Can tall climbers reach highest level?

btw...it is really interesting, that the correlation between climbing grade and bodymass index is not as strong as grade to absolute height and weight, once you leave the world class level. at least it seems that way, looking at the last graph.

The graphs make a lot of sense, but as stefan alluded to, they are in a way falsified by the simple fact of specific choice: they are based on grades of sends and exclude the climbs that people didn’t climb or didn’t bother climbing (“to reachy”, “too dynamic”, too slabby, overhanging, etc.). That is they are not based on the same problems (yes, that would be boring). Best climbs often suit an individual’s style and, to stay on topic, body proportions. Short, skinny climbers don’t necessarily excel on climbs that tall, muscular climbers find easy and vice versa. Concerning the original question in this (I agree, remarkable) thread, the answer will have to depend. Tall (above 6 ft?) and lightweight is proven to be a good prerequisite. “Highest level” in all kinds of disciplines and angles would be rather unlikely for a tall, heavy built person, weight being the primary factor, not height (heavy! not as in Chris Sh., who is skinny and muscular). But there have been amazing achievements by heavier climbers (mostly on very short overhanging problems or on slabs). And then there are climbs that exclude people below a certain height, when there is no feasible dynamic solution. When the difficulty lies in reaching distant, bigger or even smaller holds this will favour taller climbers, no doubt. Many of them are seen mostly on face climbs where they can live up to their strengths. Competition walls (lead and boulder) seem to favour shorter climbers for a number of reasons, as mentioned in this thread. But all climbing (with the possible exception of alpine winter climbing) favours lighter people.

Very interesting thread.  I wonder how the graphs would differ between boulderers and and route climbers. 

double post

@John Meget: yes, this is true, for a taller climber is harder to bring his body into position and the signal transmission from one point to another needs longer, but if this factor is really remarkable I am sceptic, I think it becomes too specific then.  @open hands: long, far moves don't favor always tall climbers, it is depending on the position of the feet holds; nearby moves favor always short climbers or anybody.   

@oO00Oo> well maybe this is true in some cases, observation though points to a lack in hip and leg flexibility, lower number of complex engrams and limited motor skills: when you can't highstep your feet may indeed be too low. Smaller people have to learn a lot more or they get stuck below 7a. There are many tall climbers who prove all those wrong who talk of "small people problems". Look at Adam Ondra who doesn't complain but gets his feet up and sends!

@open hands: I don't understand what you mean. Can you explain more precise please?

I dont think we will ever see a +65 kilo climber wins a wc in lead climbing. This also means no one taller than apr 180-182 will ever win a wc in lead climbing. Taller climbers trying to win something should choose bouldering. 

I think there is something else going on. A couple of studies have found that what you think about the nature of intelligence strongly effects motivation, people that think it is an innate ability try less hard weather they have it or not (e.g. Aronson, Fried, & Good, 2002). I'm >1.9m and I get told all the time that I have done things the tall way, creativity on my part is punished. I also often hear from people at the wall who I don't even know that I only did something because I'm tall (specifically taller than them), it's not because I train way more than them it's an innate ability. I'm also encouraged to endlessly try sit starts and bunched up moves as you should be good at everything though none of my shorter peers extend that philosophy to dynos. Everybody suffers from luls in motivation. when your tall and your achievements are talked down constantly by your peers these luls are more frequent and you can't afford that if you want to be the best. I'm not saying it's not an advantage some times but mostly I feel like I'm just more bunched on the same holds, I weigh more and every achievement comes with someone saying it didn't count because I didn't do it their way, while the suggestion that they try my way is shouted down with an 'I just cant reach' 

I think that the problem of tall climbers is that they cannot put their feet up excusing themselves in a lack of flexibility, or the inability of shrinking themselves, or whatever. Well for a short climber there is not the problem of put up the feet as they have to do in every route they have climbed during all they life; they have adapted to this, always putting their feet upper than a taller one, getting flexibility, strength to perform long dino or static moves. For a short climber, climbing is always like training, HARD. I think that the height of a climber is a specific parameter, and to certain limit, the taller the better. But as there are other parameters that conform a climber, it may be not decisive. The only advantage of a shorter climber is that it can weight less for a determined BMI

Interesting! Maybe this is one reason why we see so few tall climbers in the climbing community. Being 167 cm (at my peak) with -2 in apeindex, I perfectly know the story that shorter guys get credit for being creative and pushing their limits. What we tend to forget is that a 2 cm ledge is a worse hold for the heavier tall guy with longer fingers. In fact, for all normal holds it is an advantage to be shorter, so it is just fair that the tall guy can benefit from a better reach sometimes.  The problem is of course that there are no good tall climbers acting like good role models for the longer guys. Today, <a href="https://www.8a.nu/user/matthias-resch">Matilda Söderlund</a> at 177 cm is probably the tallest top climber out there so let us hope she will become one of the best the next year, setting the bar for guys like Mike.

@jose hulk: really? the taller, the better? i think this is an interesting topic. but - just go into ANY climbing gym, to ANY crag - and look at the 10 strongest climbers you can find. and then tell me again that "the taller, the better". there are no subtle psychological disadvantages for taller climbers. it's plain and simple: the shorter you are, the better your strength-to-weight-ratio. this has been explained in detail in several comments above. strength-to-weight-ratio is THE no. 1 determining factor for climbing performance. not "reach".

I am conducting a statistical study based on data from more than 20000 climbers with a wide range of characteristics and abilities, and some preliminary results are shown below. The study aims to investigate how physical characteristics and experience correlate with climbing performance. Many of the conclusions are already known to most climbers, but I believe many will find it interesting to know that most popular conjectures are supported statistically by data. Keep in mind however that these results are preliminary. - Weight is strongly negatively correlated with climbing performance - Height is also strongly negatively correlated with climbing performance - Being male gives an advantage over being female - The difference between males and females is bigger on bouldering than on routes, and is in fact not that big on routes - The disadvantage of height and weight is bigger on routes than on bouldering - Height and weight are, of course, strongly correlated - There is some indication that when disregarding the extra weight, height is an advantage on routes but makes no difference on boulders - Experience is strongly correlated with climbing performance - The highest performance is typically reached in ones middle twenties - About 15-20% of climbers are female The study refers to the general population of climbers and I have so far not investigated how these correlations hold among e.g. elite climbers. As a final remark in response to the topic in this thread; the data suggests that taller climbers need to try harder to send the same routes because of their weight disadvantage. Perhaps this could suggest that taller climbers should be given more credit when sending something. However, one should keep in mind that even though height is a definite disadvantage, height and weight together only describe a very small portion of the variation in performance between climbers statistically (less than a few per cent). This means that other factors are more important, so there is no reason to believe you cannot become an elite climber just because you are tall.

Roland, your observation about height cannot be literally true.  It must only apply within a certain range of heights.  Do you have an idea what that range is? 

@Roland - thank you for posting this. that sounds very interesting. one comment on the last paragraph: i believe you are right. but bear in mind, that height is probably the only thing a climber cannot change. he can gain more experience, train smarter, lose weight, etc. but he cannot make himself shorter. maybe this is the reason we see so few tall climbers at the elite level, where a few percent make all the difference. @John - why not? of course humans don't come much smaller than around 1,50m for men and maybe 1,40 for women. but look at kids climbing these days. in my opinion the grading scale starts to lose its sense anyway, when we start comparing a 195cm/90kg man to a 130cm/35kg girl.

I very much like the gradings to become More personal as it is impossible to compare the challenges for a 130 com and a 200 cm. I agree that normally it is easier for short guys to become very good in climbing and therefore maybe some of the long guys stop. It is easier to start cycling at the lowest gear but if you manage to start at a higher gear, you Will in the long run get a higher speed.

@John Meget - I have so far only investigated linear models, and from various diagnostics it seems like these are fairly useful in terms of predictive capability. There is however a slight indication (by simply viewing the plots) that once below 62kg and 168cm, lighter climbers no longer have an advantage (for males and routes). If I have time, I will also investigate more flexible models. In order to reduce correlations between the errors, I restricted the data to homogeneous groups. The preliminary conclusions regarding height I've given are based on people aged 20-65. I also removed obvious outliers which indicated false information had been given, which is why I, for example, restricted the heights to be between 135 and 210 for male adults. I hope that answers your question. @tomas beena - I am sure you are right that these factors play a more important role at the elite level. It would however be unfortunate if e.g. finger-genetics turn out to play the most important role, and you give up because you are tall even though you have perfect fingers. There are many factors which I have not measured and that are not included in my models. All-together, my best models so far only describe under 50% of the variation between climbers. There might be something really important which has not yet been measured or investigated. Finally, there are a few inspiring 85+ kg climbers who perform at the top level! @Jens Larssen - Could it perhaps be a good thing to introduce a complementary grading for experimental purposes, to see if this can motivate physically disadvantaged climbers? It might be interesting to see how the best females compare to the best males, how the oldest climbers compare to the youngest, etc., when adjusting for these factors.

Very interesting thread, worth resurrection. I'm curious about the statistics of limb length. If you can reach a hold, isnt it easier to pull through (ie reverse curl) with a shorter forearm lever than a longer forearm lever. Same for finger length on crimps I think. Not sure on leg length but shorter legs/arms do keep you closer to the wall on overhangs. So for all the statisticians out there, do you have data on arm/finger/leg length relative to trunk size on performance?

Thanks Roland for sharing these insights with us. One question: Are your data based on climbers in 8a.nu database, or where did you get your data? I for one, registered in 2008 (I think) and have not changed my personal data since. But my grades have improved...?

Sharma, Ondra, and Jimmy Webb are all roughly 6 ft tall (180-183 cm), Jan Hojer is 6 "2" (187 cm) these four climbers are arguably, four of the top 10 men's sport climbers in the world. So the answer is yes. Jorg Verhoeven is 182 cm and he is a world class climber too