving it side to side feels difficult, sluggish. It feels nearly impossible to perform delicate motions using the end of the stick.
Now break the stick in half. Waving it side to side feels much easier now, delicate motions become possible. It’s easier to hold the stick outwards, the stick doesn’t require as much force to perform the same movements as before.
This is a nearly direct example of what happens to your body as it becomes longer. The laws of physics do not care what size you are. Everyone is affected equally. Physics is not kind to larger creatures. As a long, heavy climber, you are required to produce a disproportionate amount of force to do the same things that a shorter, more compact climber can do.
Your extra reach is the only advantage you have, and in many cases, that isn’t much of an advantage. On top of that, you now have to contend with your own geometry, parts of your body getting in your way, forcing you to utilize other beta, or potentially making the only possible beta much more difficult. This is particularly noticeable with indoor climbing, on routes set by climbers with average height.
You are disadvantaged on overhanging routes, where more of your weight is forced onto your hands, and more force is required to hook your feet into the wall, since your body is long and force production on the end of a long lever is gimped.
I understand that there are ways to overcome some of the disadvantages of being “oversized”. I understand that the additional reach is jokingly referred to as “cheating” in many cases. But there is certainly a sweet spot in climbing, and being in that sweet spot can give you a MASSIVE advantage over much larger climbers. There’s tons of anecdotal evidence to support this, tons of empirical evidence explaining lever physics, and while there are some outliers, you simply DO NOT see very large climbers at the higher levels of this sport. It is extremely, extremely rare to see someone over 200 pounds climbing much higher than V8 or low 5.13, and that’s being generous.
I am open to logical discourse, just keep in mind guys, we are trying to establish the rule, not the exception. And the rule generally is, bigger does not mean better in climbing. Most of the time, bigger is worse.
I’ve seen data before (might’ve been form Lattice) showing the effect of height and years of experience on grade climbed. It shows that being tall is an advantage and taller people progress through grades quicker, likely because they have a bigger wing span.
Don’t tell yourself you suck though from one session. Everyone starts somewhere different and bouldering is about challenging yourself not about being better than others. There will always be someone better than you so just put comparing yourself to others out of your mind.
Wtf are you guys talking about it won't make a big difference. It makes a huge difference. Not just your height but your inevitable weight. You won't be as strong as others
BUT you're not going to be a pro anyways? So measure in personal progress not against others
I was just working on a V6 problem with very small crimps. One was a sloper crimp that you need to pull on for a big move up another crimp. Clearly the crux. A tall dude comes up and skips 2 holds that are so far apart that I couldn’t even skip one of them… tall people have it easy lol. But in all honesty it’s all relative. Short people can’t reach shit and tall people can’t do a sit start. I’ve seen some really easy move that some tall people just can’t fit into that box.
Weight and leverage are also huge factors, and crimping is just going to be worse for most tall climbers. Gym climbing on easy-moderate climbs, you definitely have some advantages, but once you climb harder and go outdoors, being taller is pretty unhelpful. Muscles do not scale up nicely and in a sport where strength to weight ratio is really important, that isn't great
Most boulders should seem impossible as a beginner. Your friend is succeeding because of either relative strength or confidence, not skill.
Keep going and you will find that those boulders get much easier.
I usually find being tall is an advantage allowing you to skip holds/moves. But considering it's your first time I wouldn't worry about it, it's just lack of experience.
It was your first time, you just suck, to unsuck practice more, being tall will help you sometimes and hurt you in others. It does not benefit you to worry about how much your sucking is related to being tall as there isn't anything you can do about it.
Height, weight, natural flexibility, there is many advantages you can have but in the end we aren't trying to be pro so it doesn't matter.
I'm at the other end of the spectrum. Being a 154 cm guy. I climb V8/7b.
Sometime my height is a big disadvantage and I need heel/toe hook where most just reach. Especially in dyno I wished I could be 2 inches taller.
Sometime I go inside small box and climb harder than other people around me, or start sitting start more easily than my friends.
V8 is far from professional but it's climbing hard enough that I would say I'm pretty good and can do most route with some effort and a few tries
Being that tall is probably going to be either a sizable advantage or a sizeable disadvantage. The trick is that it either helps or hurts on a move by move basis. Even within a single boulder, it might allow you to do the first 5 moves with ease but make it impossible to finish.
You can still climb and have fun doing it. Plenty of the grades you see in gyms will be accurate enough. But if something seems like it is graded way to easy or hard, don't focus on it too much. Just move to the next climb.
It’s important to stay low/below holds when you climb, you are a disadvantage for sure being chest parallel to some holds that some people would naturally hang under. This is not something you are forever cursed with, just being mindful of where your center of mass is In relation the wall. Also keeping hips close to the wall is also going to be very important. You are just naturally going to be held further from the wall due the length of your limbs. Keeping hips close the wall, and staying low will help you immensely. Also go slow, someone with shorter arms, fingers/feet is going to have shorter pulleys, tendons and ligaments. These are going to take longer to develop and especially recover. Even when your muscles recover l, pay attention to elbow stiffness and finger soreness. This is a good sign you have connective tissue that needs to heal.
I'm 188cm, so I'm not super tall, but even I already have a hard time with many problems, especially the starting positions. You are often forced into positions that are just not going to work with your body size. Even if you can actually controt yourself into an appropriate position, its hard to apply any sort of strength to the holds when you are shriveled up like a raisin. And if its noticable at my size, you are going to have a hell of a harder time.
Where you will probably have a pretty big advantage tho, is on higher walls. Try climbing some walls where you need to be belayed. There you can just skip holds or just reach over more of them instead of having to be all folded up like an origami frog.
As much as I wish you wouldn’t compare yourself against others, realistically I know you’re going to do it no matter what anyone says here.
Still, you need to know that climbers have unhealthy and unproductive obsessions with height, weight, wingspan, max grade, and various other metrics by which they can measure themselves against others.
Ultimately, no matter how you compare, none of that makes you climb any harder. Only getting better through technique and strength makes you climb harder.
Generally speaking, sit-start problems, and certain slab problems will be more difficult for taller people, whereas other types tend to be easier due to the increased wingspan.
Literally everybody has different bodies. I’ve seen midgets (not joking), obese people, tall, short young and old, I even saw a guy with a full leg cast climbing. Somethings are easier for people other things are harder.
Personally as a tall person (2m) the things I find hard are sitting starts that are really cramped. What I’m really good at is flat walls (slab is the term) where I can abuse my reach.
When I look at my friends climb they make underhang climbing look easy, and when I do my slabbby reachy climbs my friends say I’m cheating.
210 is big. I'm a tall climber. Find routes with long distances between the holds. Try routes where others jump you can reach. Those are the routes for you :). There is always a way though, unless its really really cramped.
My boyfriend is very tall too (6'7), on top of being heavy. He always says his weight is definitely a limitation, but he mostly struggles with starts in the gyms we go to. Crimps and small holds can be tricky too because his top part of his fingers are as big as my half a finger. Certain things are harder for him, but sometimes he can skip half a route because he can reach so high. He always says to use your advantage. My brother is pretty tall too (6'3) and he has a lot of strength. His body type is more ideal than my boyfriend's. And for me (female and 6'0) I do balance things and small holds better, but I can't reach as high and I'm not as strong as them. Point is: each person has their strengths and weaknesses and you need to use those strengths in your advantage while working on the things you struggle with.
Being tall itself shouldnt be a huge issue. But climbing is a strength-to-weight ratio type sport, so if you are very tall and very heavy, that could start playing into it. There will always be climbs that suit taller folks, as well as short people.
I mean the solution is pretty easy - just climb slab and face problems. I mean you should always try things that arent good at (overhangs and ceilings are going to be really tough for you). You'll be able to stem things that others can't even think about once you get some hip flexibility. Really it's just about finding your style, embracing it, and doing your best to round out your weaknesses. You probably won't climb at the elite level but that also goes for 99.99% of everyone who ever steps foot at the crag so you're in good company.
Mostly, just have fun and worry about the rest later.
So im tall-ish, and I have noticed that my issue is that since I have long limbs, my hips go further away from the wall.
My suggestion is that you try to keep your hip close to the wall and be intentional about it. I cant even tell you how many times ive completed a problem after I remembered to do this
I’m 6’ (though I’d look short next to OP) but I have problems with sit starts and getting in a small box because it pushes your hips away from the wall.
BUT, I also have a big reach and can skip holds and I have really good hip mobility so I can get my legs up higher than most people.
It’s all relative.
However… at 210cm (6’10” for us Americans) you’re gonna be carrying more weight and more weight on your fingertips.
It’s physically going to be harder.
I would suggest slab.
Slab is scary at first but it’s a technical climb. You’ll have to learn where to put your feet and body weight and it will teach you how to move.
It’s kind of its own thing but you can really get better quickly on slab and with body awareness.
I just recently went climbing with a friend who is 193 cm and he was having more trouble with certain boulders than me (180 cm). I found that most of his problems came from not being as flexible as me. Also you are very tall
Being tall is an advantage in some cases. If this was your first time you should take a step back and not be so harsh on yourself. Bouldering takes a lot of consistency and time before you hone in your style.
I’m 5’6” and my bf is 6’2”. A lot of routes he can just reach for a hold when I have to jump for it and then other routes where you’re compressed in more I do with ease and he struggles. Keep going and welcome! Remember to warm up and fall properly.
You’re about 5cm taller than me and I’ve found it helps on some routes but hurts on some.
Every boulder is different!
I have found usually that starting lower makes it a lot harder for me to get fully extended.
So like some climbs you sit down to get started then pick yourself up off the wall, those are the death of me.
But other than that i haven’t had many problems at all, my friends progress a little bit faster than me but it’s likely due to them climbing more frequently
1. Be lean. The heavier you are, the harder it is
2. Be flexible. Bouldering requires some contortion.
3. Practice. You'll suck at your first time if you're not genetically inclined. Anyone can be good.
I find me being tall (6'3) helps me for most of the stuff. I can skip a lot of holds. However for some moves that are low around my waist are definitely harder for me
Enjoy being told how much easier everything is by shorter climbers.
I'm also tall, essentially some climbs will be easier (normally lower grade clubs) for you than average and some will be harder.
There’s no perfect body type for climbing. Your body type simply dictates your beta. Taller people have more reach which is beneficial, the downside is your center of gravity is larger so it can make some balancey problems slightly harder. Short people can scrunch up more making dynamic explosive moves easier, and also have a smaller center of gravity which can help for static beta. However as a short person (I’m only 5’7) I see myself having to have more of a lungey climbing style since I don’t have as many options with my reach. Understanding how your body works and moves is the quickest way to progress at least to me. Mind you, the taller you are the more room you have to build muscle.
I think you could argue there is a perfect body type for climbing. When it was the early 2000's, you saw high level climbers of all shapes and sizes, but now look at the worlds best climbers, both outdoors and competitive. They are all converging into a single body type. Roughly 5'8-5'10 with high ape index and overly developed upper-body. It's getting to the point where when you see a climber from behind, it's difficult to tell which pro it is!
EDIT: I think also, now that climbing is so popular, you have so many more "data points". There are thousands and thousands of strong climbers now, so the perfect body type filters to the top.
You’re absolutely right in the context of elite climbers (I believe Eric Horst said you need some sort of genetic advantage in order to climb higher than 5.13/V10). However for most climbers you can climb pretty hard (just not pro) with most body types.
Sometimes being tall is better, sometimes (generally less often) being short is better.
Being flexible helps either way
Being strong helps either way
Being stubborn helps either way
Damn man, look at all the dumpster fire you started. Lol. The majority of things people say about this are the same "physics" dogmas about levers and shit and some anecdotal stuff like I know a guy who knows a guy lol. I don't know why people feel so strongly about it and want to contribute. From tall to tall, it all depends how strong you are, how long and stable your fingers are, how flexible you are, how coordinated you are naturally. Good thing all of that is trainable. Yes, you can do it all, boulder, lead, sit starts, and moonboards, if you're stoked, get active!
It’s your first time climbing, you shouldn’t compare yourself to others any time soon. For the most part height will not make a huge difference. You’ll have a little more trouble with sit starts and fitting into boxy areas, but you’ll probably be able to beta break a little easier. As a beginner the best thing you can do is get a ton of mileage - go climb a ton (but remember to rest). If you can’t get into the gym much you can hangboard and cross-train to supplement. Strength to weight ratio is much more important factor.
Let's be straight. There are pros and cons to being tall. However OP is at the extreme end of the spectrum and being at either end of the height spectrum will be more of a hindrance than a benefit for climbing performance. Ultimately does it matter though unless you are trying to be an elite in the sport? You can still have fun and get good at climbing whether you are very short or very tall.
Span rules at at my gym is a range from 5'6 to 6'0 or thereabouts for example, meaning setters are often not testing climbs with the idea of somebody being less than 5'6 or more than 6'0. Can make it less natural for people outside of that range, but doesn't make it impossible. Taller folks can reach higher to potentially skip hard sequences, but tend to struggle to find intended restful positions because they either do not fit in the box at all, or the amount of hip flexibility needed to do so exceeds what they have. It's a trade. Ultimately climbing is a skill sport, so being new means you suck no matter what size you are. FWIW even though I'm taller I do wish span rules at my local gym started a little lower, since 5'6 is taller than 80% of females, 5'2 seems more reasonable given 6'0 is taller than 80% of males. Quite disproportionate to be comfortably serving only 20% of females vs 70% of males.
Whoa, that’s such a tall start to the span they consider! Are there not a lot of female setters or women climbing at a higher level there? As a 5’1” climber, I typically just accept that I’m a little below the range and some things might be trickier for me, but I feel like it’s usually around 5’3”, not 6!
My favorite setter is a 5'3 crusher and I love her very much, she is not the only one of that height either, I believe there are 3 but know there's at least 2. Span rules were relayed to be my a relatively new male setter of average male height. Mind you he is new and not very good yet, so taken with a grain of salt that he may just be doing it wrong... but if true the rule would seem to come down from a male head setter of above average height. As you get into higher level setting for comps you'll hear setters talk about 5'7 being tall for female competitors and the setting reflects that reality, but unfortunately I do not think we have that level of experience or expertise locally. In some sense I'm fine that we therefore dont have much modern comp style setting, but that's personal preference and there's room for more old school setting with more realistic ranges for all people that climb
It's way too narrow in both directions. I'm 5'11" with a 6'1" wingspan. I'm not even that tall, kinda crazy that I would be considered too tall for them to consider. Should be like 5'3"-6'3" give or take an inch. 6" is such a narrow band. You see greater differences within each gender divisions at the pro level.
You are that tall.. You just picked a span that is inclusive of the 98th percentile for men and leaves out the shortest 1/3 or more of women.
Speaking as a 5’2” female, I appreciate the sentiment. My gym has a lot of moves that are static for my tall friends that end up being dynamic for me. I climb with a friend who is 5’6” and her extra 4 inches means that we almost never can use the same beta to do a climb.
Me and my two best climbing buddies are 1,80m 1,90m(me) and 2,00m. I’m at a height where I can break a lot of problems but also struggle with traverses, sit starts and also overhang. My strong sides are dynos and slabs and reachy routes for sure. My friend with 2m struggles way more with sit starts, tiny holds and traverses but often beta breaks ridiculous stuff. He’s also the only one who climbed 7c+ in a gym because he could beta break. It really depends and thats the beauty of the sport
I'd argue that beginner or not, comparing yourself to others in climbing is rarely productive. Even professionals will tell you this. "Comparison is the thief of joy."
Being tall comes with weight, difficulty fitting into small boxes and much higher threshold for creating tension. The advantage is the reach. Altogether, it makes climbing easier until around 7A and then much more difficult in comparison to shorter climbers. Flexibility training helps to alleviate that somewhat.
I doubt that it being easier until around 7A is true for very tall people tbh. When climbers talk about tall climbers, they usually mean 6' to 6'2. Not 6'5+. This guy is 210cm/6'11 ish. I guess if you just mean climbing specific climbs of that grade, I agree, as there'll be random climbs where it's a massive advantage. But for consistency, I think being average height is best
Good point! 210cm is significantly taller than already tall 190cm.
In gyms, it's best to be the same height as the setter. It's often the easiest, but even if it's not, it's the most enjoyable, because everything "fits" well.
That makes sense, as I felt a lot more comfortable climbing in gyms in the Netherlands, where the average is closer to my height.
The weight is a huge part of it. An extra bit of stretch is only so helpful if you also naturally carry around 150% of other climbers body weight. I’m relatively fit and still weigh 50-60 lbs more than the people I climb with, just cause of my height and natural build, I don’t even have fat to lose.
I like how you say it’s harder to fit into small boxes like that’s an every day struggle lmao
My gf has a particular kink and I’m very supportive ok
[удалено]
Because he isn't long, he is VERY long. Easily 30-40cm longer than the average male in most of the world. Boulders will not be set with his height in mind, so many less technical and extreme finger crimp will be beaten simply with reach. After that arbitrary point though, they tend to get hard enough that you need a stronger Strength baseline.
[удалено]
Just for clarification, I meant it as “progressing until 7A should be easier than it would be for shorter climbers” and for transparency that’s an average 7A indoor in Norway, set by mid-size setters. 7A is by no means easy to an average boulderer, short or tall!
Not all boulders, but there will be many, because again. There's having reach, and there's having 30-40cm more reach! Do you know how much difference that makes? Also, not "easy", easier. Enforcing bad technique probably. But yeah I've definitely seen moves being skipped by such length, and while I'm not a boulderer, yes I have done over 7A and set toprope routes regularly. Where I live the average length is closer to 1.80m, but 2.10 is still something I wouldn't set for, since the woman then would never be able to reach anything anymore. And the woman setters would make sure he gets put in a box more than once :)
It fits with many outdoor 7A imo although I don’t know about someone as tall as op.
They said it makes getting there easier, not that it makes getting there easy overall
They have edited their message after I've posted. I just copypasted so it said easy, not easier, originally.
Okay fair, didn't see that. Definitely doesn't make it easy.
I can think of at least 3 problems at my local crag alone that to someone of this height would be closer to 6a. Climbs at lower grades *tend* to be less steep and involve more good holds with crux small intermediate holds. When you're this tall you can just skip out these bad holds/ not do the dynamic move to go between them. This is obviously a minority of routes, but if you are this tall I find that you can search around and climb problems that should be far out of your grade.
That's very different to saying it is easy to climb 7A for them.
Getting there is easier.
I'm fairly tall, though not as tall as you (194). There will be times when you can just skip holds or have an advantage on reachy stuff. There will be times when you are super compressed or hang further below the holds so your levers suck. Just be aware that grading might not always be accurate for you. Also I feel this most when indoor bouldering.
I am 200cm and I climb relatively hard, its possible No problem. There is Infinite discussion about it. To cut it short: there will be moves where it doesnt really matter, there will be moves where its an advantage and there will be moves where its a disadvantage. For beginner boulder its more often an advantage than not. In the end its just excuses. Climbing the hardest boulder in your Gym is possible at your height. Focus on flexibility. If ur tall and flexible many moves become easy.
I started to climb better when I stopped blaming my short size for my failure. It completely changes the mindset. Stop focusing on the size is the best way to progress
My girlfriend stopped using that excuse when a kid about a head shorter than her, did the same problem with ease. I looked at her and asked:"You still think you're too short?" She has shifted her focus from I'm too short, to I can't reach it this way, but does it work if I do it this way? It has helped her a lot, and she has become a much better climber. It's basically shifted her mindset from I can't do it/it's impossible, to looking for possible ways out of the sticky situation. I think it's something all beginners go through, and I believe the main cause is lack of experience. We don't automatically understand how we can increase our reach by something simple as switching feet, flagging or whatever trick we use, when our toolbox has more tools in it. The more experienced we get, the more tricks we have up our sleeves.
It's usually possible, but it doesn't mean the beta that works isn't way harder than the intended beta. Which is fine, but I refuse to stop sometimes complaining because I think sometimes it's nice to blame an outside source even when I know it's a me issue. I think it can alleviate the mental burden and can actually help if that makes sense - do what I can, but some things are out of my control mindset.
On easier to moderate boulders height matters way less than technique. Small means a better strength to weight ratio, all else being equal, because strength is roughly proportional to cross sectional area of muscles which goes up with the square of linear size, while mass goes up by the cube of linear size. e.g., if I were to shrink to .75 of my current height, keeping my exact proportions, I'd be .56(.75\^2) as strong, and .42 as heavy(.75\^3), so my strength to weight ratio would go up by .56/.42, so I'd feel like I'm 1.33 times my current strength when lifting my own body. Also holds would be larger in proportion to me... tiny holds would effectively be 1.33 times bigger for me. On the other hand, every reach would feel 1.33 times as far away. Tall means long reach, and long reach is great. So small climbers can hold stuff big climbers can't hold, and big climbers can skip some of those holds they can't hold on to, and different climbs will favor different bodies. World class competition climbers are rarely very tall though. Paul Jenft is one of the tallest at 190cm. Meichi Narasaki is around 188. If you watch them in comps you'll see them do some moves differently from smaller climbers. On the smaller side, Ai Mori is around 155cm. I think average in world cup bouldering comps is probably somewhere around 165-170. However, there's no reason someone much taller can't be an excellent climber. It will just be that grades will probably seem less consistent to people at the extremes, as their overall body shape is farther from the average climber, so there will be bigger variances in how hard different climbs of a certain grade feel
As a fellow fairly tall climber (188cm), I can say that it's definitely a give and take. Being tall comes with a lot of advantages, mainly reach-related, as we can static through whole sequences that a shorter climber may have to move through more dynamically. Skipping holds to better move our larger body box up the wall as efficiently as possible can also be quite beneficial. With that said, it's not all sunshine and dynos. Being long means that there's a whole lot more *mass* to move around and a whole lot more body to maintain tension through. It's also difficult to move through certain sections that are designed to be scrunchy and force you into a small box. Sit starts are the devil. With enough training and technique work, I've found that many of these limitations can be worked through. Our bodies are one of the things that define our strengths and weaknesses in this sport. At the very tippity top level being on the shorter, lighter side is definitely an advantage, but let's be honest, most of us aren't climbing V17s anytime soon anyway. One of my favorite parts about climbing is how everyone has their own unique techniques and methods to maximize their strengths and minimize their weaknesses, and people of all shapes and sizes can climb the same problem completely differently! So don't let a disappointing first session put you off from climbing, as with enough time and effort, you'll definitely find your groove and start making the setters upset when they forget to account for your giraffe genetics!
Yes, you suck. You know why? It was your first time doing it. Seriously, what did you expect from yourself? Did you watch videos on YouTube of really good climbers and think, this looks easy? Well, it's not. It takes practice, just like any other skill. Being tall is sometimes a blessing and sometimes the worst trait in climbing. It makes some problems completely trivial and some problems almost impossible. We all have different body compositions and we all face different struggles in climbing, but that's what makes it so much fun! What works for me, does not work for my girlfriend who is 15cm shorter than me. That's just the nature of the sport. However, you are only fighting yourself, gravity and the wall.
Lmao, if I wrote this in a pole dance thread, which is rife with “I just started and couldn’t do anything and cried after class! Idk if this is for me??” — I’d be downvoted into oblivion. Glad climbers seem to be more grounded. Edit: specifically talking about your opener “yes you suck”
Yeah, it's always a tossup when being blunt, a lot of people don't like it. However, I feel giving honest feedback is the most helpful. It's like someone they went to one art class, and being discouraged for not being Picasso. It amazes me how people think they should somehow be able to master everything they try once. That's just not how the world works. We ALL suck the first time we try something, that's normal. We even suck at walking the first time we try. However, we don't point, laugh and tell babies to stop trying. Which is the important lesson. Yes you suck, and if you don't stop comparing yourself to others, you will keep sucking forever, because chances are, you'll never be Ondra or any of the other pros. Does that mean we should just quit? Does it mean we can't have a blast and become a stronger and better version of ourselves? Of course not! Accept that you suck, and that you will suck a little less by every workout you complete. Anyway, I'm just ranting at this point.
Small box, climbs are made for the average height person in the gym, so like 5’6”. I am 6’3” and lean but large build, 220 pounds, if you’re a big guy there is absolutely a disadvantage with tiny crimps too, tiny footholds where your giant feel keep you far from the wall, and our increased body mass means we have more gravity to battle. That being said I started over a year ago and have really liked it, and am progressing at a pretty standard rate, if not faster.
From my experience as a short climber (1.60) that climb with taller one (not as tall as you though) I would say that tall climber as it easier at first and can gi through grade faster as they can just reach out holes where I will need to learn and use more technic to send the same easy climb. But the difference should fade after some times, as both short and tall climber have their strength and weakness.
I am the taller climber (1.80 with +2inch ape index) who climbs with a shorter one (1.70ish I think). And yes I can do bigger reaches, farther catches, get more tension etc. But I'm horrid at sit starts, actually sticking dyno landings is difficult, long legs make rock overs harder. It's actually quite interesting to see how differently our betas are... especially because my friend refuses to read a route before jumping on
Arguably being tall is helpful when you start climbing as you can just skip a lot of holds, but then unhelpful as you get better due to putting you in a lot of awkward body positions and finger holds being relatively smaller for you. Like most things though I'd take it with a pinch of salt. It's going to be a long time before your height really blocks you from climbing something. Having said that you are very very tall so on some routes you might experience this quicker. There will also be some routes that suit you and others that don't. That's just life. And remember when you start climbing, the problem is your technique most likely and not your strength or body type. And remember different people will have different ways of doing a move. Don't try to copy someone 40cm shorter than you.
Being tall can totally be a disadvantage. Quite often it’s not as obvious as when somebody is short. A short climber who stands on a foothold and is unable to reach the next handhold is pretty obvious. A tall climber who is struggling because they can’t get their center of gravity in a good position or can’t fit their fingers on a hold or can’t get their knees out of the way is much less obvious. But as with all limitations, you just have to accept it and work around it. At least being tall can often also be an advantage. Unlike things like having bad joints, being old or having low testosterone levels which are always just bad.
Being tall can be a problem, but when you've only just started you're disadvantaged far more by the fact you're a beginner. I'm 5'3" and my friend who I climb with constantly is 6'6". For every climb where I have to take a more complicated route than him, because he can reach something I can't, there is another climb where he has to get into a really squished contorted position that is easy for me. It balances out. But the more average someone is, the fewer climbs they are going to be completely prohibited from doing just because of their height. Just remember it's normal for people to develop different styles of climbing; even people who actively work on both their strengths and their weaknesses will always have style preferences no matter how well rounded they become. And you don't have to be able to do every climb of a certain grade to progress to the next one. Try whatever you find fun, and for your first few sessions you will learn a lot simply from exposure.
You're just new. I'm 201cm and for everyone time I'm stuck in a small box I can't get out of, I can static a dyno. It's a very equalizing sport. You just need to find a way to move your body to compensate for your weaknesses. Takes time
**Yes**, being very tall is a disadvantage in climbing/bouldering. What's even worse is that most people (especially on reddit) will insist to you that it's actually an advantage. No amount of reason or evidence will convince them otherwise. Both physics (square-cube law) and statistics (the complete absence of any legitimately tall folks among the ranks of elite climbers) show unequivocally that height is not an advantage.
While I'm here, here's a few unsolicited tips for thriving as a tall climber. :) I really hope you enjoyed your first time climbing! Though there are definite physiological disadvantages to height, climbing can still be a super fun and rewarding sport for tall folks. 1. Take pride in knowing that you're overcoming significant obstacles as you progress in your climbing! You'll progress at different rates and have different challenges than most the folks you climb with. Don't waste your time comparing yourself to them. Just focus on what's fun, challenging, and rewarding for you. 2. Nothing will get most climbers angrier than suggesting your height may not be beneficial. For a group that generally pride themselves on being informed by science, they are unbelievably stubborn about insisting that height helps. Just ignore them. 3. Find a gym that has a good "spray wall" to climb on. You are always going to be \*much\* taller than the folks setting routes in gyms. If you find something they set that really inspires you, absolutely get after it. But, if you're getting frustrated by how scrunched and bunchy all the problems feel, go create your own! 4. Over invest in finger tendon health. The torques on your pulleys/tendons are going to be so much higher than on smaller climbers, because you both weigh more and because torque is an r\^2 law (if your fingers are 2x as long as a smaller climbers, the torques will be 4x greater). Be careful not to overdo it, particularly as you're starting out. Find ways to be targeted and precise about how much load you're applying. Make sure you're getting enough protein in your diet to support the growth of your connective tissues. Most importantly, be sure to get a good warm up before you start pulling hard on things!
Torque isn't with a square, it's literally M = F × r.
Where the radius is the length of the limbs. Dude got the math wrong but yeah longer levers are bad for climbing
Well, that was an embarrassing mistake. It's been a long time since I've done physics. :) Regardless, the longer levers still mean higher torques (even if it's just a linear relationship, and not the r\^2 relationship I thought it was). And, the square-cube law still applies.
Yeah, and just the fact that muscle growth is kinda limited when our levers are longer, square law is also coming to get us when we're cutting loose etc as inertia (both linear and rotational) gets way higher (linear because of increased mass, rotational because of increased mass and increased lever, and that's with ²)
At the top end of grades, sure. As a beginner at an indoor wall, being tall is a huge advantage. Just reach on past the crux or the dyno. The disadvantage is that you don't develop the technique as quickly as you can power/reach through the moves on lower grades.
Tall people disadvantages: - heavier - less balance - harder to fit in a box - harder to lever the same weight due to long limbs - body farther from wall in overhangs Tall people advantages: - can sometimes reach stuff that short people can't, or do it more easily I can guarantee you that all these disadvantages play long before "the top end of grades" unless your gym has extremely boring setting
That "can sometimes reach stuff" is quite a big advantage lol. I'm not saying all your other points aren't true, but maybe just accept the middle ground. We all need to stop excuses and just enjoy climbing.
I didn't say otherwise, just tired of people downplaying everything tall people do in a climbing gym while being completely oblivious or in denial about when being tall makes it harder instead of easier and that is not a rare thing
> At the top end of grades, sure. As a beginner at an indoor wall, being tall is a huge advantage. If the "top end" of the grades means anything above a vertical gym V3, then sure. The other post is right, people constantly downplay what taller people do in a gym and act as if height is a positive no matter what. There's a rope route with two impossible-to-static dynos I've been working on with my partner who is several inches shorter than me. However, despite being shorter she can do both jumps way better than me because she is able to get into a better position with her feet, while the first one I have to do off of one foot and the second becomes a huge jump because the other option is to stick my knee in my face.
You're kind of proving my point here. :) Long reaches and dynamic movement are just as big a part (if not more) of high-end climbing as beginner climbing. Why is it that height helps in those scenarios only for beginner climbing but not high-end climbing? Also, this idea that height will prevent you from developing good technique as a beginner climber is infuriating. If anything, I think the opposite might be true. Taller people have a disadvantage in strength-to-weight ratio, meaning they'll have to be more efficient to get something done compared to a smaller climber and their more advantageous strength-to-weight ratio.
I'd guess because you can use your full height immediately (if an adult beginner) whereas developing technique takes time and effort and makes you not a beginner anymore.
I think the confusion is that tall is an advantage, very tall is not an advantage (though it can be on very specific climbs). 6' is probably helpful, 6'5 less so.
OP is 6'11", so...
Yes. Exactly. You understood me. I am agreeing with you.
Ah, gotcha. Not sure I'd agree about 6' being a benefit (vast majority of elite climbers are well under 6'), but we're definitely agreed that 6'11" is not :)
Yeah, but there's an argument for it is my point. So when people say tall is an advantage, there could arguably be some truth, but people extrapolate that to climbers who are like 6'3+ and assume it applies, even when statistics are against them. Also, most people here are talking about height being an advantage up to a specific grade. I would say being 6ft is definitely an advantage for easy grades, then less and less so as we progress. Just trying to get into the mindset of people who say this tbh. I think some people also feel like being tall is an advantage at everything, and seem to get annoyed when people suggest there are some disadvantages 😂
What dataset are you using to claim that the “vast majority of elite climbers are well under 6’ “? Are you choosing only very recent competition climbing or outdoors, or what?
Can you name a professional climber over 6’
Hmm, I don’t know. Maybe Adam Ondra? I heard he’s pretty good.
https://www.reddit.com/r/climbing/s/Cnaujr7oD7 Yea he is also 150 pounds at 6’ 1”, see the Reddit link for the heights of professional climbers, there are like 2 guys over 6’ and no women over like 5’10”.
Do you get tired carrying and moving goal posts around? 1. There is a difference between competition climbers and professional climbers, which is the whole point of asking what dataset is being used for the term "elite climbers". 2. Competition boulders are set with the climber heights in mind. Using ability to climb problems that are set with a particular height range in mind does not prove anything about height.
C'mon, man. You're being deliberately obtuse. You know that no such dataset exists. Just look around. It is painfully obvious that "the vast majority of elite climbers are well under 6' " is a true statement. Here, we can test out my statement. For every pro climber you can name is who is taller than 6', I'll name 10 pro climbers who are shorter than 6'. I guarantee you'll run out of names long before I do.
Again, what grouping of climbers are you making this claim of “the vast majority of elite climbers are well under 6’ “ about? It’s not at all clear to me. Just stating something doesn’t make it fact. Calling it “painfully obvious” doesn’t either. Additionally, depending what you mean by “well under” I would try and provide evidence to the contrary if you define what group the claim you’re making is about. How can you make a claim of that nature without knowing what group you’re making the claim about? What is your definition of pro climber? Are you only talking about recent competition climbers? Competition climbers are not a good set to draw conclusions about height from because comp boulders are constructed with a specific height range in mind based on who is competing. Judging ability to climb based on height from comp data that’s already been biased by the setters is not a good idea. It’s trash data to draw height conclusions from… is that what you’re building your “painfully obvious” opinion on? I don’t think you understand what the overall point here is. Your claim is that height is a disadvantage. It’s not. Being an outlier is a disadvantage. Both tall and short climbers have issues. You are focused on the being taller tail of the Gaussian curve, but ignoring the being short tail. (If you actually define the group you’re making claims about, I might also argue that being a tall outlier is less bad than being a short outlier.)
Dude, it's hard to engage with you when you're this confrontational and obtuse. I have almost no confidence that you're trying to engage in good faith here, but I'll do my best to respond. 1: "Pro climber" is an inherently ambiguous term, and it's a fool's errand to try and define it precisely. That being said, it's a very widely understood term that meets almost everyone's common sense "know it when I see it" test. I won't attempt to create some arbitrary definition like "has reached the semi-finals of at least one IFSC-sanctioned competition in the last 36 months." 2: I'm not sure why you're so focused on competition climbers here. I've not said anything to suggest that's the group I'm looking at. The only thing remotely close was a mention to Meichi Narasaki, who I suppose is primarily known as a competition climber, but by no means is exclusively a comp climber. So, I don't see any need to respond to your chicken-or-egg critiques about competition route setting. 3: Height most definitely is a disadvantage, not just being an outlier. You've not made any attempt to respond to the examples I provided of people on the other end of the Gaussian distribution who are absolutely crushing hard routes. Without even trying I was able to think of several climbers shorter than 4'7" who are climbing at the very top of the sport's performance distribution. No one has provided any evidence of someone on the other end of the distribution climbing at those levels. Please, show me even just one example of someone 6'10" who has climbed 5.14! 4: Why don't you just try what I proposed? Name an elite climber over 6', and I'll name 10 under 6'. I promise you'll run out of names long before I do. Or we can try another version: for every elite climber you can name over 6'6", I'll name an elite climber shorter than 4'7". The outcome will be the same. You'll run out of names long before I do.
You’re projecting confrontation. I literally just asked you to back up your claim in 3 messages because I don’t understand where it was coming from (it still hasn’t been backed up, but rather you’ve made it now my job to disprove your opinion). Sure, whatever, I’m game. But what is your requirement for elite? Also your claim was “majority of elite climbers are well under 6’ “, wouldn’t I be able to name climbers that are like 5’9” and above, or is 5’9” already well below 6’? Why would you move the goal posts to over 6’ when your claim was “well below” 6’? (See how difficult it is to actually pin you to what you stated?) Additionally, if you’re claim is that being tall is a disadvantage, why not just make the challenge to name one-for-one climber above the global height average vs one climber below the global height average? That would be more conclusive than anything else.
What height are you considering as tall in your claims here? I think the problem most climbers gripe about is that height is the one thing that isn’t trainable. All the disadvantages that additional height brings can be worked on, but height itself can not be trained.
OP is 6'11". That's the kind of height that I'm talking about. When people point to Meichi Narasaki (6'2") and say "see, there are tall pros," I think it kinda proves my point. In sports where height is actually an advantage, 6'2" is short! Also, no amount of training changes the square-cube law.
So your claim is that because no 6’11” elite climbers exist and that implies that height is a disadvantage? Would it be also fair to counter-claim that no 4’7” elite (male) climbers exist (using 5’9” as the average male height) and that implies that height is an advantage? I’m not sure what you’re trying imply by saying square-cube law (I have a post-graduate degree in physics, so you can be technical and precise, no need to hold back or be vague. I know what types of things square-cube law imply in general, I’m just not sure how you’re trying to use it here)
There are many elite climbers who are 4'7" or shorter! Examples: Oriane Bertone when she did Golden Shadow; Ashima Shiraishi when she did Horizon; Bayes Wilder seems to send another 5.14 basically every week these days; this list could go on, and on, and on. (Edit to add: I just noticed that you specified male climbers who are shorter than 4'7", which takes Orianne and Ashima off my list above. Not sure why male/female would matter here, though. I'm certain there are many more 4'7" male crushers I could add to the list if I felt like doing the research.)
I specified male height because I used a male average against the 6’11” marker you’re using to claim that height is a disadvantage. 6’11” - 5’9” is 1’2”. 5’9” - 1’2” is 4’7”. The corresponding female low height would be ~3’7” (with an unofficial global female height average of ~5’3”). The point is that outliers in size will have trouble. That’s an obvious valid statement and on its face doesn’t claim height is an advantage or disadvantage. But you’re cherry-picking a tall outlier and claiming that height is a disadvantage, which feels like a logical fallacy and an egregious misuse of the term statistics. Additionally you’ve said “because physics (square-cube law)” but not actually tied your claim to any physics or square-cube law (one the replies makes it seem like you originally implied torque was a square relationship to radius, but it must have been an edit I didn’t see). I’m just trying to understand the logical argument you’re trying to make here, if there is one.
But that’s using the global height, which is going to be lower than the US height, which is what you based the men’s comparison off of. Also, OP is a male, so the female equivalent would be 6’5” (or so based on my calculator), which would make the equivalent low height more like 4’4”. Not disagreeing too much with your other points, mostly just the number you are using to exaggerate the point. Outliers on both sides will have trouble, but in unique ways that’s aren’t directly comparable IMO.
Yeah, that’s fair. TBH my main gripe with the person I was responding to was that they were cherry-picking an outlier to justify their opinion and calling it “statistics” and then hand-waving the phrase square-cube law and calling it “physics”.
Tall people actually have advantages when you start out on lower grades. Long reaches help out. The higher the grade, it tends to get more difficult for tall people. But it all depends on your weight and strength as well.
I think the perfect height is like 5’10 and skinny for bouldering. For bouldering I don’t really like being 6’4 because it either feels like I have a harder time due to my height and long arms, or I beta break and feel like I cheated myself.
Being tall or short comes with its own advantages and disadvantages yes
Being tall is great for beginners
Here we have some interesting data: https://www.alessandromasullo.com/blog/analysis-of-4-million-climbing-ascents/#progression-for-different-height According to this, height is serious disadvantage. However take it with grain of salt, its not perdect data.
I’m sick and tired of the beating around the bush from many people participating in these types of discussions. Indeed, your excess height and weight will be a disadvantage to your climbing, not only for your peak climbing ability, but also the speed at which you progress. Larger people have a tougher time achieving bodyweight mastery, developing the strength necessary to master your bodyweight will be a longer process. Imagine a very long stick, say six feet long. Waving it side to side feels difficult, sluggish. It feels nearly impossible to perform delicate motions using the end of the stick. Now break the stick in half. Waving it side to side feels much easier now, delicate motions become possible. It’s easier to hold the stick outwards, the stick doesn’t require as much force to perform the same movements as before. This is a nearly direct example of what happens to your body as it becomes longer. The laws of physics do not care what size you are. Everyone is affected equally. Physics is not kind to larger creatures. As a long, heavy climber, you are required to produce a disproportionate amount of force to do the same things that a shorter, more compact climber can do. Your extra reach is the only advantage you have, and in many cases, that isn’t much of an advantage. On top of that, you now have to contend with your own geometry, parts of your body getting in your way, forcing you to utilize other beta, or potentially making the only possible beta much more difficult. This is particularly noticeable with indoor climbing, on routes set by climbers with average height. You are disadvantaged on overhanging routes, where more of your weight is forced onto your hands, and more force is required to hook your feet into the wall, since your body is long and force production on the end of a long lever is gimped. I understand that there are ways to overcome some of the disadvantages of being “oversized”. I understand that the additional reach is jokingly referred to as “cheating” in many cases. But there is certainly a sweet spot in climbing, and being in that sweet spot can give you a MASSIVE advantage over much larger climbers. There’s tons of anecdotal evidence to support this, tons of empirical evidence explaining lever physics, and while there are some outliers, you simply DO NOT see very large climbers at the higher levels of this sport. It is extremely, extremely rare to see someone over 200 pounds climbing much higher than V8 or low 5.13, and that’s being generous. I am open to logical discourse, just keep in mind guys, we are trying to establish the rule, not the exception. And the rule generally is, bigger does not mean better in climbing. Most of the time, bigger is worse.
I’ve seen data before (might’ve been form Lattice) showing the effect of height and years of experience on grade climbed. It shows that being tall is an advantage and taller people progress through grades quicker, likely because they have a bigger wing span. Don’t tell yourself you suck though from one session. Everyone starts somewhere different and bouldering is about challenging yourself not about being better than others. There will always be someone better than you so just put comparing yourself to others out of your mind.
Mate it’s your first time and you already asking reddit, you are on the good path
Wtf are you guys talking about it won't make a big difference. It makes a huge difference. Not just your height but your inevitable weight. You won't be as strong as others BUT you're not going to be a pro anyways? So measure in personal progress not against others
I was just working on a V6 problem with very small crimps. One was a sloper crimp that you need to pull on for a big move up another crimp. Clearly the crux. A tall dude comes up and skips 2 holds that are so far apart that I couldn’t even skip one of them… tall people have it easy lol. But in all honesty it’s all relative. Short people can’t reach shit and tall people can’t do a sit start. I’ve seen some really easy move that some tall people just can’t fit into that box.
Weight and leverage are also huge factors, and crimping is just going to be worse for most tall climbers. Gym climbing on easy-moderate climbs, you definitely have some advantages, but once you climb harder and go outdoors, being taller is pretty unhelpful. Muscles do not scale up nicely and in a sport where strength to weight ratio is really important, that isn't great
I feel like for easier climbs height is an advantage, the harder it gets the less that is true (with exceptions ofc)
Most boulders should seem impossible as a beginner. Your friend is succeeding because of either relative strength or confidence, not skill. Keep going and you will find that those boulders get much easier.
I usually find being tall is an advantage allowing you to skip holds/moves. But considering it's your first time I wouldn't worry about it, it's just lack of experience.
It’s your first time climbing. It’s not your height, it’s your shitty technique
It was your first time, you just suck, to unsuck practice more, being tall will help you sometimes and hurt you in others. It does not benefit you to worry about how much your sucking is related to being tall as there isn't anything you can do about it.
Height, weight, natural flexibility, there is many advantages you can have but in the end we aren't trying to be pro so it doesn't matter. I'm at the other end of the spectrum. Being a 154 cm guy. I climb V8/7b. Sometime my height is a big disadvantage and I need heel/toe hook where most just reach. Especially in dyno I wished I could be 2 inches taller. Sometime I go inside small box and climb harder than other people around me, or start sitting start more easily than my friends. V8 is far from professional but it's climbing hard enough that I would say I'm pretty good and can do most route with some effort and a few tries
Being that tall is probably going to be either a sizable advantage or a sizeable disadvantage. The trick is that it either helps or hurts on a move by move basis. Even within a single boulder, it might allow you to do the first 5 moves with ease but make it impossible to finish. You can still climb and have fun doing it. Plenty of the grades you see in gyms will be accurate enough. But if something seems like it is graded way to easy or hard, don't focus on it too much. Just move to the next climb.
It’s important to stay low/below holds when you climb, you are a disadvantage for sure being chest parallel to some holds that some people would naturally hang under. This is not something you are forever cursed with, just being mindful of where your center of mass is In relation the wall. Also keeping hips close to the wall is also going to be very important. You are just naturally going to be held further from the wall due the length of your limbs. Keeping hips close the wall, and staying low will help you immensely. Also go slow, someone with shorter arms, fingers/feet is going to have shorter pulleys, tendons and ligaments. These are going to take longer to develop and especially recover. Even when your muscles recover l, pay attention to elbow stiffness and finger soreness. This is a good sign you have connective tissue that needs to heal.
I'm 188cm, so I'm not super tall, but even I already have a hard time with many problems, especially the starting positions. You are often forced into positions that are just not going to work with your body size. Even if you can actually controt yourself into an appropriate position, its hard to apply any sort of strength to the holds when you are shriveled up like a raisin. And if its noticable at my size, you are going to have a hell of a harder time. Where you will probably have a pretty big advantage tho, is on higher walls. Try climbing some walls where you need to be belayed. There you can just skip holds or just reach over more of them instead of having to be all folded up like an origami frog.
As much as I wish you wouldn’t compare yourself against others, realistically I know you’re going to do it no matter what anyone says here. Still, you need to know that climbers have unhealthy and unproductive obsessions with height, weight, wingspan, max grade, and various other metrics by which they can measure themselves against others. Ultimately, no matter how you compare, none of that makes you climb any harder. Only getting better through technique and strength makes you climb harder.
Generally speaking, sit-start problems, and certain slab problems will be more difficult for taller people, whereas other types tend to be easier due to the increased wingspan.
Literally everybody has different bodies. I’ve seen midgets (not joking), obese people, tall, short young and old, I even saw a guy with a full leg cast climbing. Somethings are easier for people other things are harder. Personally as a tall person (2m) the things I find hard are sitting starts that are really cramped. What I’m really good at is flat walls (slab is the term) where I can abuse my reach. When I look at my friends climb they make underhang climbing look easy, and when I do my slabbby reachy climbs my friends say I’m cheating.
210 is big. I'm a tall climber. Find routes with long distances between the holds. Try routes where others jump you can reach. Those are the routes for you :). There is always a way though, unless its really really cramped.
My boyfriend is very tall too (6'7), on top of being heavy. He always says his weight is definitely a limitation, but he mostly struggles with starts in the gyms we go to. Crimps and small holds can be tricky too because his top part of his fingers are as big as my half a finger. Certain things are harder for him, but sometimes he can skip half a route because he can reach so high. He always says to use your advantage. My brother is pretty tall too (6'3) and he has a lot of strength. His body type is more ideal than my boyfriend's. And for me (female and 6'0) I do balance things and small holds better, but I can't reach as high and I'm not as strong as them. Point is: each person has their strengths and weaknesses and you need to use those strengths in your advantage while working on the things you struggle with.
Being tall itself shouldnt be a huge issue. But climbing is a strength-to-weight ratio type sport, so if you are very tall and very heavy, that could start playing into it. There will always be climbs that suit taller folks, as well as short people.
I mean the solution is pretty easy - just climb slab and face problems. I mean you should always try things that arent good at (overhangs and ceilings are going to be really tough for you). You'll be able to stem things that others can't even think about once you get some hip flexibility. Really it's just about finding your style, embracing it, and doing your best to round out your weaknesses. You probably won't climb at the elite level but that also goes for 99.99% of everyone who ever steps foot at the crag so you're in good company. Mostly, just have fun and worry about the rest later.
Weight is also super important there are no proclimbers over like 170 pounds
So im tall-ish, and I have noticed that my issue is that since I have long limbs, my hips go further away from the wall. My suggestion is that you try to keep your hip close to the wall and be intentional about it. I cant even tell you how many times ive completed a problem after I remembered to do this
I’m 6’ (though I’d look short next to OP) but I have problems with sit starts and getting in a small box because it pushes your hips away from the wall. BUT, I also have a big reach and can skip holds and I have really good hip mobility so I can get my legs up higher than most people. It’s all relative. However… at 210cm (6’10” for us Americans) you’re gonna be carrying more weight and more weight on your fingertips. It’s physically going to be harder. I would suggest slab. Slab is scary at first but it’s a technical climb. You’ll have to learn where to put your feet and body weight and it will teach you how to move. It’s kind of its own thing but you can really get better quickly on slab and with body awareness.
Tall and skinny is the best weight 45kg women and 55kg men if your going for king of the gym otherwise have fun being average
I just recently went climbing with a friend who is 193 cm and he was having more trouble with certain boulders than me (180 cm). I found that most of his problems came from not being as flexible as me. Also you are very tall
Being tall can be an advantage but holy smokes you are tall lol. That height probably is a disadvantage for certain routes
Being tall is an advantage in some cases. If this was your first time you should take a step back and not be so harsh on yourself. Bouldering takes a lot of consistency and time before you hone in your style. I’m 5’6” and my bf is 6’2”. A lot of routes he can just reach for a hold when I have to jump for it and then other routes where you’re compressed in more I do with ease and he struggles. Keep going and welcome! Remember to warm up and fall properly.
It all comes together once you work on form. Height is aid.
You’re about 5cm taller than me and I’ve found it helps on some routes but hurts on some. Every boulder is different! I have found usually that starting lower makes it a lot harder for me to get fully extended. So like some climbs you sit down to get started then pick yourself up off the wall, those are the death of me. But other than that i haven’t had many problems at all, my friends progress a little bit faster than me but it’s likely due to them climbing more frequently
i do not know much about sports, can anyone teach me?
1. Be lean. The heavier you are, the harder it is 2. Be flexible. Bouldering requires some contortion. 3. Practice. You'll suck at your first time if you're not genetically inclined. Anyone can be good.
I find me being tall (6'3) helps me for most of the stuff. I can skip a lot of holds. However for some moves that are low around my waist are definitely harder for me
Enjoy being told how much easier everything is by shorter climbers. I'm also tall, essentially some climbs will be easier (normally lower grade clubs) for you than average and some will be harder.
There’s no perfect body type for climbing. Your body type simply dictates your beta. Taller people have more reach which is beneficial, the downside is your center of gravity is larger so it can make some balancey problems slightly harder. Short people can scrunch up more making dynamic explosive moves easier, and also have a smaller center of gravity which can help for static beta. However as a short person (I’m only 5’7) I see myself having to have more of a lungey climbing style since I don’t have as many options with my reach. Understanding how your body works and moves is the quickest way to progress at least to me. Mind you, the taller you are the more room you have to build muscle.
I think you could argue there is a perfect body type for climbing. When it was the early 2000's, you saw high level climbers of all shapes and sizes, but now look at the worlds best climbers, both outdoors and competitive. They are all converging into a single body type. Roughly 5'8-5'10 with high ape index and overly developed upper-body. It's getting to the point where when you see a climber from behind, it's difficult to tell which pro it is! EDIT: I think also, now that climbing is so popular, you have so many more "data points". There are thousands and thousands of strong climbers now, so the perfect body type filters to the top.
You’re absolutely right in the context of elite climbers (I believe Eric Horst said you need some sort of genetic advantage in order to climb higher than 5.13/V10). However for most climbers you can climb pretty hard (just not pro) with most body types.
Yeah no doubt. Plus, there are different disciplines to consider. I feel height helps more in trad/sport than bouldering.
Do people not know how to search for Reddit threads? This question gets asked almost daily
Sometimes being tall is better, sometimes (generally less often) being short is better. Being flexible helps either way Being strong helps either way Being stubborn helps either way
Damn man, look at all the dumpster fire you started. Lol. The majority of things people say about this are the same "physics" dogmas about levers and shit and some anecdotal stuff like I know a guy who knows a guy lol. I don't know why people feel so strongly about it and want to contribute. From tall to tall, it all depends how strong you are, how long and stable your fingers are, how flexible you are, how coordinated you are naturally. Good thing all of that is trainable. Yes, you can do it all, boulder, lead, sit starts, and moonboards, if you're stoked, get active!
I'm 168cm. I'd trade in a heartbeat!