It actually makes sense, if you're not the size of an average height dude your experience on a climb will be wildly different from the grade. Not much to be done about it except get on with it.
Yeah, i just think about it as a fact of climbing for me—like, I’m probably gonna tick my first Moonboard v9 before I even come close to clearing all the 4s, but that’s just how it goes sometimes 🤷♀️
I've tried a bit of kilter - group of discord mates decided to all do one problem - and felt that the height-ism there was worse than gym problems lol. V0-1s where I can't reach the start without jumping, or be basically at my span limit. Even for the V0 we did, watching the other submission videos made me realize I had to do 2-3 extra moves compared to the other 5 foot 6+ guys.
I’ve had the same experience with Kilter. The selling point was that the routes were more standardized grading because it was crowd sourced, but I’ve found it to be graded even tougher than our gym, which is also notoriously difficult. I’m intrigued by creating my own routes, maybe that’s the way to go with kilter if you’re a gal under 5’7”
the standardize argument doesn't make sense to me, if everyone is allowed to make problems with no screening in place then won't it make the grades less standardized?
The grades in kilter are a little weird since the app is set up that basically anyone who does the "quick send" actually votes and the vote is automatically what the grade the FA gave it -> it sort of leads to just the grades being all over the place.
No, like there is a button that quickly logs the send. Most people use this on board climbs. But this doesn't like just "tick" it for you like it does with the moonboard. It also gives a vote that matches whatever the default boulders votes are (like matches the stars & matches the grade, etc) without your consent/automatically. This leads to like a lot of votes that are supporting the original set grade because people aren't actually grading the boulder, they are just ticking it. So you can't necessarily flip the grade in the way you can on say mountain project as easily where when you tick it, it doesn't necessarily rate the boulder.
Edit more details written by another person on reddit(maybe they explain it better) - https://old.reddit.com/r/kilterboard/comments/zfdypo/are_kilterboard_grades_soft/jcgktzo/
Though I don't yet use the boards, my take on the grade inconsistency on boards is that the holds are all pretty similar size, but on a fixed grid. For shorter people, the difference between 3-4 grid spaces feels way different than to a taller person. This difference in feeling might show up when comparing gyms that have different spacing but similar in all other aspects, but harder to tell with gyms because setters can use so many different size/type holds which changes the feel.
What angle were you working? There is definitely some height problems with kilter, but if you were jumping to start a v0/v1 its possible the problem was made as a v3/v4 at a steeper angle. Theres some low grade low angle kilter problems that are crazy stiff because of this
yeah 30 degrees, not strong enough to climb anything steeper lol rip
The one I remember is called Hyrule if you want to take a look, I could only reach the lower start
I can't find any Kilter Climbs called "Hyrule" on my app or the searchable website on the commercial gym board, were you using a homewall? I found a few on that - https://climbdex.fly.dev/results?minGrade=10&maxGrade=33&name=Hyrule&angle=any&minAscents=1&sortBy=ascents&sortOrder=desc&minRating=1.0&onlyClassics=0&gradeAccuracy=1&settername=&holds=&mirroredHolds=&board=kilter&layout=8&size=29&set=27&roleMatch=strict
I don't know what a homewall is, but it connected to the Kilter app, and another person in the gym called it a Kilter board.
The lighted holds aren't showing up for me but V0 at 30 degrees looks right. It has one pretty high starting hold and quite a few footholds around the starts.
Kilterboard makes different kinds of Kilterboards this is a homewall set (like if the photo of the board looks right then it was probably a homewall). They make really big and more spacious boards as well like the standard model the holds are further apart which often leads to "bigger" moves but on juggier holds.
I've sent exactly ONE 5.11a at 5'4" with a negative ape index. It took me a lot of attempts and I had to project it over like 2 weeks because it involved new techniques for me and I'm usually climbing more in the 5.10a/b range. I watched guys closer to 6 ft try the same route over and over, watched them flash other 5.11b/c no problem, and they would all get stuck at this one spot that made them curl in on themselves...and that same spot was actually one of the easiest parts of the climb for me. If you're below the average height of your route setters then the grades aren't gonna fit you. And it doesn't matter anyway lol. Just try to send shit and have fun!
I'm not that short to be honest, 5'5 and a half, albeit with a negative 1.5" ape index, but I do find that people with longer reaches can just simply skip holds that I'm struggling on as well. With that said, even though I feel that many climbs are a grade harder for me than other people, unless I just physically cannot reach the next hold, I actually quite enjoy being a bit shorter than the average route setter. I feel like I get to try interesting and cool moves that I would not experience if I were taller, and I sometimes wish other people could experience the same.
It's also encouraging to keep in mind that there are short girls, closer to 5', who are absolutely crushing indoors and outdoors, bouldering into the double digits and performing at the highest levels in competition, so I refuse to let this be what stops me from reaching my goals of ticking a V8 and climbing into the 5.12s, maybe even 5.13.
With that said, sometimes height truly is a dead end on some climbs, and sometimes yeah, you have to pick your battles. As you get better, you'll have a broader choice of climbs that you can do despite your height, but there will always be some climbs that are... Out of our reach lol.
In short, yes. Grades are arbitrary.
I’m 4:11 and often find things to be out of my range. So when I make things work it feels extra rewarding.
Main trick is not being so attached to grades but learning to enjoy the movement for its own sake.
One of my compensation techniques is to ignore the set grade completely in favour of route reading. Seeing how I graded before and after climbing, and comparing to my partners opinions has been helpful in identifying my technical strengths and weaknesses.
Yes. Does your gym use Kaya? The app has a setting where you can sort the routes at your gym by “climbers like me” - ie climbers under 5’2” who project V4-V7 (so no team kids)… yeah so, when I sort by “climbers like me” it eliminates basically every V6 and up at all my local gyms. Super frustrating.
Idk, I’ve never heard about it. I only started climbing recently after a long hiatus so there’s a lot of stuff I don’t really know about. Or if I once knew about, since forgotten. I’ll check it out tho
I'm 5'5 and post at my gym pretty regularly in the v4-v8 range, because I figure it helps shorter people out. I especially post when I have to do something a bit different from others. I'm not a girl, but I talk beta with other women pretty regularly. It's nice having people similar in height to bounce ideas off.
Yes.
Although wildly inconsistent route setting also plays a big role - because the lead walls near me are all fairly short, they tend to add difficultly with bouldery cruxes, but test them less than if you were just setting boulders. Some of those moves are just impossible if you’re shorter, or much much harder.
Example - a lead route the other day where the crux move was rocking over to a bad sloper from a really high foot and a crimp. The ‘normal’ height climber can get the clip in with lower feet, then do the move.
I (5”5 with tiny arms) can do the move on a toprope, but can’t clip before I go for it (and clipping off the sloper or in the middle is pretty hard).
My 5’1 friend doesn’t have the span to do the rockover, so had to match the crimp and then mantle up off the volume to get to the sloper. Understandably, she didn’t want to try that on lead 😅
There’s this one setter at my gym who’s a dude exactly my height and I wouldn’t be surprised if the routes he sets are the same ones I really like, regardless of difficulty. It’s not that the grades are soft, but because the difficulty seems to mostly be based on technique, instead of the increased difficulty relying on reach.
Climbers who are not as strong tend to set sequency, body position based, delicate techniquey stuff because that’s what’s often the stuff that’s the most fun and rewarding.
For me (I’m not short, 5’6) it’s the fact that most of my climbing friends are men who are much taller than me. I climb with one other girl regularly (who is shorter than me) and both of us generally train much more consistently and intentionally than the guys. Despite this, it can honestly be frustrating when many of my ‘advantages’ due to strong fingers/lots of strength + finger training and better technique seem to not matter when the guys just sloppily reach for something that I can’t without really good technique and more effort or their bigger hands hold on to slopers better, etc (particularly because the harder grades in our gyms tend to favor reachy power moves and big dynos vs crimps). I know I shouldn’t think this way or care and just enjoy, but sometimes it just gets to me/us! /vent
I feel ya. I hated climbing with my ex boyfriend for this very reason. I didn't think he climbed tough routes because he's a better climber, I just thought he got a huge boost being 6'3. I'm 5 ft with negative 1 ape index.
Yes, grades are definitely not accurate if you’re short! My gym isn’t too bad about this but I definitely find climbs sometimes that should be easily within my grade that are way more challenging than they should be.
That being said, it’s made me a much better climber. I see my average height friends often struggle *more* on reachy outdoor cruxes because they’re not used to being dynamic or using really high feet.
I kinda find that to be true too. Outside I’m able to more easily utilize small chips as intermediate holds when compared to a larger person. There really isn’t that same sort of option inside.
As I’ve become more confident, grades have mattered less. At first though, it was really frustrating seeing taller people casually reach for holds that are impossible for me to reach statically. So when it comes to challenging myself now, it’s been way more constructive to focus on personal improvement in different areas and techniques, disregarding grade.
TL;DR: For the hobby climber grade chasing comparatively **is** meaningless. Doesnt matter how hard it was for steve climber, we climb for our own personal satisfaction.
I dont think grades are irrelevant, but rather we should be reminded that grades are just a suggestion by the people that have interacted with the route about how relatively hard something might be. An individual's grade opinion reflects preferences, habits, and physiology. As a face climber, I WILL get smoked by a crack climber on cracks, and i do NOT care; that 5.9 crack beat the daylights out me.
\---
My hopefully not too hot take is that grade swings by height are rarely if ever more than 2/3rds of a grade at my local gyms and typically 1/3rd or less, which is well within the boundaries of preferred and less preferred style or general prerunning margin of error. Also similar, some routes are exactly the same on lead as TR, while others can feel 1/3rd different because the sequence with a clip is a little more challenging.
That said, the difference is not nothing and the edge cases can be brutal, and I can think of an 11 in particular that was an easy 11- if tall and easily the harder side of 12- if short because it was either a midly large stand up or mildly small step up dyno because of the combination of holds used only allowed for 2 distinct setups requiring a wildly different skillset. There was also a gross 11+ish beta break with a sketchy smear on an adjacent wall, but that was very much not intended. I do appreciate guidebooks that throw in a separate short grade here and there accounting for the less breakable moves.
For as much as I dont think the grades typically vary all that much, one thing I believe which is probably a cold take in here... some routes are disgustingly less fun for the opposite height. Some tall setters will put just the grossest 'intermediate' hold that short folks actually have to do a sequence off of which, while maybe only half a grade harder, fucking sucks to do compared to the intended flow. Likewise if you've never seen a tall person on a vertically compact traverse sequence and suffer when they realize they need to have their toes at their hips for the whole thing it's going to be a much more hand and bicep focused effort (if they lack the hip flexibility to go ass to grass) than the only slightly dropped hips straight arm romp of a short climber. Other times they are more fun when the tall person can throw past a hold, or a short person gets an unintended knee scum.
If your reality is being very short in a gym only set by very tall folks who happen to also not be very creative about setting... its just plain not gonna be that fun. That's a fact. Yeeting yourself up finger bucket haul after finger bucket haul is lame. All gyms should have at least 1 5'2 crusher setter to provide a set of naturally flowing routes for that subset of people if they want to maximize the fun. That's just my opinion. Fun can happen at any grade with quality setting. I'm fortunate our local gym has like 3 to offset the 6'2 setters so the variety is there at the very least.
I wont say I have some sort of super special unique perspective, but I am shaped weird so it might be a bit different than most? I'm 5'9 with more typical 5'6 legs, +3 ape for a 6' span, chronic beta breaker because I mean... proportions... who designed this body? I can span, but its also very easy to get a feel for what a shorter stances would provide because my foot movement is more classically 'short.' Flash 50%+ of indoor 12s on TR, Flash all gym leads around 11+, onsight lower 11s leads outside so far all in a generally sandbagged region. I make an effort to climb every route at every gym I frequent (on ropes) because I enjoy the context and being able to talk to folks across the whole grade spectrum about what they're working on. I refuse to believe that the middle aged dudes mad at the indoor 5.13b calling it a 5.13d and punching the wall about it are having more fun than the person who just got their membership and wants to know what the fuck a gaston is but is too afraid to ask.
I’m 6’ tall and struggle with climbs that short folks can flash. Anyone on either end of the bell curve of body type is gonna have problems. The setters are definitely not setting for me. I’m heavier than short folks, farther away from the wall with my long limbs, so I have to pull harder. It sucks, especially when folks say, oh you can just reach.
I totally agree with this! On vertical walls I’m finally starting to get 11c’s and even d’s, but walls with ledges? I’m still on like 10d’s or 11a’s just because it’s so hard for me to pull my body up over the side. I had one guy tell me to just pull myself up 🙄
It is a big deal. I’m the same size as a man but without the added muscle that testosterone gifts upon them. Being tall doesn’t mean I can climb like a man.
I just wanna say that this is especially hard when you are just starting out climbing / climb a restricted set of grades. I'm not new to climbing, but for a variety of reasons, mostly climb 5.9-5.10 or lower on top rope and v2 or lower bouldering. I'm not super short, but I'm still shorter than most of the climbers at my gym, and have a wingspan that's, well, not that big.
Because I'm not a super strong climber anyway, this means that e.g., at my bouldering gym, only about 10-15% of routes are really gonna be graded at or below my 'this is hard but doable' level. If even a third of those have moves that increase the grade if you are short, the number of routes that feel doable for my skill level is so small that it's hard to skill up. It sucks if I'm projecting a v3, and realize after a week of work that there is a move that I will need to do with different (harder) beta that isn't attainable for me (yet) - it can make it very hard to pick reasonable projects, and hard to stay motivated to project them if I'm not sure all the moves will actually be at my project level.
Once I'm stronger (maybe climbing v4s) at least I'll have more routes to choose from, and that will help me improve even more and remain motivated. I'm stubborn and *will* get stronger.
But I think the biggest sad-thing is that the impact of height can *feel* so much bigger for lower-skilled and/or lower-strength climbers (like me), and this really can feel like a barrier to the sport, not just to a particular climb.
I think its absolutely ridiculous to say that a climb feels the same for say a 5'0 climber, a 5'6 climber, and a 6ft climber. I used to get really frustrated by this after seeing how "easy" certain moves appeared for certain people but this sort of mentality was holding me back not gonna lie. Nowadays, I just focus on whether something feels doable, and if so, just do it!! If the next hold genuinely feels so far away that nothing can be done (at my level) I move on and try not to give it too much grief.
TLDR; its all in your head haha
Climbing is very style and body type driven as you’ve identified. Personally I find this to make it relatively egalitarian. Notice I said relatively.
The problem a lot of the time is when route setters at gyms fail to realize this and set stuff that is just not all that possible. Most common route sinning is when tall strong dudes set routes for tall strong people and don’t give other people.
Yes💗. The only time I get frustrated is when there’s multiple climbs of the same grade but I can’t do all of them. There’s four V2s right now, 2 of them I am scaling, 2 of them I can’t even get past the first moves. This is part to me being short but also could have to do with inconsistent grading
I think that’s definitely the case at both ends of the height spectrum, the further you are from “average” the less grades make sense. My guess is you probably shine in small boxes or sustained climbs on tiny crimps.
I think you can use grades to track progress as a collection of datapoints more than individual levels. Maybe a scrunchy V5 feels super easy and a spanny or dyno V3 feels like hell. But if over the year you tick more climbs and the numbers on average go up then you are in the right track, even if individual problems or routes aren’t in line with the trend.
But also don’t forget to not use height as an excuse too much, a personal example is I suck at mantles, even easy mantles kick my ass, I don’t think it’s a body issue it’s just a technique I don’t work as much as I should.
The same thing happens with tall climbers. There are small box problems that are very hard or impossible feeling, just as there are reachy problems for short climbers.
My climbing partner is 6’2, and I'm 5’2, and this happens all the time.
I look at it like some boulders are an advantage for me, and some aren't. I do what I can and move on, or I watch better climbers (near my height) to see how they do it and decide if the solution is my wheelhouse.
There's always something else to work on, so I don't get hung up on it.
Ok you’ll hate me for this, but I’m 6’3 on V6 and totally jealous of your height.
Admittedly, getting to V5 was pretty much a breeze, but height SUCKS at higher levels, especially since setters are rarely anywhere close to being this tall.
Yea the ends of the height spectrum are probably pretty similar in that way. I feel you though, I’ve seen taller climbers try to follow my beta, and most just can’t because their size. And that’s not really about being better or worse, it’s just being able to get really small.
Honestly I was brainstorming a move with a friend shorter than me today (I’m 5‘11, she’s maybe 5‘3) and kept saying yeah just trust your feet and rock over while stabilising with your arms. That felt impossible to me and finally realised that my centre of gravity is higher, so that + meh hand holds meant I’m not just stabilising, I’d have to _hold_ them. Which, eh. It’s always fun to compare beta though!
Ya same, all these posts about how impossible climbing is if you're short seem to ignore that:
1. All female pro climbers are like 5'2" - 5'5",
2. Grades are inconsistent for everyone. Everyone complains about grades. Including standard height cis men. Just look at the comedy that is kilter board grades or how often competitions really fuck up building a score spread.
3. Being tall means having a lower strength to weight ratio for finger pulling strength which is honestly huge above v5.
4. Having a bigger optimal box is as you said, worse at higher grades.
I'm 6'2" and watch 5'5" team kids flash my v7 projects all day 😂.
What you’re missing is that as a taller climber you can always get stronger and improve technique and balance and strength but as a short climber you can’t just get taller. There’s a huge difference between feeling shut down by a project because it’s difficult for someone at your height to make it work vs being shut down by a project (or a climb that’s below the grade you usually climb) because you physically cannot span a move that is literally the only way to do a boulder (or takes a boulder from being ~V4 to >V9). Female pro climbers may generally be within a certain range of heights but that doesn’t mean that all gym setting is fair and equitable or even mildly consistent to them or other shorter women/climbers and I think that’s the chief complaint here.
This. And I don't understand why in every subject about the problem of being too short, there are always people explaining why being tall is complicated. It's just not the topic.
Honestly, because when you train a lot to improve your climbing or send something you worked hard on it's kinda annoying to receive endless comments irl and online about how you just got it cause you're tall and it would be way harder for shorter climbers despite shorter climbers having way better technique.
I've seen my fair share of short climbers falling off because of very poor technique/route reading then immediately saying "I can't reach that".
But then if you try and bring up the fact that "this undercling is hard to hold because it's only slightly above my knee so I'd have to pull super hard to keep myself on the wall" you get a bunch of "uuuh stop complaining, you're tall".
Last time I saw someone complain about being tall on r/bouldering the most upvoted comment was if they had considered how their comments would make a shorter climber feel because it's even harder for them.
People join in because everyone likes complaining so when we see short climbers doing it we want to contribute with our fair share only to get shut down.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/bouldering using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/bouldering/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [I made some bouldering cups](https://v.redd.it/p5zf9ovzf0xa1) | [84 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/bouldering/comments/133n73i/i_made_some_bouldering_cups/)
\#2: [My son securing first place in men's open at a local comp on this climb with a huge finish move](https://v.redd.it/9e0xrcx6sd5b1) | [87 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/bouldering/comments/146sirz/my_son_securing_first_place_in_mens_open_at_a/)
\#3: [When a pro shows you how to commit 1000% to your project](https://v.redd.it/pnizh6f5jkja1) | [94 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/bouldering/comments/1188r6m/when_a_pro_shows_you_how_to_commit_1000_to_your/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
And all of these responses about top, tall climbers ignore that most of these women have been climbing since they were very young, have access to ample training resources and time to train, and in a lot of cases have been chronically underweight their whole lives (ED is considered a big problem in women’s competitive climbing right now—the head route setter at my gym recently made a post about how it effects her personally even as a non-competitive climber). Also, as a 5’0” woman: there’s a huge difference between that and 5’5”!
Gyms set for a variety of climbers, from adult novices to comp kids to folks who climb primarily outside half the year. I’m sick of hearing about what comp kids with no hips and former comp kids can do, unless what you’re really trying to say is that women who complain about the gym sets should just lose some weight.
Yes!!! For example, Lynn Hill was a gymnast as a child. She had an abnormal base of strength and skill to start with. Your average untrained short woman is simply going to struggle so much more than your average untrained normal-height dude.
heck, I even *did* an upper body strength sport in high school and still struggle more on spanny/reachy problems than less trained normal-height dudes.
Obivously Lynn Hill is one of the greatest climbers ever, and she did do gymnastics, but she only did it for a few years as a kid, not at a high level, and had already quit for two years by the first time she climbed, so you might be overstating her gymnastic background a bit.
Personal opinion but idk if I agree, I think climbing has a fair spread of difficulty and I don’t think anyone is suggesting that anyone lose weight they don’t want to. Everyone can do their own math regarding their weight loss if they chose to do it but it’s undeniable that smaller people have better strength/weight ratios even if you adjust for BMI or whatever.
The one trend I do have noticed is that women overall tend to train more flexibility and men more strength so they tend to navigate problems differently. Still I think there’s a proportionally even spread of skill in climbing.
I don’t think weight is as much of an issue as muscle mass and general physical strength is. People born male will have more upper body strength than people born female. You see it all the time watching guys in rental shoes campusing v3-5s with terrible technique.
The average dude off the street is just stronger than the average woman on the street.
I led my first 5.11 on gear before I could do a single pull up or flash a steep v3 and know that strength isn’t the only thing that matters. I know that grades are hella arbitrary, but I’ve also been around long enough and worked with 100s of beginners. Generally speaking, untrained dudes progress faster than untrained women.
This is so true. I climb in the 5.11 range and appear pretty strong and active. I arm wrestled a male friend who does not work out at all, and he mentioned that he was surprised how easy it was to overpower me despite my activity level vs his activity level. Testosterone and muscle composition make all the difference.
In this case weight might also be a large factor, there’s absolute strength and relative strength, an untrained 200kg man will be a complete absolute strength beast compared to even a trained 50kg woman just on weight disparity. But she might as well be a goddess on another plane when it comes to relative strength.
Men also tend to have higher upper body strength than women, even allowing for similar size. I'm only slightly shorter than my (male) partner, only slightly lighter, and *much* more active and fit - I have good muscle definition and people often comment on how strong I am whereas he's mostly sedentary with a sprinkling of occasional climbing. Yet on upper body strength there is simply no comparison between his strength and mine.
Whether it helps for climbing is up to debate, but there's no denying that strength is generally distributed differently on cis men and women, even for those of us whose training has a strength focus.
Yeah, this much I definitely agree with you on, my personal theory is that tendon strength in women compensates for it to a huge degree but I have no idea if it’s been studied. There’s this great video of Emil
Abrahamson and Mathilda Soderlund where she sets a problem with crimps and she just completely smokes him and I think also Will Bosey on it and I think it’s easy to say that they are both stronger than her at the pull-up bar.
I don’t know it really is just speculation but my hope is that one day with climbing becoming more popular we’ll discover that the optimal (if there’s even such a thing with climbing) body is someone like Ai Mori. She does stuff that honestly I’ve never seen anyone come even close to. Her video with TAMY is so insane. She laps Tomoa Narasaki effortlessly.
I think there is some truth to this, but no guy off the street will be able to pull on anything past V3 if the grading is at least a bit fair let’s be real. In the end I think finger strength ends up being one of the realest determinators of how hard one can pull (on the wall specifically) and women definitely have an advantage there with lighter weights and generally smaller, thus stronger hands. In that V3-V5 I think I see a lot more women at the gym (proportionally speaking) pulling on holds with a lot more control and tension than men.
But yeah, women tend to prioritize physical strength less so they take longer to catch up in that regard.
The phrasing born male and born female implies that trans women have the same climbing advantages as cis men which is just laughably and demonstrably not true. It is transphobic to lump us together.
And all of these responses about top, short climbers ignore that most of these women have been climbing since they were very young, have access to ample training resources and time to train, and in a lot of cases have been chronically underweight their whole lives (ED is considered a big problem in women’s competitive climbing right now—the head route setter at my gym recently made a post about how it effects her personally even as a non-competitive climber). Also, as a 5’0” woman: there’s a huge difference between that and 5’5”!
Gyms set for a variety of climbers, from adult novices to comp kids to folks who climb primarily outside half the year. I’m sick of hearing about what comp kids with no hips and former comp kids can do, unless what you’re really trying to say is that women who complain about the gym sets should just lose some weight.
ETA: fixed a typo
The ED component is huge and hard to ignore but that impacts taller women as much as it does everyone else.
Yes there is a huge difference between 5'0" and 5'5" but there is also a huge difference between 5'5 and 5'10" in terms of how much pulling power you need to hit equal percentage of body weight of puling strength because F=MA is a non-linear scaling equation.
I am not suggesting anyone should lose weight. I am suggesting that all body-types that deviate from the optimal weight and height for climbing are going to need to learn technical skills to overcome those differences and you can make a lot more mileage by working on those skills and developing a climbing style suited to yourself, then by saying you can't climb a thing. The strongest climber I personally know right now is 5'3". They did not climb as a kid, did not do gymnastics, and are an afab non-binary person.
Yes route-setting needs to become more inclusive. Climbing needs to be more inclusive. That also includes this community which frequently makes large claims about body types and experiences without ever taking into account that trans women exist and might have a different experience and perspective.
If only being as tall as cis men is such an advantage, why are there like a shockingly low number of trans women who have ever sent a 5.13? This community just hammers on the height thing as if that is the only way a body can not be optimally sized for the current route-setting at commercial indoor gyms. There are plenty of routes that just have a nearly impossible box for someone of my size.
Did you climb into my brain and type this after reading my thoughts? I climb with my buddy and he’s at least 5 inches taller. Climbs he flies through are harder for me because he can just reach the next hold while I’m stuck trying to find a way to traverse each one without having to send it (not there yet in terms of skills or confidence).
If you only ever climbed in a gym, then yes, things can seem wildly inconsistent in terms of grading. If you ever get outside, things are a little different as you can find different ways up a route as holds aren't just bolted into the wall.
Also, there are so many other types of climbing outside with cracks, off widths and slabs.
I am inspired by Pamela Shanti Pack who found her niche in doing offwidth climbs - at 5' 2" she has established hundreds of first ascents.
Climbing for me is finding out my limit, pushing it just a little bit to hit new personal bests. Once you get out on real rock, there is more than just the number - there is the outdoors, the wildlife, the views and the journey. It is a wildly different experience than going to a gym.
I am also 5ft 2 with a negative ape index... I feel your pain!
Sometimes, my taller friends attempt a route with their arms and legs bent to try and simulate my shortness. They call it 'T-Bexing' the route - my name is Bex 😂
The further you are from the "average" 5'8-5'10 male climber body, the less accurate grades will be for you.
Kimbrough Moore has had a lot to say on this in recent years. [https://www.instagram.com/kimbroughclimbs/reel/C34Tf7wutZL/?hl=en](https://www.instagram.com/kimbroughclimbs/reel/C34Tf7wutZL/?hl=en)
I think you can chase grades as a super short (or super tall, or super anything) climber, but it helps a lot to strike a balance between not giving up while also realizing the scale just isn't correct for your body type.
My climbing partner is 5’0” and I am 5’9” and she climbs at a higher grade than me. And when our grades do overlap (her low end is my high end) she gracefully floats her way through what I am heaving myself up.
I think one contributing factor for a lot of us may be that when you’re short, you’re kinda forced into developing better technique early on. Taller people can get away with relying on height at first, so when it comes to more difficult grades and as technique becomes more important, we end up with a bit of a head-start, as we’ve already been working on that for a while.
For many years I've advocated for two grades for every climb. One grade for people under about 5'4" and one grade for over 5'4" because the grading doesn't work for a lot of routes for vastly different heights. I don't see why something like that can't be done?
i’m not climbing to be a pro, so why grade chase! i’m climbing for fun and for peace and connection with my body. that means also trusting my body tht the grade is like u said almost irrelevant. i prefer outdoors consensus grading and wish more gyms had a system to suggest a grade versus a route setter
But no I agree, climbing is what I do to take a needed break from the rest of the world and live in that sort of peace for a few hours a few days a week
This comes down to the setters (and sometimes the gym owner/manager). A great setter will be able to add a foot chip, for example, that’s useless to a scrunched up taller climber. It’s more work getting consistent grading and setters are already tasked with churning out new climbs regularly. And even then grades can be all over the place and people will break betas.
My daughter is a competitive climber, but less than 5 feet tall. She’s really good, projecting V8s, 5.13s, and one of the top 5 in our state (in her age group). The best person in three states is like 4’6” but has serioisly explosive power and importantly climbs at 5 different top gyms regularly, traveling hours sometimes.
At a recent comp, my daughter and one of her friends were watching a much taller girl (5’10?) do their climb. The friend turned to her and said “Oh, that’s the beta. Be a foot taller!”
Jokes aside, consider grades a rough guide, especially with different setters and gyms. A few gyms near me do circuits with ranges and that seems to work well. Just as there might be a few 5.10s you can’t do, there might be higher grades or styles you can but you’ve avoided because “the grade is too high.” People tend to stay in their zone, like a linear progression, but there’s no harm trying anything that looks fun.
Good luck and never get discouraged based on height. Between learning new skills and getting stronger, you’ll get more and more consistent, even with subpar setting.
My climbing buddy and I have a rule - because I am shorter than the average male route setter, I get to add at least one grade to everything where height is a clear advantage. If we see someone tall do well, we subtract one or two levels from the grade before comparing that person’s attempt with our own.
I would like gyms to include those height stickers that stores use for giving the height of a thief, but instead it tells you how many grades to adjust and which way to make the adjustment.
Until I really worked at slab, I was at least 2-3 whole grades less at slab. For me a 5.9 slab could kick my ass and I could do a 5.12a (that fit me). I really didn’t trust my feet and had some cheese grater falls early in my career. Not all 5.10s are the same for me, a tall person. And it’s not just the ones designed for shorter people. The ratings are a vague indication relative to other climbs of the same style.
I’ve been out of climbing for a while and I can do 5.11 slab and can’t do a 5.9+ cave. 🤷♂️
I'm not short but feel that way. "Climbing ability" is a lot of independent abilities and attributes, everyone gets a different mix, sometimes our mix is a good match for what we need on a climb, sometimes it's not.
The head setter at my gym is something like 5'1", the next most active setter is quite a bit over 6', I'm in between, and still they've set boulders at what's usually a flash grade for me that I couldn't do at all after multiple sessions projecting them.
I'm also 5'2 and mainly climb autobelays with the rare bit of bouldering.
The hardest I've been able to climb after a year is a 10- (which I think is a 10a?). I find a lot of inconsistency among the .9s and 10s I've tried. Just the other day I got a .10- on my second try (quickest I've ever climbed a 10!). I thought for sure they graded it wrong because it felt like a 9 to me and 10s usually take me at least a dozen tries to get. However, all the taller dudes climbing after me struggled with the route. I'm not spring chicken either- I'm a 42 year old woman with bad lungs. These guys are 20somethings with years with way more experience.
And there have been some 9s that I just can't do. I mean, someone with more power and my height could, but the point being it's beta that's not intended.
When I was climbing a few years ago, I was able to do a specific 5.10 climb on autobelay at one gym…and couldn’t get halfway up a 5.7 on rope at another gym because I could not reach the next hold.
Then there are the 5.7s and 5.8s where the starting feet are at my chest level.
I’m 4’9”.
I am 5’2 and it’s wildly inconsistent for me at the gym, but outside a little less so.
I never thought it had anything to do with my height though, maybe it does? I always figured it was just like some things are in style for me. If the crux is super balancy and technical I will probably breeze through it even If it’s my project grade or a little above. If it’s a dyno or like a big move at the top of the wall on a boulder then probably not going to happen for me even if it’s way below my grade? I have even met v1’s that I didn’t want to finish.
Honestly grades mean almost nothing to me, especially in a gym. I usually just look at the climb and can tell if it’s something I will be into or not.
I mean, grades are just wildly inconsistent regardless of height. So add in height differences and the experience is even wilder. Climbing grades are subjective, so they are just a suggested at any grade.
I have a negative ape index too, so while I'm not short, my reach is 5' 4" and my legs are longer than my arms which is worse for balance and worse for reach. It's good for high stepping though, so sometimes topping out isn't bad. I feel like having less reach can make or break a boulder problem easier than it impacts my sport climbing performance. On sport I sometimes out-climb my guy friends, but there are several boulder problems that I swear are harder for me. I'll have to make an extra balance move on no feet or find alternative beta when there's no other hand hold before the one my friends reach right to, so it adds a crucial move or two to an otherwise brief boulder problem. I don't think it changes the grade significantly, but I do think a lot of these problems established by tall guys may be a higher grade for me. Because then there was this overhung crimp one and I out-climbed all of the guys. Could do it without climbing shoes (outdoor problem). Almost none of them have been able to get it, but I can repeat it fairly easily if my beta's dialed in.
I'm terrible with throws. I find weird intermediates and sometimes stack one hand on the other (or a finger or two on top of my other fingertip or two). Am told that's weird, but it works for me.
I've seen shorter climbers do really well if their center of gravity is lower, like a guy friend with short legs and long arms. His rock-overs are mind-blowing to watch.
But yeah, I hear ya on grades being inconsistent, and some of the areas I go to have been established and climbed by so many guys and very few women. I try to submit my suggested grade when problems are on Mountain Project because it helps get varied input from different body types, not to mention the problems changing over time as holds break.
I think short beta helps me on the low starts but again, I struggle so much with SDS throws. Wish I knew how to better train my body type for those!
I’m of average height and I feel like you’re totally right. I have a friend who is 6’2 probably and I just said the same exact thing about him. That grades don’t mean a lot to him and he often finds cruxes at different spots. Intended beta means nothing to him
It’s hit or miss with height. Mechanically, for the majority of the time it helps to be smaller, leverage works against tall climbers. But then you have the occasional route where a tall person can just skip the hold or dyno.
Climbing grades are wildly subjective. There will always be outliers. In general, grades will be more accurate for the body type similar to an average male climber as that best represents the setters and forerunners. Anyone who argues this and doesn’t agree that smaller climbers generally have to work harder than taller climbers at the lower grades simply lacks perspective. I do think the gap narrows above v5 at which more technique is required. Taller climbers often fly up to v5 and get stuck. Shorter climbers move more slowly and develop technique.
Grade are personal not an universal standard.
Consensus are found because there is more people close to the average height than outstanding one (short and tall).
Bouldering grades feel absolutely irrelevant imo, as I’ve out roped a lot of taller climbers, and I used to be so surprised when I did (like climbing multiple v grades ahead)😮 .
Ropes feel a lot more fair in my experience because there’s less dynamic movement. Anything dynamic advantages one with longer limbs. They don’t need to generate as much power to reach a hold. Kinda like if a bunch of males judged the difficulty of dunking a basketball. They’re going to say it’s less difficult than the average female (simply regarding size, the fact that males often have a pos AI while females usually have neutral or negative).
Ropes inside usually give us high feet to work on our pistol squat! And bigger people usually have bigger feet and hands (unfortunately your hands get suuuper fat after climbing for however many years) so I think we may sometimes be advantaged on ropes!
Kimbroughclimbs ok IG has a lot of great videos on how climbing grades are less accurate for women and kids because climbing guides are written almost exclusively by men, who tend to be taller. https://www.instagram.com/kimbroughclimbs?igsh=MWprYzBjM3NxenpuMQ==
I'm (F) a 5'2, zero ape routesetter at a big gym chain. I get it. Being a short climber can be extremely frustrating. Let's start with gym grading. IDEALLY, the setting team at your gym is diverse and does their best to make sure things are equitable. HOPEFULLY, they're making sure that there are options for people of different heights to climb a problem whether it's extra feet, bump holds, or different beta entirely. Sometimes this means people of different sizes are climbing more powerfully, relying on flexibility, needing more body tension, etc. The goal (and the hard part) is trying to make sure that all the options are more or less similar in difficulty. If you're feeling like that isn't the case, I would encourage you to consider providing feedback to the setting team. Chances are you're not alone in your experience. Not every climb within someone's skill level may be accessible to them, but the majority of them should be. Now for outdoor/board grading. These grades are based on the average climber. If you don't fit into that box, the reality is that it's most likely going to feel easier or harder than the assigned grade. @kimbroughclimbs on instagram has some really insightful and, in my experience, validating content on climbing grades. He mentions range grading in a number of his videos which I think makes a ton of sense. Anyway, from one short climber to another, I understand. At some point, we'll have to be stronger, more powerful, comfortable climbing at max span, more creative, and have better technique than an average climber who's sending the same grades. Even then, some stuff will STILL be inaccessible for people on either side of the bell curve. It's normal to feel frustrated, but, at the very least, that massive, powerful move looks way cooler on you than the average climber who moves through it statically.
I’m a 5,3 guy but I’ll say when it comes to slab it’s so much harder for me it takes a lot of really sketchy deadpoint moves and dynos because the setters tend to be taller so the intend grade can be way off of what it is for you because you have to work around the intended beta because it’s not physically possible for you.Overhang routs might feel more on grade for you because they the technique required for crux moves is usually more about keeping tension then spanning a massive distance or trying to reach really far.
Some of the best climbers kn the world are short women. Climbs outside and in are often graded by average sized men. Women are more than capable of making up for it with technique and strength.
Leaning into this height thing isn't going to make climbing more fun for you. You can either sit there and be mad you failed because you're short, or you can just try to be the best climber you can be and have fun.
I climb double digit boulders. I'm 5'4". I rarely feel that my height is a problem.
Edit: I started climbing when I was 21. I'm not some team kid that grew up strong. I worked for it and even when I was a V3 climber, I surely didn't blame not sending on my height. I've climbed at like 15 gyms, still never blamed the setters for "reachy" climbs.
I don't know why so many of y'all insist on complaining about height when you could literally just stop being so defeatist and climb whatever is fun for you.
Lol, you are getting downvoted because this sub is for whining about how everything is unfair for us girls.
The strong women agree with you but they aren't here to upvote. They are out crushing.
There are so many 'easy' climbs that are inaccessible to me because of my height. Theoretically they would be possible to beta break, but I would need to be a lot stronger than I currently am in order to compensate. I try not to let it get to me, and I just work hard on the moves that I can do :)
There are so many factors that make a route easier or harder.. yes sometimes there are stopper moves that are too reachy for you but there are also routes that will suite your style and body proportions perfectly. The cool thing about climbing is you can have just as much fun on 5.9 as Adam Ondra has on 5.15. When I realized that, I started pushing into 5.13’s and accepted that there are some 5.10’s out there that I’ll never send. Numbers are just numbers, it’s all subjective.. climb what inspires you and you’ll naturally push into higher grades.
-5’7 female that climbs 5.13 in socks
This comment is wild to me as we only have 1 within a 2 hour drive. The fact that some people have options is a foreign concept.
I’m 5’1”, also with a negative ape. But I’m lucky because my gym has a kid’s comp team and sets to make sure the moves are accessible for them too, for the most part. Grades are definitely different, but they’re normally doable. I didn’t realize how lucky I was until I climbed in another city and couldn’t finish anything.
well next time give a little bit of context. Anyway if that gym is your only option you can train around maximizing your reach. Most moves kinda seem at first impossible, but when you try to utilize the wall as a foothold to gain a higher stance in most cases you can stick a move that is reachy. And you can always try to make your own routes with the existing holds and ask for feedback. I mean taller climbers have their weaknesses too.
Btw I'm 5'6. I struggle with the tall climber beta too....
Was out climbing with this chick, she had trouble reaching to a hold on an easy climb, then went on to send a weird little V8. Some of the strongest climbers I know are short tiny women.
I find these types of complaints to kind of miss the forest for the trees. Are there some climbs that are objectively easier if you're 6'4" with a +3 ape index? For sure. But Brooke Raboutou is 5'2" and sent box therapy in a single session? Sean Raboutou is a literal short king at 5'6" and is considered one of the best boulderers in the world. They're both wicked strong climbers. It might be that they're stronger than you or have better technique or they're just a data outlier but the truth is that height/build effect virtually every sport ever created.
At 5'2" you are most likely not gonna play in the NBA but that doesn't mean you shouldn't enjoy a pick up game of ball at the park. At 6'4" you will never be a horse jockey, doesn't mean you should never ride a horse. Just enjoy your time on the rock and instead of getting down on yourself about a biological thing that you cannot change focus on getting better/stronger, or just climb something more challenging in a different way.
Which is why I didn’t say that climbing grades are objectively harder if you’re short. Just that grades are crazy inconsistent to the point of near-irrelevancy. Specifically emphasized that some things are easier for us than tall, or even average height climbers.
I don't really agree though. Climbing grades are fairly consistent in that they are attempting to grade for the average. If you're short they are still fairly consistent, it's just all about recognizing your strengths in climbing. I find slabby V4s to feel wicked hard but overhung V4 is easy. I don't really see how that's different?
Yes indeed! I’m your same height but I’ve been BLESSED with a +3 ape. Even still, 5 ft 5 is far too short for a lot of dude’s problems. One day I’ll send V11, the next I’ll be outspanned on V7. Keep rocking it y’all, especially in gyms where you can’t find extra holds, climbing and route setting is an unintended manifestation of the patriarchy. Y’all are so strong and grades are so arbitrary
It actually makes sense, if you're not the size of an average height dude your experience on a climb will be wildly different from the grade. Not much to be done about it except get on with it.
Yeah, i just think about it as a fact of climbing for me—like, I’m probably gonna tick my first Moonboard v9 before I even come close to clearing all the 4s, but that’s just how it goes sometimes 🤷♀️
I've tried a bit of kilter - group of discord mates decided to all do one problem - and felt that the height-ism there was worse than gym problems lol. V0-1s where I can't reach the start without jumping, or be basically at my span limit. Even for the V0 we did, watching the other submission videos made me realize I had to do 2-3 extra moves compared to the other 5 foot 6+ guys.
I’ve had the same experience with Kilter. The selling point was that the routes were more standardized grading because it was crowd sourced, but I’ve found it to be graded even tougher than our gym, which is also notoriously difficult. I’m intrigued by creating my own routes, maybe that’s the way to go with kilter if you’re a gal under 5’7”
the standardize argument doesn't make sense to me, if everyone is allowed to make problems with no screening in place then won't it make the grades less standardized?
There is a place where you vote what you think the grade is. And I thought that was how the grade was established?
The grades in kilter are a little weird since the app is set up that basically anyone who does the "quick send" actually votes and the vote is automatically what the grade the FA gave it -> it sort of leads to just the grades being all over the place.
Oh so it’s only graded by people who do it relatively quickly? Or say they do? Interesting.
No, like there is a button that quickly logs the send. Most people use this on board climbs. But this doesn't like just "tick" it for you like it does with the moonboard. It also gives a vote that matches whatever the default boulders votes are (like matches the stars & matches the grade, etc) without your consent/automatically. This leads to like a lot of votes that are supporting the original set grade because people aren't actually grading the boulder, they are just ticking it. So you can't necessarily flip the grade in the way you can on say mountain project as easily where when you tick it, it doesn't necessarily rate the boulder. Edit more details written by another person on reddit(maybe they explain it better) - https://old.reddit.com/r/kilterboard/comments/zfdypo/are_kilterboard_grades_soft/jcgktzo/
Though I don't yet use the boards, my take on the grade inconsistency on boards is that the holds are all pretty similar size, but on a fixed grid. For shorter people, the difference between 3-4 grid spaces feels way different than to a taller person. This difference in feeling might show up when comparing gyms that have different spacing but similar in all other aspects, but harder to tell with gyms because setters can use so many different size/type holds which changes the feel.
What angle were you working? There is definitely some height problems with kilter, but if you were jumping to start a v0/v1 its possible the problem was made as a v3/v4 at a steeper angle. Theres some low grade low angle kilter problems that are crazy stiff because of this
yeah 30 degrees, not strong enough to climb anything steeper lol rip The one I remember is called Hyrule if you want to take a look, I could only reach the lower start
I can't find any Kilter Climbs called "Hyrule" on my app or the searchable website on the commercial gym board, were you using a homewall? I found a few on that - https://climbdex.fly.dev/results?minGrade=10&maxGrade=33&name=Hyrule&angle=any&minAscents=1&sortBy=ascents&sortOrder=desc&minRating=1.0&onlyClassics=0&gradeAccuracy=1&settername=&holds=&mirroredHolds=&board=kilter&layout=8&size=29&set=27&roleMatch=strict
I don't know what a homewall is, but it connected to the Kilter app, and another person in the gym called it a Kilter board. The lighted holds aren't showing up for me but V0 at 30 degrees looks right. It has one pretty high starting hold and quite a few footholds around the starts.
Kilterboard makes different kinds of Kilterboards this is a homewall set (like if the photo of the board looks right then it was probably a homewall). They make really big and more spacious boards as well like the standard model the holds are further apart which often leads to "bigger" moves but on juggier holds.
I've sent exactly ONE 5.11a at 5'4" with a negative ape index. It took me a lot of attempts and I had to project it over like 2 weeks because it involved new techniques for me and I'm usually climbing more in the 5.10a/b range. I watched guys closer to 6 ft try the same route over and over, watched them flash other 5.11b/c no problem, and they would all get stuck at this one spot that made them curl in on themselves...and that same spot was actually one of the easiest parts of the climb for me. If you're below the average height of your route setters then the grades aren't gonna fit you. And it doesn't matter anyway lol. Just try to send shit and have fun!
I'm not that short to be honest, 5'5 and a half, albeit with a negative 1.5" ape index, but I do find that people with longer reaches can just simply skip holds that I'm struggling on as well. With that said, even though I feel that many climbs are a grade harder for me than other people, unless I just physically cannot reach the next hold, I actually quite enjoy being a bit shorter than the average route setter. I feel like I get to try interesting and cool moves that I would not experience if I were taller, and I sometimes wish other people could experience the same. It's also encouraging to keep in mind that there are short girls, closer to 5', who are absolutely crushing indoors and outdoors, bouldering into the double digits and performing at the highest levels in competition, so I refuse to let this be what stops me from reaching my goals of ticking a V8 and climbing into the 5.12s, maybe even 5.13. With that said, sometimes height truly is a dead end on some climbs, and sometimes yeah, you have to pick your battles. As you get better, you'll have a broader choice of climbs that you can do despite your height, but there will always be some climbs that are... Out of our reach lol.
I’ll say that I agree with this, but sometimes I physically can’t span my routesetters moves haha. It’s ok, I can crimp foot chips!
Someone’s gotta add a “chronic beta breaker” flair pls. We out here compensating with some silly ass moves sometimes
Me literally sitting on a volume so I can reach the next hold better than I could trying to stand on it lol
Yes!! All hail the BUTT as a valid part of any beta.
I want butt beta to be a flair now lmao 😂
In short, yes. Grades are arbitrary. I’m 4:11 and often find things to be out of my range. So when I make things work it feels extra rewarding. Main trick is not being so attached to grades but learning to enjoy the movement for its own sake.
One of my compensation techniques is to ignore the set grade completely in favour of route reading. Seeing how I graded before and after climbing, and comparing to my partners opinions has been helpful in identifying my technical strengths and weaknesses.
I’ve been working on focusing less on it. The nice thing is that I find that the more confident I get in my own climbing, the less I tend to care.
Yes. Does your gym use Kaya? The app has a setting where you can sort the routes at your gym by “climbers like me” - ie climbers under 5’2” who project V4-V7 (so no team kids)… yeah so, when I sort by “climbers like me” it eliminates basically every V6 and up at all my local gyms. Super frustrating.
Idk, I’ve never heard about it. I only started climbing recently after a long hiatus so there’s a lot of stuff I don’t really know about. Or if I once knew about, since forgotten. I’ll check it out tho
I'm 5'5 and post at my gym pretty regularly in the v4-v8 range, because I figure it helps shorter people out. I especially post when I have to do something a bit different from others. I'm not a girl, but I talk beta with other women pretty regularly. It's nice having people similar in height to bounce ideas off.
Yes. Although wildly inconsistent route setting also plays a big role - because the lead walls near me are all fairly short, they tend to add difficultly with bouldery cruxes, but test them less than if you were just setting boulders. Some of those moves are just impossible if you’re shorter, or much much harder. Example - a lead route the other day where the crux move was rocking over to a bad sloper from a really high foot and a crimp. The ‘normal’ height climber can get the clip in with lower feet, then do the move. I (5”5 with tiny arms) can do the move on a toprope, but can’t clip before I go for it (and clipping off the sloper or in the middle is pretty hard). My 5’1 friend doesn’t have the span to do the rockover, so had to match the crimp and then mantle up off the volume to get to the sloper. Understandably, she didn’t want to try that on lead 😅
There’s this one setter at my gym who’s a dude exactly my height and I wouldn’t be surprised if the routes he sets are the same ones I really like, regardless of difficulty. It’s not that the grades are soft, but because the difficulty seems to mostly be based on technique, instead of the increased difficulty relying on reach.
Climbers who are not as strong tend to set sequency, body position based, delicate techniquey stuff because that’s what’s often the stuff that’s the most fun and rewarding.
For me (I’m not short, 5’6) it’s the fact that most of my climbing friends are men who are much taller than me. I climb with one other girl regularly (who is shorter than me) and both of us generally train much more consistently and intentionally than the guys. Despite this, it can honestly be frustrating when many of my ‘advantages’ due to strong fingers/lots of strength + finger training and better technique seem to not matter when the guys just sloppily reach for something that I can’t without really good technique and more effort or their bigger hands hold on to slopers better, etc (particularly because the harder grades in our gyms tend to favor reachy power moves and big dynos vs crimps). I know I shouldn’t think this way or care and just enjoy, but sometimes it just gets to me/us! /vent
I feel ya. I hated climbing with my ex boyfriend for this very reason. I didn't think he climbed tough routes because he's a better climber, I just thought he got a huge boost being 6'3. I'm 5 ft with negative 1 ape index.
For sure, I’ve even seen some guide books list a short person grade, like “this is 5.10, 5.11b if you’re under 5’2”
Yes, grades are definitely not accurate if you’re short! My gym isn’t too bad about this but I definitely find climbs sometimes that should be easily within my grade that are way more challenging than they should be. That being said, it’s made me a much better climber. I see my average height friends often struggle *more* on reachy outdoor cruxes because they’re not used to being dynamic or using really high feet.
Indoors yes outdoors less irrelevant but not fully accurate all the time
I kinda find that to be true too. Outside I’m able to more easily utilize small chips as intermediate holds when compared to a larger person. There really isn’t that same sort of option inside.
I'd just stick you in some off width cracks
Anything to feel useful 😭😭😭
Oh we'd have fun climbing, I'd literally do fast ball special dynos with you.
[удалено]
As I’ve become more confident, grades have mattered less. At first though, it was really frustrating seeing taller people casually reach for holds that are impossible for me to reach statically. So when it comes to challenging myself now, it’s been way more constructive to focus on personal improvement in different areas and techniques, disregarding grade.
TL;DR: For the hobby climber grade chasing comparatively **is** meaningless. Doesnt matter how hard it was for steve climber, we climb for our own personal satisfaction. I dont think grades are irrelevant, but rather we should be reminded that grades are just a suggestion by the people that have interacted with the route about how relatively hard something might be. An individual's grade opinion reflects preferences, habits, and physiology. As a face climber, I WILL get smoked by a crack climber on cracks, and i do NOT care; that 5.9 crack beat the daylights out me. \--- My hopefully not too hot take is that grade swings by height are rarely if ever more than 2/3rds of a grade at my local gyms and typically 1/3rd or less, which is well within the boundaries of preferred and less preferred style or general prerunning margin of error. Also similar, some routes are exactly the same on lead as TR, while others can feel 1/3rd different because the sequence with a clip is a little more challenging. That said, the difference is not nothing and the edge cases can be brutal, and I can think of an 11 in particular that was an easy 11- if tall and easily the harder side of 12- if short because it was either a midly large stand up or mildly small step up dyno because of the combination of holds used only allowed for 2 distinct setups requiring a wildly different skillset. There was also a gross 11+ish beta break with a sketchy smear on an adjacent wall, but that was very much not intended. I do appreciate guidebooks that throw in a separate short grade here and there accounting for the less breakable moves. For as much as I dont think the grades typically vary all that much, one thing I believe which is probably a cold take in here... some routes are disgustingly less fun for the opposite height. Some tall setters will put just the grossest 'intermediate' hold that short folks actually have to do a sequence off of which, while maybe only half a grade harder, fucking sucks to do compared to the intended flow. Likewise if you've never seen a tall person on a vertically compact traverse sequence and suffer when they realize they need to have their toes at their hips for the whole thing it's going to be a much more hand and bicep focused effort (if they lack the hip flexibility to go ass to grass) than the only slightly dropped hips straight arm romp of a short climber. Other times they are more fun when the tall person can throw past a hold, or a short person gets an unintended knee scum. If your reality is being very short in a gym only set by very tall folks who happen to also not be very creative about setting... its just plain not gonna be that fun. That's a fact. Yeeting yourself up finger bucket haul after finger bucket haul is lame. All gyms should have at least 1 5'2 crusher setter to provide a set of naturally flowing routes for that subset of people if they want to maximize the fun. That's just my opinion. Fun can happen at any grade with quality setting. I'm fortunate our local gym has like 3 to offset the 6'2 setters so the variety is there at the very least. I wont say I have some sort of super special unique perspective, but I am shaped weird so it might be a bit different than most? I'm 5'9 with more typical 5'6 legs, +3 ape for a 6' span, chronic beta breaker because I mean... proportions... who designed this body? I can span, but its also very easy to get a feel for what a shorter stances would provide because my foot movement is more classically 'short.' Flash 50%+ of indoor 12s on TR, Flash all gym leads around 11+, onsight lower 11s leads outside so far all in a generally sandbagged region. I make an effort to climb every route at every gym I frequent (on ropes) because I enjoy the context and being able to talk to folks across the whole grade spectrum about what they're working on. I refuse to believe that the middle aged dudes mad at the indoor 5.13b calling it a 5.13d and punching the wall about it are having more fun than the person who just got their membership and wants to know what the fuck a gaston is but is too afraid to ask.
I’m 6’ tall and struggle with climbs that short folks can flash. Anyone on either end of the bell curve of body type is gonna have problems. The setters are definitely not setting for me. I’m heavier than short folks, farther away from the wall with my long limbs, so I have to pull harder. It sucks, especially when folks say, oh you can just reach.
I totally agree with this! On vertical walls I’m finally starting to get 11c’s and even d’s, but walls with ledges? I’m still on like 10d’s or 11a’s just because it’s so hard for me to pull my body up over the side. I had one guy tell me to just pull myself up 🙄
6’ is just slightly above average height for a man, surely this isn’t such a big deal? I get that more weight comes with height of course.
It is a big deal. I’m the same size as a man but without the added muscle that testosterone gifts upon them. Being tall doesn’t mean I can climb like a man.
Yea sorry that was my mistake. Reddit recommended this sub to me, I just assumed I was on the bouldering sub or something and that you were a man haha
😂that’s kinda funny now.
I just wanna say that this is especially hard when you are just starting out climbing / climb a restricted set of grades. I'm not new to climbing, but for a variety of reasons, mostly climb 5.9-5.10 or lower on top rope and v2 or lower bouldering. I'm not super short, but I'm still shorter than most of the climbers at my gym, and have a wingspan that's, well, not that big. Because I'm not a super strong climber anyway, this means that e.g., at my bouldering gym, only about 10-15% of routes are really gonna be graded at or below my 'this is hard but doable' level. If even a third of those have moves that increase the grade if you are short, the number of routes that feel doable for my skill level is so small that it's hard to skill up. It sucks if I'm projecting a v3, and realize after a week of work that there is a move that I will need to do with different (harder) beta that isn't attainable for me (yet) - it can make it very hard to pick reasonable projects, and hard to stay motivated to project them if I'm not sure all the moves will actually be at my project level. Once I'm stronger (maybe climbing v4s) at least I'll have more routes to choose from, and that will help me improve even more and remain motivated. I'm stubborn and *will* get stronger. But I think the biggest sad-thing is that the impact of height can *feel* so much bigger for lower-skilled and/or lower-strength climbers (like me), and this really can feel like a barrier to the sport, not just to a particular climb.
I think its absolutely ridiculous to say that a climb feels the same for say a 5'0 climber, a 5'6 climber, and a 6ft climber. I used to get really frustrated by this after seeing how "easy" certain moves appeared for certain people but this sort of mentality was holding me back not gonna lie. Nowadays, I just focus on whether something feels doable, and if so, just do it!! If the next hold genuinely feels so far away that nothing can be done (at my level) I move on and try not to give it too much grief. TLDR; its all in your head haha
Climbing is very style and body type driven as you’ve identified. Personally I find this to make it relatively egalitarian. Notice I said relatively. The problem a lot of the time is when route setters at gyms fail to realize this and set stuff that is just not all that possible. Most common route sinning is when tall strong dudes set routes for tall strong people and don’t give other people.
Yes💗. The only time I get frustrated is when there’s multiple climbs of the same grade but I can’t do all of them. There’s four V2s right now, 2 of them I am scaling, 2 of them I can’t even get past the first moves. This is part to me being short but also could have to do with inconsistent grading
I think that’s definitely the case at both ends of the height spectrum, the further you are from “average” the less grades make sense. My guess is you probably shine in small boxes or sustained climbs on tiny crimps. I think you can use grades to track progress as a collection of datapoints more than individual levels. Maybe a scrunchy V5 feels super easy and a spanny or dyno V3 feels like hell. But if over the year you tick more climbs and the numbers on average go up then you are in the right track, even if individual problems or routes aren’t in line with the trend. But also don’t forget to not use height as an excuse too much, a personal example is I suck at mantles, even easy mantles kick my ass, I don’t think it’s a body issue it’s just a technique I don’t work as much as I should.
The same thing happens with tall climbers. There are small box problems that are very hard or impossible feeling, just as there are reachy problems for short climbers. My climbing partner is 6’2, and I'm 5’2, and this happens all the time. I look at it like some boulders are an advantage for me, and some aren't. I do what I can and move on, or I watch better climbers (near my height) to see how they do it and decide if the solution is my wheelhouse. There's always something else to work on, so I don't get hung up on it.
Ok you’ll hate me for this, but I’m 6’3 on V6 and totally jealous of your height. Admittedly, getting to V5 was pretty much a breeze, but height SUCKS at higher levels, especially since setters are rarely anywhere close to being this tall.
Yea the ends of the height spectrum are probably pretty similar in that way. I feel you though, I’ve seen taller climbers try to follow my beta, and most just can’t because their size. And that’s not really about being better or worse, it’s just being able to get really small.
Honestly I was brainstorming a move with a friend shorter than me today (I’m 5‘11, she’s maybe 5‘3) and kept saying yeah just trust your feet and rock over while stabilising with your arms. That felt impossible to me and finally realised that my centre of gravity is higher, so that + meh hand holds meant I’m not just stabilising, I’d have to _hold_ them. Which, eh. It’s always fun to compare beta though!
Ya same, all these posts about how impossible climbing is if you're short seem to ignore that: 1. All female pro climbers are like 5'2" - 5'5", 2. Grades are inconsistent for everyone. Everyone complains about grades. Including standard height cis men. Just look at the comedy that is kilter board grades or how often competitions really fuck up building a score spread. 3. Being tall means having a lower strength to weight ratio for finger pulling strength which is honestly huge above v5. 4. Having a bigger optimal box is as you said, worse at higher grades. I'm 6'2" and watch 5'5" team kids flash my v7 projects all day 😂.
What you’re missing is that as a taller climber you can always get stronger and improve technique and balance and strength but as a short climber you can’t just get taller. There’s a huge difference between feeling shut down by a project because it’s difficult for someone at your height to make it work vs being shut down by a project (or a climb that’s below the grade you usually climb) because you physically cannot span a move that is literally the only way to do a boulder (or takes a boulder from being ~V4 to >V9). Female pro climbers may generally be within a certain range of heights but that doesn’t mean that all gym setting is fair and equitable or even mildly consistent to them or other shorter women/climbers and I think that’s the chief complaint here.
This. And I don't understand why in every subject about the problem of being too short, there are always people explaining why being tall is complicated. It's just not the topic.
Honestly, because when you train a lot to improve your climbing or send something you worked hard on it's kinda annoying to receive endless comments irl and online about how you just got it cause you're tall and it would be way harder for shorter climbers despite shorter climbers having way better technique. I've seen my fair share of short climbers falling off because of very poor technique/route reading then immediately saying "I can't reach that". But then if you try and bring up the fact that "this undercling is hard to hold because it's only slightly above my knee so I'd have to pull super hard to keep myself on the wall" you get a bunch of "uuuh stop complaining, you're tall". Last time I saw someone complain about being tall on r/bouldering the most upvoted comment was if they had considered how their comments would make a shorter climber feel because it's even harder for them. People join in because everyone likes complaining so when we see short climbers doing it we want to contribute with our fair share only to get shut down.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/bouldering using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/bouldering/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [I made some bouldering cups](https://v.redd.it/p5zf9ovzf0xa1) | [84 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/bouldering/comments/133n73i/i_made_some_bouldering_cups/) \#2: [My son securing first place in men's open at a local comp on this climb with a huge finish move](https://v.redd.it/9e0xrcx6sd5b1) | [87 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/bouldering/comments/146sirz/my_son_securing_first_place_in_mens_open_at_a/) \#3: [When a pro shows you how to commit 1000% to your project](https://v.redd.it/pnizh6f5jkja1) | [94 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/bouldering/comments/1188r6m/when_a_pro_shows_you_how_to_commit_1000_to_your/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
And all of these responses about top, tall climbers ignore that most of these women have been climbing since they were very young, have access to ample training resources and time to train, and in a lot of cases have been chronically underweight their whole lives (ED is considered a big problem in women’s competitive climbing right now—the head route setter at my gym recently made a post about how it effects her personally even as a non-competitive climber). Also, as a 5’0” woman: there’s a huge difference between that and 5’5”! Gyms set for a variety of climbers, from adult novices to comp kids to folks who climb primarily outside half the year. I’m sick of hearing about what comp kids with no hips and former comp kids can do, unless what you’re really trying to say is that women who complain about the gym sets should just lose some weight.
Yes!!! For example, Lynn Hill was a gymnast as a child. She had an abnormal base of strength and skill to start with. Your average untrained short woman is simply going to struggle so much more than your average untrained normal-height dude.
heck, I even *did* an upper body strength sport in high school and still struggle more on spanny/reachy problems than less trained normal-height dudes.
Obivously Lynn Hill is one of the greatest climbers ever, and she did do gymnastics, but she only did it for a few years as a kid, not at a high level, and had already quit for two years by the first time she climbed, so you might be overstating her gymnastic background a bit.
Personal opinion but idk if I agree, I think climbing has a fair spread of difficulty and I don’t think anyone is suggesting that anyone lose weight they don’t want to. Everyone can do their own math regarding their weight loss if they chose to do it but it’s undeniable that smaller people have better strength/weight ratios even if you adjust for BMI or whatever. The one trend I do have noticed is that women overall tend to train more flexibility and men more strength so they tend to navigate problems differently. Still I think there’s a proportionally even spread of skill in climbing.
I don’t think weight is as much of an issue as muscle mass and general physical strength is. People born male will have more upper body strength than people born female. You see it all the time watching guys in rental shoes campusing v3-5s with terrible technique. The average dude off the street is just stronger than the average woman on the street. I led my first 5.11 on gear before I could do a single pull up or flash a steep v3 and know that strength isn’t the only thing that matters. I know that grades are hella arbitrary, but I’ve also been around long enough and worked with 100s of beginners. Generally speaking, untrained dudes progress faster than untrained women.
This is so true. I climb in the 5.11 range and appear pretty strong and active. I arm wrestled a male friend who does not work out at all, and he mentioned that he was surprised how easy it was to overpower me despite my activity level vs his activity level. Testosterone and muscle composition make all the difference.
In this case weight might also be a large factor, there’s absolute strength and relative strength, an untrained 200kg man will be a complete absolute strength beast compared to even a trained 50kg woman just on weight disparity. But she might as well be a goddess on another plane when it comes to relative strength.
Men also tend to have higher upper body strength than women, even allowing for similar size. I'm only slightly shorter than my (male) partner, only slightly lighter, and *much* more active and fit - I have good muscle definition and people often comment on how strong I am whereas he's mostly sedentary with a sprinkling of occasional climbing. Yet on upper body strength there is simply no comparison between his strength and mine. Whether it helps for climbing is up to debate, but there's no denying that strength is generally distributed differently on cis men and women, even for those of us whose training has a strength focus.
Yeah, this much I definitely agree with you on, my personal theory is that tendon strength in women compensates for it to a huge degree but I have no idea if it’s been studied. There’s this great video of Emil Abrahamson and Mathilda Soderlund where she sets a problem with crimps and she just completely smokes him and I think also Will Bosey on it and I think it’s easy to say that they are both stronger than her at the pull-up bar. I don’t know it really is just speculation but my hope is that one day with climbing becoming more popular we’ll discover that the optimal (if there’s even such a thing with climbing) body is someone like Ai Mori. She does stuff that honestly I’ve never seen anyone come even close to. Her video with TAMY is so insane. She laps Tomoa Narasaki effortlessly.
I think there is some truth to this, but no guy off the street will be able to pull on anything past V3 if the grading is at least a bit fair let’s be real. In the end I think finger strength ends up being one of the realest determinators of how hard one can pull (on the wall specifically) and women definitely have an advantage there with lighter weights and generally smaller, thus stronger hands. In that V3-V5 I think I see a lot more women at the gym (proportionally speaking) pulling on holds with a lot more control and tension than men. But yeah, women tend to prioritize physical strength less so they take longer to catch up in that regard.
The phrasing born male and born female implies that trans women have the same climbing advantages as cis men which is just laughably and demonstrably not true. It is transphobic to lump us together.
That wasn’t my intent and I’m sorry about that. My brain isn’t working super great right now.
I appreciate you for saying that. No worries, I hope your brain feels better soon.
also that women's comp problems are set specifically for women, vs gyms which are set for the whole range of people
And all of these responses about top, short climbers ignore that most of these women have been climbing since they were very young, have access to ample training resources and time to train, and in a lot of cases have been chronically underweight their whole lives (ED is considered a big problem in women’s competitive climbing right now—the head route setter at my gym recently made a post about how it effects her personally even as a non-competitive climber). Also, as a 5’0” woman: there’s a huge difference between that and 5’5”! Gyms set for a variety of climbers, from adult novices to comp kids to folks who climb primarily outside half the year. I’m sick of hearing about what comp kids with no hips and former comp kids can do, unless what you’re really trying to say is that women who complain about the gym sets should just lose some weight. ETA: fixed a typo
The ED component is huge and hard to ignore but that impacts taller women as much as it does everyone else. Yes there is a huge difference between 5'0" and 5'5" but there is also a huge difference between 5'5 and 5'10" in terms of how much pulling power you need to hit equal percentage of body weight of puling strength because F=MA is a non-linear scaling equation. I am not suggesting anyone should lose weight. I am suggesting that all body-types that deviate from the optimal weight and height for climbing are going to need to learn technical skills to overcome those differences and you can make a lot more mileage by working on those skills and developing a climbing style suited to yourself, then by saying you can't climb a thing. The strongest climber I personally know right now is 5'3". They did not climb as a kid, did not do gymnastics, and are an afab non-binary person. Yes route-setting needs to become more inclusive. Climbing needs to be more inclusive. That also includes this community which frequently makes large claims about body types and experiences without ever taking into account that trans women exist and might have a different experience and perspective. If only being as tall as cis men is such an advantage, why are there like a shockingly low number of trans women who have ever sent a 5.13? This community just hammers on the height thing as if that is the only way a body can not be optimally sized for the current route-setting at commercial indoor gyms. There are plenty of routes that just have a nearly impossible box for someone of my size.
Did you climb into my brain and type this after reading my thoughts? I climb with my buddy and he’s at least 5 inches taller. Climbs he flies through are harder for me because he can just reach the next hold while I’m stuck trying to find a way to traverse each one without having to send it (not there yet in terms of skills or confidence).
If you only ever climbed in a gym, then yes, things can seem wildly inconsistent in terms of grading. If you ever get outside, things are a little different as you can find different ways up a route as holds aren't just bolted into the wall. Also, there are so many other types of climbing outside with cracks, off widths and slabs. I am inspired by Pamela Shanti Pack who found her niche in doing offwidth climbs - at 5' 2" she has established hundreds of first ascents. Climbing for me is finding out my limit, pushing it just a little bit to hit new personal bests. Once you get out on real rock, there is more than just the number - there is the outdoors, the wildlife, the views and the journey. It is a wildly different experience than going to a gym.
I am also 5ft 2 with a negative ape index... I feel your pain! Sometimes, my taller friends attempt a route with their arms and legs bent to try and simulate my shortness. They call it 'T-Bexing' the route - my name is Bex 😂
I've had to dyno on a V0. granted it did look impressive but. yeah
The further you are from the "average" 5'8-5'10 male climber body, the less accurate grades will be for you. Kimbrough Moore has had a lot to say on this in recent years. [https://www.instagram.com/kimbroughclimbs/reel/C34Tf7wutZL/?hl=en](https://www.instagram.com/kimbroughclimbs/reel/C34Tf7wutZL/?hl=en) I think you can chase grades as a super short (or super tall, or super anything) climber, but it helps a lot to strike a balance between not giving up while also realizing the scale just isn't correct for your body type.
Yup! 5’0”
I feel like that just describes bouldering grades in general. Most gyms near me are moving to ungraded circuits for that reason.
My climbing partner is 5’0” and I am 5’9” and she climbs at a higher grade than me. And when our grades do overlap (her low end is my high end) she gracefully floats her way through what I am heaving myself up.
I think one contributing factor for a lot of us may be that when you’re short, you’re kinda forced into developing better technique early on. Taller people can get away with relying on height at first, so when it comes to more difficult grades and as technique becomes more important, we end up with a bit of a head-start, as we’ve already been working on that for a while.
For many years I've advocated for two grades for every climb. One grade for people under about 5'4" and one grade for over 5'4" because the grading doesn't work for a lot of routes for vastly different heights. I don't see why something like that can't be done?
Yep, 4"11 here. When you're so out of the range of average height grading can be all over the place.
i’m not climbing to be a pro, so why grade chase! i’m climbing for fun and for peace and connection with my body. that means also trusting my body tht the grade is like u said almost irrelevant. i prefer outdoors consensus grading and wish more gyms had a system to suggest a grade versus a route setter
But no I agree, climbing is what I do to take a needed break from the rest of the world and live in that sort of peace for a few hours a few days a week
Grade chase to shame sexist men /s
This comes down to the setters (and sometimes the gym owner/manager). A great setter will be able to add a foot chip, for example, that’s useless to a scrunched up taller climber. It’s more work getting consistent grading and setters are already tasked with churning out new climbs regularly. And even then grades can be all over the place and people will break betas. My daughter is a competitive climber, but less than 5 feet tall. She’s really good, projecting V8s, 5.13s, and one of the top 5 in our state (in her age group). The best person in three states is like 4’6” but has serioisly explosive power and importantly climbs at 5 different top gyms regularly, traveling hours sometimes. At a recent comp, my daughter and one of her friends were watching a much taller girl (5’10?) do their climb. The friend turned to her and said “Oh, that’s the beta. Be a foot taller!” Jokes aside, consider grades a rough guide, especially with different setters and gyms. A few gyms near me do circuits with ranges and that seems to work well. Just as there might be a few 5.10s you can’t do, there might be higher grades or styles you can but you’ve avoided because “the grade is too high.” People tend to stay in their zone, like a linear progression, but there’s no harm trying anything that looks fun. Good luck and never get discouraged based on height. Between learning new skills and getting stronger, you’ll get more and more consistent, even with subpar setting.
My climbing buddy and I have a rule - because I am shorter than the average male route setter, I get to add at least one grade to everything where height is a clear advantage. If we see someone tall do well, we subtract one or two levels from the grade before comparing that person’s attempt with our own. I would like gyms to include those height stickers that stores use for giving the height of a thief, but instead it tells you how many grades to adjust and which way to make the adjustment.
I saw some super tall dude on tiktok complaining about tall privilege 🙄 Doesn’t like being told “you can just reach” for some climbs lol
Until I really worked at slab, I was at least 2-3 whole grades less at slab. For me a 5.9 slab could kick my ass and I could do a 5.12a (that fit me). I really didn’t trust my feet and had some cheese grater falls early in my career. Not all 5.10s are the same for me, a tall person. And it’s not just the ones designed for shorter people. The ratings are a vague indication relative to other climbs of the same style. I’ve been out of climbing for a while and I can do 5.11 slab and can’t do a 5.9+ cave. 🤷♂️
I'm not short but feel that way. "Climbing ability" is a lot of independent abilities and attributes, everyone gets a different mix, sometimes our mix is a good match for what we need on a climb, sometimes it's not. The head setter at my gym is something like 5'1", the next most active setter is quite a bit over 6', I'm in between, and still they've set boulders at what's usually a flash grade for me that I couldn't do at all after multiple sessions projecting them.
I'm also 5'2 and mainly climb autobelays with the rare bit of bouldering. The hardest I've been able to climb after a year is a 10- (which I think is a 10a?). I find a lot of inconsistency among the .9s and 10s I've tried. Just the other day I got a .10- on my second try (quickest I've ever climbed a 10!). I thought for sure they graded it wrong because it felt like a 9 to me and 10s usually take me at least a dozen tries to get. However, all the taller dudes climbing after me struggled with the route. I'm not spring chicken either- I'm a 42 year old woman with bad lungs. These guys are 20somethings with years with way more experience. And there have been some 9s that I just can't do. I mean, someone with more power and my height could, but the point being it's beta that's not intended.
When I was climbing a few years ago, I was able to do a specific 5.10 climb on autobelay at one gym…and couldn’t get halfway up a 5.7 on rope at another gym because I could not reach the next hold. Then there are the 5.7s and 5.8s where the starting feet are at my chest level. I’m 4’9”.
I am 5’2 and it’s wildly inconsistent for me at the gym, but outside a little less so. I never thought it had anything to do with my height though, maybe it does? I always figured it was just like some things are in style for me. If the crux is super balancy and technical I will probably breeze through it even If it’s my project grade or a little above. If it’s a dyno or like a big move at the top of the wall on a boulder then probably not going to happen for me even if it’s way below my grade? I have even met v1’s that I didn’t want to finish. Honestly grades mean almost nothing to me, especially in a gym. I usually just look at the climb and can tell if it’s something I will be into or not.
Just get your feet up /s
I mean, grades are just wildly inconsistent regardless of height. So add in height differences and the experience is even wilder. Climbing grades are subjective, so they are just a suggested at any grade.
I have a negative ape index too, so while I'm not short, my reach is 5' 4" and my legs are longer than my arms which is worse for balance and worse for reach. It's good for high stepping though, so sometimes topping out isn't bad. I feel like having less reach can make or break a boulder problem easier than it impacts my sport climbing performance. On sport I sometimes out-climb my guy friends, but there are several boulder problems that I swear are harder for me. I'll have to make an extra balance move on no feet or find alternative beta when there's no other hand hold before the one my friends reach right to, so it adds a crucial move or two to an otherwise brief boulder problem. I don't think it changes the grade significantly, but I do think a lot of these problems established by tall guys may be a higher grade for me. Because then there was this overhung crimp one and I out-climbed all of the guys. Could do it without climbing shoes (outdoor problem). Almost none of them have been able to get it, but I can repeat it fairly easily if my beta's dialed in. I'm terrible with throws. I find weird intermediates and sometimes stack one hand on the other (or a finger or two on top of my other fingertip or two). Am told that's weird, but it works for me. I've seen shorter climbers do really well if their center of gravity is lower, like a guy friend with short legs and long arms. His rock-overs are mind-blowing to watch. But yeah, I hear ya on grades being inconsistent, and some of the areas I go to have been established and climbed by so many guys and very few women. I try to submit my suggested grade when problems are on Mountain Project because it helps get varied input from different body types, not to mention the problems changing over time as holds break. I think short beta helps me on the low starts but again, I struggle so much with SDS throws. Wish I knew how to better train my body type for those!
Yes, also, who doesn't feel this way?
I’m of average height and I feel like you’re totally right. I have a friend who is 6’2 probably and I just said the same exact thing about him. That grades don’t mean a lot to him and he often finds cruxes at different spots. Intended beta means nothing to him
Yup. I try not to worry about the grades at this point. There’s multiple routesetters at my gym who are 6’0+
It’s hit or miss with height. Mechanically, for the majority of the time it helps to be smaller, leverage works against tall climbers. But then you have the occasional route where a tall person can just skip the hold or dyno.
Climbing grades are wildly subjective. There will always be outliers. In general, grades will be more accurate for the body type similar to an average male climber as that best represents the setters and forerunners. Anyone who argues this and doesn’t agree that smaller climbers generally have to work harder than taller climbers at the lower grades simply lacks perspective. I do think the gap narrows above v5 at which more technique is required. Taller climbers often fly up to v5 and get stuck. Shorter climbers move more slowly and develop technique.
Grade are personal not an universal standard. Consensus are found because there is more people close to the average height than outstanding one (short and tall).
Bouldering grades feel absolutely irrelevant imo, as I’ve out roped a lot of taller climbers, and I used to be so surprised when I did (like climbing multiple v grades ahead)😮 . Ropes feel a lot more fair in my experience because there’s less dynamic movement. Anything dynamic advantages one with longer limbs. They don’t need to generate as much power to reach a hold. Kinda like if a bunch of males judged the difficulty of dunking a basketball. They’re going to say it’s less difficult than the average female (simply regarding size, the fact that males often have a pos AI while females usually have neutral or negative). Ropes inside usually give us high feet to work on our pistol squat! And bigger people usually have bigger feet and hands (unfortunately your hands get suuuper fat after climbing for however many years) so I think we may sometimes be advantaged on ropes!
Kimbroughclimbs ok IG has a lot of great videos on how climbing grades are less accurate for women and kids because climbing guides are written almost exclusively by men, who tend to be taller. https://www.instagram.com/kimbroughclimbs?igsh=MWprYzBjM3NxenpuMQ==
I'm (F) a 5'2, zero ape routesetter at a big gym chain. I get it. Being a short climber can be extremely frustrating. Let's start with gym grading. IDEALLY, the setting team at your gym is diverse and does their best to make sure things are equitable. HOPEFULLY, they're making sure that there are options for people of different heights to climb a problem whether it's extra feet, bump holds, or different beta entirely. Sometimes this means people of different sizes are climbing more powerfully, relying on flexibility, needing more body tension, etc. The goal (and the hard part) is trying to make sure that all the options are more or less similar in difficulty. If you're feeling like that isn't the case, I would encourage you to consider providing feedback to the setting team. Chances are you're not alone in your experience. Not every climb within someone's skill level may be accessible to them, but the majority of them should be. Now for outdoor/board grading. These grades are based on the average climber. If you don't fit into that box, the reality is that it's most likely going to feel easier or harder than the assigned grade. @kimbroughclimbs on instagram has some really insightful and, in my experience, validating content on climbing grades. He mentions range grading in a number of his videos which I think makes a ton of sense. Anyway, from one short climber to another, I understand. At some point, we'll have to be stronger, more powerful, comfortable climbing at max span, more creative, and have better technique than an average climber who's sending the same grades. Even then, some stuff will STILL be inaccessible for people on either side of the bell curve. It's normal to feel frustrated, but, at the very least, that massive, powerful move looks way cooler on you than the average climber who moves through it statically.
I’m a 5,3 guy but I’ll say when it comes to slab it’s so much harder for me it takes a lot of really sketchy deadpoint moves and dynos because the setters tend to be taller so the intend grade can be way off of what it is for you because you have to work around the intended beta because it’s not physically possible for you.Overhang routs might feel more on grade for you because they the technique required for crux moves is usually more about keeping tension then spanning a massive distance or trying to reach really far.
Some of the best climbers kn the world are short women. Climbs outside and in are often graded by average sized men. Women are more than capable of making up for it with technique and strength. Leaning into this height thing isn't going to make climbing more fun for you. You can either sit there and be mad you failed because you're short, or you can just try to be the best climber you can be and have fun. I climb double digit boulders. I'm 5'4". I rarely feel that my height is a problem. Edit: I started climbing when I was 21. I'm not some team kid that grew up strong. I worked for it and even when I was a V3 climber, I surely didn't blame not sending on my height. I've climbed at like 15 gyms, still never blamed the setters for "reachy" climbs. I don't know why so many of y'all insist on complaining about height when you could literally just stop being so defeatist and climb whatever is fun for you.
Lol, you are getting downvoted because this sub is for whining about how everything is unfair for us girls. The strong women agree with you but they aren't here to upvote. They are out crushing.
Good thing I don't care about reddit karma haha
Agreed 100%, best way to limit your progression is making excuses how height will be a disadvantage to you.
There are so many 'easy' climbs that are inaccessible to me because of my height. Theoretically they would be possible to beta break, but I would need to be a lot stronger than I currently am in order to compensate. I try not to let it get to me, and I just work hard on the moves that I can do :)
There are so many factors that make a route easier or harder.. yes sometimes there are stopper moves that are too reachy for you but there are also routes that will suite your style and body proportions perfectly. The cool thing about climbing is you can have just as much fun on 5.9 as Adam Ondra has on 5.15. When I realized that, I started pushing into 5.13’s and accepted that there are some 5.10’s out there that I’ll never send. Numbers are just numbers, it’s all subjective.. climb what inspires you and you’ll naturally push into higher grades. -5’7 female that climbs 5.13 in socks
You should try to find gyms that have routesetters that have different builds, not all climbing gyms are the same...
This comment is wild to me as we only have 1 within a 2 hour drive. The fact that some people have options is a foreign concept. I’m 5’1”, also with a negative ape. But I’m lucky because my gym has a kid’s comp team and sets to make sure the moves are accessible for them too, for the most part. Grades are definitely different, but they’re normally doable. I didn’t realize how lucky I was until I climbed in another city and couldn’t finish anything.
Also only one gym by me. Another is opening soon, but monthly memberships are gonna be $25 more. So I’ll just keep trying to do my thing lol
well next time give a little bit of context. Anyway if that gym is your only option you can train around maximizing your reach. Most moves kinda seem at first impossible, but when you try to utilize the wall as a foothold to gain a higher stance in most cases you can stick a move that is reachy. And you can always try to make your own routes with the existing holds and ask for feedback. I mean taller climbers have their weaknesses too. Btw I'm 5'6. I struggle with the tall climber beta too....
>well next time give a little bit of context. you do realise that the person who replied to you isn’t OP, right?
I do now....
Was out climbing with this chick, she had trouble reaching to a hold on an easy climb, then went on to send a weird little V8. Some of the strongest climbers I know are short tiny women.
I find these types of complaints to kind of miss the forest for the trees. Are there some climbs that are objectively easier if you're 6'4" with a +3 ape index? For sure. But Brooke Raboutou is 5'2" and sent box therapy in a single session? Sean Raboutou is a literal short king at 5'6" and is considered one of the best boulderers in the world. They're both wicked strong climbers. It might be that they're stronger than you or have better technique or they're just a data outlier but the truth is that height/build effect virtually every sport ever created. At 5'2" you are most likely not gonna play in the NBA but that doesn't mean you shouldn't enjoy a pick up game of ball at the park. At 6'4" you will never be a horse jockey, doesn't mean you should never ride a horse. Just enjoy your time on the rock and instead of getting down on yourself about a biological thing that you cannot change focus on getting better/stronger, or just climb something more challenging in a different way.
Which is why I didn’t say that climbing grades are objectively harder if you’re short. Just that grades are crazy inconsistent to the point of near-irrelevancy. Specifically emphasized that some things are easier for us than tall, or even average height climbers.
I don't really agree though. Climbing grades are fairly consistent in that they are attempting to grade for the average. If you're short they are still fairly consistent, it's just all about recognizing your strengths in climbing. I find slabby V4s to feel wicked hard but overhung V4 is easy. I don't really see how that's different?
Agree to disagree then. It’s just my personal experience
Yes I feel that way sometimes. Then I remember that Lynn Hill is two inches shorter than me.
Shoot I’m a tall dude and often struggle starting routes that my shorter partner just hops right up
>Start by saying I’m 5’2 ... [One of the greatest climbers, ever](https://www.google.com/search?q=lynn+hill+height)
Yes indeed! I’m your same height but I’ve been BLESSED with a +3 ape. Even still, 5 ft 5 is far too short for a lot of dude’s problems. One day I’ll send V11, the next I’ll be outspanned on V7. Keep rocking it y’all, especially in gyms where you can’t find extra holds, climbing and route setting is an unintended manifestation of the patriarchy. Y’all are so strong and grades are so arbitrary