Body Height Effecting Grades
8 May 2010 - 3:52pm
I'm a beginner climber on the road to being an intermediate level. Most of the time when I go climbing with friends my ability to complete a route is often attributed to my height or reach, instead of my skill/strenght/technique.
It is an issue I know.. V2 is about my boulder grade at the moment, these problems are a good challenge for me... but today I used my long legs (I'm 6.3ft, 34" inseam leg) to high step and complete a V5. There are still some hard out V1's around the place I can't do!
Do you think grades should take into account a person's height? Do you think because it's a V5 for shorter people, it's still a V5 if I do it? Is it really cheating to use your height like I hear all the time? What do you think? What would you suggest I do about all this "cheating" I get accused of all the time? Is it cheating?
Discuss.
9 May 2010 - 10:13pm
#2
"Zwergentod", I like that! 
As sba said, height helps sometimes (skipping small holds) and hurts sometimes (body leverage on steep rock); sometimes it sucks to be neither short nor tall (ie, Lynn Hill or Tommy Caldwell on the Great Roof). A lot of the time, clever footwork will see you through if you're not a tall climber. Or you could just be beastly strong. Hell, when I think of the strongest climbers in NZ, most are of average or below average height, so you're in good company! Some types of rock features less than others, which tends to result in fewer footholds or intermediates, making it harder for the short climber to work out different beta, even more so I feel when bouldering. To get back at your lanky friends, drag them over to work some roof problems or scrunchy sit starts! ;-)
Grades, as a number, are simply general consensus, and therefore already height dependent. Dependent on the height of the majority of people who gave their opinion on the grade...
Those who are taller might have an easier time on some routes, and those who are shorter on others, and vice-versa. This is generally not reflected in the overall grade, and would be a real PITA to keep track of for all routes (e.g. one grade for those under 5'7", another for all those 5'7"-6'-0", and yet another for all over 6'0"). Not to mention, height alone isn't really the deciding factor, but rather leg and arm length (ape-index) and flexibility.
One thing I have noticed though, is reach-dependency more often noted in the guides here (Germany) than elsewhere (NY, NZ, Spain, etc). They even have the term "Zwergentod" (literally, "dwarf death") to describe a crux that is definitively harder for short climbers.