This is an overlooked point when people debate tall vs shorter. It can even apply to outdoor climbing in areas that were developed by taller or shorter climbers. But especially for indoor climbing, you are going to have a much easier time if you are close to the average height of your route setting team. It’s not necessarily a fault of the setting team either - just a natural side effect of how they experience the climb
I just started bouldering and am 4'11". I feel like being this short really throws off the grading system because I have to be so much more dynamic then someone who's taller, which, at least at the early learning stage I'm at, means I get tired half way through half the routes. I also sometimes get stuck because there's just no way for me to get to the next point because I can't reach it. It's cool seeing a shorter climber navigate these routes, but it really makes me wish I had his extra 5".
I feel like a better way to test tall vs short climber is to change the distance of the holds and have the same climber do it both ways. That way if someone is better with specific holds it won't skew the results. You'd be able to see how much more difficult the spacing is for the same person. Unless the tall climber is at the same exact skill level in all climbing techniques you just can't really compare.
I know this is like 5 months old, but I’d also say that you’d need to change the size of the holds themselves. Even though I’m relatively new to climbing, I can already tell that there’s a difference in terms of grip and center of mass compared to smaller (and larger) climbers that had to be compensated for. Still, I agree that it’d be interesting to have a ‘same’ route regardless of relative size!
The thing with being shorter is that being dynamic in your moves can definitely tire you out way quicker. Being able to just reach up to a hold has its advantages for sure. In the end, strength and having good awareness is huge and arguably the most important parts in my opinion
I'm 5'1 and recently started getting into climbing. It gets pretty hard having to do more dynamic movements and jumps just to reach certain holds but I like the challenge!
I'm 5'3 and I'm a very static climber. Dynamic movements intimidate the shit outta me but I'm going for the challenge so I can improve! Hope your climbing journey goes well
Dynamic movements are always an option (even though, as you said, challenging). When you're tall, if you don't fit in the box, you can't do anything. The yellow one (Sixth boulder, 19:40) is a prime example of that. You simply can't hit the start. Your CoG is too far from the wall compared to what was intended. Anyway, the goal is always to have fun :p
@@Karlyr_ This, I think it’s confusing for people but what really annoys someone is when they’re hard locked out of moves. This happens for short people when they can’t reach far enough happens for very tall people when they’re too long and get pushed out from the wall.
While there are several problems where being tall puts you in a "tight space", in my experience most of the times having more reach outweighs any drawbacks.
Unfortunately you're not considering the most relevant difference: weight! There are pros and cons for both being short and tall (perhaps shorter is a bit better for bouldery stuff and taller for lead), but a taller person is always going to be heavier, which definitely impacts their climbing potential. That being said, being at the extremes of the height distribution is negative on both sides
@@shinraninja Yeah that might be the case with your body type, but one can't deny that with analogous body types a taller person will weigh more. Apart from this factor, I think in easier climbs being taller is definitely better, having longer reach. Going up in the grades things start to shift. A shorter person will be able to keep their centre of mass low and close to the wall for vertical walls, and will have a much lower leverage effect on overhang, in addition to smaller/shorter fingers for crimps and pockets. That's just my opinion, but it's kinda backed up if you look at elite climbers (especially boulderers), who are mostly shorter than average.
I think that being short you have more mechanical advantage (more strength at the end of your limbs) But being tall you can reach further and higher, and can sometimes make some static moves where short people couldn't
Pretty spot on analysis. I'd add another con to being a tall guy (just because I experience it daily as routesetters in my gym are at most 5'8" and I'm 6'4" at +0) : When setters place "box starts" just like the 6th boulder at 19:40, you just can't fit your center of gravity in said box if they set it too small preventing you to do the climb at all. Having long limbs also means having more to try and fold and sometimes that's just not possible ^.^'
@@Karlyr_Personally I think if you’re obviously too tall you should be allowed to start on a higher hold as if the climb were part of a wall your height means you would have been able to reach it anyway.
it's only been one minute and 40 seconds and i'm already in love with this video; great concept, great execution, fantastic editing style, and some all around great climbing. instant subscribe - looking forward to more of your videos!
Funny enough as a taller climber (6ft 3) on harder climbs I often feel I have to compensate my height by going more dynamically because I can't hold the tension required for the "regular" beta.
@@yaboibSLT yup. 4'9'' and the worst wingspan ever seen but since I'm a dancer I'm at least good with turning out my hips and footwork and have a strong lower body...
This was a fun video! Jon was using impressive strength and technique to make moves that Josh just grabbed for, seems they climb a very similar level despite the fact that Jon is a better climber… All this video proved (to me anyway) is that you can climb harder with worse technique if you’re taller! (In most cases)
Well a lot of times it's hard to see the disadvantages of being a taller climber. On the second boulder (the slab) Josh came out of the wall cause he had to fight harder against his limbs (his right leg in particular). The position was more crunched up for him than for Jon.
Waiting for the next round of Anna merch, "Slab is sexy, being tall isn't". ;) Joking aside, I feel that shorter people thinking it's better to be tall is (often) because it's very evident when a tall person can reach a hold that they can't. However it isn't so obvious when a tall person is at a biomechanical disadvantage because they are crunched. If you look at the yellow (boulder 6) problem Josh couldn't even pull on, but as soon as he used the same hold type that was just a few inches higher he pulled on with almost no effort. This happens all the time to really tall climbers. Especially with things like toe hooks that are set for the average leg length and so tall climbers are trying to toe hook with a bent leg that is a zillion times harder than if you can keep your leg locked. Or not being able to stay low and drape on a sloper because the feet are relatively higher. E.g. Look at Josh's shoulder position on the next to last hold on the pink (boulder 2) problem. They are above his hands. Jon's are clear below the hold. Of course being shorter the movement between the holds was quite a bit more difficult for Jon. But what is more obvious?
That's pretty much my friend's and my height difference. Roughly speaking, being tall helps reach holds further away and being short helps with holding body tension especially between holds closer together. Generally, the climbing styles differ. My tall friend is pretty much spread all over the wall and more static, while I'm more squeezed in or semi-dynamic. Either way I think everyone needs to do a boulder in the way that suits them best. When it comes to who has it easier there's more factors at play than just being tall or short.
I’m 6ft and even at my height I constantly do climbs where holds feel too close or too bunched up, but obviously being very small has disadvantages as well. So I think the perfect height is in between at 5’7-5’10. If you look at the heights of the best climbers the majority are around that height, with an insane ape index (long arms). DThe main outlier is Adam Ondra but he has insane mobility so he gets away with being tall.
It's definitely better to be taller (than me anyway) at the gym I go to though because they set these crazy cave problems that require you to brace with the feet with an undercling with the hands and I've measured them and the distance they set it at is like 2 feet longer than my entire foot to hand reach
If height continued to be an advantage as it kept increasing past 6' or so, it would show up in trends of the physiques of winning comps, like how the average NBA player is 6' 6". The median male olympic climber was 5'9 iirc, and was about 5'10 for IFSC finalists the same year. People at this height saying people who are josh's height have an advantage are just coping, but yea if you're 5'4 then it is likely something of a disadvantage.
Nice sesh. But the answer is obvious - esp for indoor it really depends on who is setting. Most gyms have almost exclusively males of average height setting, so I'd bet money it advantages one to be a male of average height (or whatever the predominant body type of the majority of setters in your personal gym). Unless we are talking ropes. Inside or outside I haven't felt disadvantaged in the slightest. Like most lady born people, I don't like to jump and I don't have a large reach -- I have often been surprised at the climbs my boulder bro friends haven't been able to complete on the wall after absolutely smashing me at bouldering. Bouldering is absolutely harder as an average height female (at least everywhere I've climbed)...but only because most setters are not born female (not only are we shorter, we generally have negative or neutral ape indexes, so take several more inches off that 6" disadvantage and those who grade bouldering routes are also generally of a diff build. Sometimes it sucks, but after ten years of this, climbing stops being about the grade and more about intrinsic value.
I imagine that the farther away from the avrege height (of route setters at that particular gym) the harder time you will have. Different ends of the spectrum will have different challanges but both sides will have valid complaints. As someone who is 5'2 I often find that I cant reach holds the way it was clearly inteded by the routsetter that you should. I feel like short climbers are forced to develop more dynamic climbing and better technique earlier in the grades than tall climbers though. This is said as someone who climbs like v2-v4. Many people have pointed out that elite level climbers often are relatively short so it might be different on harder grades or comp style boulders.
Everything you said is absolutely correct. The only reason most elites are short is because like you said you had to learn more techniques early on. Bigger people learn later and don't get as good muscle memory for the move. And elite climbs are all about technique and endurance. So being smaller and lighter becomes even more of a advantage as you don't have to hold up a lot of weight for long periods of time. But there's always the acception, Alex Honnold is a tall man, and Alex Ondra isn't particular short.
Humm you have to take into account the fact that only 10% of men are taller than 6foot (182cm) while 80% of men are between 5,5 and 6foot (167-182cm). So its logical that there is less tall climber ! As Someone who is 1,85cm and climb with my gilfriend who is 1,59cm, its true that she needed to develop dynamic climber and power to be good but because she so light, she could already hold crimps without training her finger and can fit pretty much everywhere. Me in the other hand, i needed to develop way more my finger strengh and way more my flexibility and my core. In my opinion its harder and require more work to be a good tall climber than a regular/short height one. But if you compare 2beginners, then yes the tall guy will often be better in the beginning.
You make a very good point about routesetting. I'm Dutch and the average male here is like 183cm and most of the routesetters are close to 180cm. A guy I sometimes climb with is around 175 and he sometimes can't reach the stuff that I can reach. He went to Thailand and climbed there, said he felt like a 190cm guy in those gyms.
So funny, i have to stop the video and write a comment. This grey haired young guy makes me laugh in a row while falling of a thousand times at that red boulder no. 4. trying to get his foot on that small foothold. Thank you, you made my day! All the best, Dave
as a 4'11 climber it does get very frustrating when I have to dyno a lot of moves that regular climbers can just reach, however, there are times where being tiny or weighing very little makes it easier! also, I think having to be much more aware of my feet and overall body position has made me have better technique than other climbers
Not really, the best climbers in the world are average height... the extremes are at a disadvantage. There's a reason there are no elite climbers who are 6'10" or like 4'10"
@@billr5842 It really is time everyone understands there is no "perfect" height. Some boulders will be harder, some easier, but in average bouldering is the same difficulty for everyone
@@nicolasc.8380 I agree some routes are more suited for different individuals. But no it does not average out. Mechanically being too short or too tall is a MAJOR disadvantage
watched a Video of a pro Coach who said that smaller climbers cant get bigger so have to be more inventive, stronger to pull of reachy lock of moves and work more on dinamic moves. A tall climber has to work on mobility to fit in the smaller boxes, other than that should have all the advantages.
At lower difficulty grades (~v1-v5) I think height gives you a significant advantage as of the ability to reach up/across for pretty good hand and foot holds. On more challenging higher difficulty grades (v5->) I think technique is far more important which gives the illusion shorter is better than taller - short folk even on the lower grades have needed better technique as they cannot just reach or stretch for holds.
I also think technique can be much easier for shorter climbers because of the lower demand on mobility Also being tall and fitting into tight drop knees, high heels, short toe hooks, and cramped sit starts is a nightmare. Especially toe hooks can be difficult, because they require a pretty straight leg generally
It depends on the boulder, but some absolutely have a "tall beta"; I know because, as a shorter (5'7/8") dynamic climber, I often get told I use the "tall beta" by tall climbers lmao Then again, there are certainly spaces even my body doesn't fit, and I can tell how difficult some climbs would be with even more height.
Want to know which is better: take all pro climbers and see if there are more tall climbers than short ones. Like for instance, if you do the same for marathon, for basketball, for gymnastics… you may see that some type of body are best for some sports. Another interesting thing is to take the extreme (very short and very tall, like +/- 20cm from average) that are able to do hard stuff (e.g. more than 8c or 8A) and see if you find more tall or short climbers
I feel like being short makes it easier to control your movements and while that takes more time, it's easier as in "staying more consistent". But being tall usually means you can reach further and maybe even skip steps which means you can reach the top faster, but some holds and situations bring you in really weird positions
The scientist in me is annoyed you guys didn't match for technique. Of course a shorter climber with amazing technique can outdo a taller climber on some problems. Doesn't mean height isn't important. Imagine increasing the space between holds by the difference in the climbers' heights. This would make the climbs for the tall guy equivalent to what the shorter guy achieved. He'd need to learn some new tricks to climb as many problems.
Being a data scientist myself, I'd agree that a single video with 2 cohorts with each N=1 is not sufficient, but dare I say this video might have been a bit tongue in cheek. Anyway, we can of course look at the heigh/weight data of well known top boulderers. Now if being tall was an absolute advantage, the top boulderers would look like an NBA draft. The dataset* that I used averages at roughly: males 173cm, 62.6kg females 161cm, 50kg I think the prime reason for that is power to weight ratio, which in short means the smaller you are the more power you have relative to your weight. But there are other biological factors at play here. Yes, tall people can reach further, but as they need to support more weight their tendons also take more strain, and being taller doesn't automatically mean that you have stronger baseline tendons. So very crimpy situations, where the holds are very tiny, it is quite likely that a tall person will have more issues trying to hang on as the tiny hold will only have a certain amount of friction-coefficient. Maybe the small grip doesn't even in total have enough surface area for the heavier person to generate enough grip, where a smaller person could perhaps hang on to it. There might be more biomechanical reasons e.g. increase of arm length will also increase the lever which increase the effort that the muscle has to exert to lift something. Your proposed experiment would greatly benefit the smaller person, unless you would also make the holds proportionally smaller for them. Anyway, my personal experience is that at lower Vx ranks, tall people have a benefit if the route does not contain crunched up start, until the Vx gets high enough and crimps get really small, then it starts to pivot. I've been at gyms where I feel like I can cheat most routes, I've been at gyms were I can't even get off the floor as all starts are insanely crunched. It is all fuel for nice bickering amongst climbing friends :) *based on the climbing guy "Does Height Matter in Rock Climbing?" article
@@ABSVabeautifulsunsetvlog As I indeed indicate with my closing statement, it's all fun and games. To me, the difference adds fun banter and hijinks between friends. I'm called cheater when I use my reach, I tell my not as tall friends that they climb like a salamander up a wall. It all doesn't matter for regular people climbing, but it's for sure fun to bicker about :)
@@MS-rx8itI am unsure but I would presume world up level climbing sets their boulders according to average female height. Where as random gyms probably set to like 170-175 so 163 would be more difficult there.
They both have advantages. Tall climbers have reach and can static bigger moves, but shorter climbers have a much easier time controlling they’re center of gravity and body position.
there is a reason that mostly all pro climbers are around 170-175cm. if being tall would automaticly make you a good climer. every good climber would be tall but that isnt the fact. just like in nba you sometimes see smaler players succed but moste of them are really tall. most climbers arent tall
I feel like the real answer is that climbing walls are designed to be climbed by humans of a variety of sizes, so you should expect people of average size (probably average sized men tbh, sorry ladies) to find problems most size appropriate. The extremes, whether tall or short, likely are at some disadvantage. It's no different than fitting in a sports car properly really. That's just how any one size fits all solution works really.
To make up for being short you can be dynamic. If you're too big for a box there's nothing you can do. This and most setters are 6-7 inches shorter than me... It's frustrating.
Being tall is a disadvantage in overhangs where you have to deal with much greater forces and in cramped spaces. Like sometimes I'm trying to hold something under my waist and to reach something after must be a dynamic "now or never" move whilst for my short friend it's a hold in her chest height and she can nice and easy reach out and test the hold.
At an advanced level being tall is actually is a disadvantage. Most of the best outdoor or competition boulderers or climbers are below average height. In Sport where height is an advantage the pro athletes are way taller. This is caused by simple physic ( cube square law, longer levers, w = f x d, proportionally less surface area on holds, crimps are proportionally smaller, more momentum when cutting loose) who lead to decrease in strength to weight ratio with increasing height ( the same physics cause pro gymnasts to be short). Theoretically one could calculate the percentage impact of those factors in strength to weight ratio , but it is very hard to calculate the positiv impact of height and longer limbs into climbing performance as every problem is different. Taller climbers are more disadvantaged on overhangs than on vertical climbs. In conclusion you can see that top tall climbers are always physically weaker than shorter climbers but sometimes can use their longer reach as an advantage. The optimal height is 5’5” to 5’9” for men and 5’2 to 5’6” for women. Question to everyone: In my opinion competition boulders and routes should be set to favor tall people due to the fact that if there are no moves that favor tall people short people will always have the advantage because they are stronger. Do you also think high level setting should be fair?
If a move is set to advantage a tall climber it is automatically designed to disadvantage the shorter climber. The only normal and fair way to do things is to set boulders for someone around 5’9 for men and like 5’5 for women. About average, then the most people possible can compete roughly fairly. Those at the extremes will always have to deal with their situation in some way it is pointless to tailor things to one or the other.
From personal experience I have noticed that short climbers often have way more strength and a little bit more technique than tall climbers have. So when a tall and short climber both do the same boulder, the short climber does it way better, even if both climbers send it right away. In other words: for most boulders being tall is a pretty big advantage, which explains why they're usually a bit less skillful and strong. After all, you don't practice what you don't need. Me and my friend started climbing a while back at the exact same time. He's taller than me, though, so he can finish most boulders with 1 or 2 moves less than I need to send it. Now, after climbing for some time, I have noticed that I have stronger arms and fingers, even though we both put in the same amount of hours.
I am 5.2 and have been bouldering for a while now. Whilst my buddies might climb harder on reachy routes and dynamic climbs, I end up having a strenght and coordination advantage. Simply because when they could reach, i had to pull myself up. In the long run, I get more chances to train myself, whilst they do not. It pays off in strenght now. When you're used to failing, you keep trying!!!
I think it's still rough when you see a tall climber easily skip an entire beta and you're over there like mapping every part. But i do think it evens out in the end and i think slab is easier for shorter people actually.
I think the conclusion that we can draw is Jon has much better technique than you, yet you still manage to send boulders at a similar rating. Therefore, being taller is an advantage.
@@SuperXicor technique is proper sequencing and using particular tactics at a proper junction (back flags, drop knees, high heels, etc). Balance is another matter altogether and that is mostly based on core strength (ain’t nobody shifting your center of gravity up or down from day to day). It seems Jon has a much stronger core than Josh, but that’s *training.*
Haha - loved this! Shorter people, lower center of gravity, less weight on the wall. Taller people, reach. Makes little difference - just work to your strengths and attributes!
thanks for that video pretty cool choice of the boulders! would have been nice to know the grades :) cheers a fellow 6’4 climber :) btw what brand tshirt is john wearing its super cool 😂 cheers
People at the true extremes are the ones who feel it, personally I don’t think height matters much between like 5’6 and 6’1 as the reach largely counters weight. Taller than 6’1 really struggle with core strength as they fight a huge lever to keep their legs up and will naturally weigh a lot. Bellow 5’6 and you are going to struggle reaching a good amount of holds and will have to work with your body stretched out which is again a leverage issue.
Im 5"6... everyone tells me the only reason I have the strength that I do is because im small... The only people who say "you only did this climb cause your short/tall" are always average height and average climbers.
I’m 6’2’’ it make most climbs easier but importantly it doesn’t make you a better climber. Height is relevant when the measure is the quality of the climber. It is was all about height the worlds best would look like an NBA lineup.
As a tall climber, apparently shorter folks complain a lot about me skipping holds and having bad technique, and that would definitely bother me if I could hear them from up here.
Being a shorter male climber (5'9) i gotta agree. But i believe that being around 5´5 to 5´10 is ideal for bouldering. I feel for me most climbs are easier because of the mechanics, but easier mechanics aren't that visually obvious as skipping hold. I mean, i never heard anyone say something like "hey you are shorter, of course a one-arm pull up is easier for you", even though it's physically quite obvious that is actually easier.
I live in a house with 2 mates, both of whom are taller than me by 5cm and 10cm respectively. And we basically started around the same time, with myself having a month or so "advantage". Guess who's about to plateau around the same grade 3 months later...yup. Height plays a major role, especially for beginners all the way to probably intermediate level.
As a taller climber (188cm), I agree that height might be relevant for the first 3-6 months after that you usually get to problems where it matters less or rather: there are more problems where short climbers have an advantage. Basically when you stop just climbing on jugs it equalizes
@@jkraemo but you see, those first bunch of sessions are where it matters I feel, especially for newbies. It's a little discouraging when you start with friends but you end up with a pretty big handicap so early on, and continue to struggle for months until you're good enough. I fear that for some people, that might cut their interest in climbing too soon.
@@phyoishere I think you have something there. Anecdotal, but at least where I've climbed, tall people seems over-represented compared to population at large. My suspicion is that this is caused by beginner problems being easier for tall climbers who can often skip holds or go static on dynamic moves. Basically they experience a more positive experience which makes them more inclined to keep with it. Even though it doesn't actually help that much on the harder climbs, where other aspect than reach plays a bigger role.
@@sebjan180 yes, absolutely. Whilst I agree that once you get to certain levels, tall or not doesn't really matter. Technique, strength, flexibility, route reading etc, all these things play a much bigger role. But when you're beginning, and all the taller people are ascending things that shorter people are struggling with, simply because of their reach...the psychology is real. In the last 3-4 months of climbing, as a beginner, I've dragged along at least 10 different friends to try, only 2 remained, both of whom happen to be taller. The rest of them, give or take my height, pretty much gave up cos it wasn't as fun for them, and a little demotivating to see other (re: taller) beginners flashing things
I go climbing with my tall friend, and despite both being beginners, he was instantly grades above me. A few months later, he has only improved by one or two grades, where as I have now improved to his level (by 3 or 4 grades). I would argue that my technique has to be better to make such big moves that he has never had a problem with. Though I have the small advantage when it comes to squashed areas - but you tend to want to reach more in climbing.
I m 5 , 3 live in India suddenly watched this vedio and got inspired by this sport , why should indians only do bodybuilding when we have this excellent sport in which any one can loose fat , gain unimaginable strength and build muscle
The thing that tall climbers don’t understand is that all things equal (similar skill sets and flexibility) the ability to balance yourself by reaching to the next hold is always an advantage. Why do tall climbers insist that it isn’t? And that doesn’t mean that being tall automatically makes you a better climber, but if you take two people who start at the same time, and who maintain the same training regimen thus garnering the same skill set, the tall climber will most likely initially progress quicker because of the ability to not have to figure out how to get to the next hold (you can simply reach out and grab or touch it, thus balancing yourself). Now, when you’ve reached the harder grades, the height thing may be neutralized somewhat because climbs aren’t as simple as just reaching and grabbing, but even then there are dozens of times where reach is extremely beneficial, ask Adam Ondra, he’s 6’1”
Good thoughts. There is a cool study saying it’s harder being a certain height (taller) www.alessandromasullo.com/blog/analysis-of-4-million-climbing-ascents/ Ondra is 6’1
Still, he, sharma, and Jimmy Webb are all over 6’ tall so when they set routes outside they’re setting based on their length, which means that when someone shorter comes to climb it they’re going to have a more difficult time replicating the beta. So basically what it boils down to is the height of whomever set whatever problem or route. Being tall definitely equalizes certain struggles (balance, ie you’re usually able to maintain 3 points of contact, especially on vertical climbs), which inherently makes the climb not as difficult. An easy way to test this is to get with your gyms setters and have them set a problem with a certain distance between holds and have someone short climb it, and then have them adjust the distance to your height wherein you’d be faced with the same problem as the shorter climber and not be able to simply reach and grab the next hold) then a tall climber would be forced to learn technique the same as the shorter climber.
@@frederickmead7943 and? What does that have to do with anything? I never said that being tall makes you a better climber, I said that all things equal being tall gives you an advantage in most situations. Your point just means that there aren’t any elite level British climbers.
@@ABSVabeautifulsunsetvlog 9b+ not elite then? Additionally in a recent study by Alessandro Massulo it was shown 180cm+ is as bad for your grade as 150cm-. 160cm being the optimum height. 160 seems to give most options for any given line. “All things equal”
What society doesn’t understand is saying “you’re only good because you’re tall” is insanely disrespectful and discredits all the hard work you put in something, when in reality, just like talent, it’s something you’re born with and do not choose. Yet talent is respected and length is a reason to disrespect. To all you jealous short guys, we’re all just trying to get by, be respectful, you don’t know how hard one is working.
BANGING SESSION !!
Was mega!! Can’t wait till your back in the UK for a rematch 😉
Ay Jonathan sin! Haven’t I seen that name before? Isn’t he a doctor?
As someone from the U.S, I took this comment completely the wrong way 😂
@@kaieclacher-chopra2257 nah he's a pilot, teacher and lawyer
@@kaieclacher-chopra2257 damn
The science is in. The tests have been done. We now know with 100% certainty that Josh is taller than Jon.
the cut to Anna's comment is gold
Haha 😂 I love that bit!
I loved the little interaction clip with Anna, "slab climbing isn't real climbing" aha
😅…. Well it can’t be… can it 😉
@@JoshRundle if it is overhung then yeah
The easiest height is somewhere not too far from the route setters'.
Excactly
This is an overlooked point when people debate tall vs shorter. It can even apply to outdoor climbing in areas that were developed by taller or shorter climbers.
But especially for indoor climbing, you are going to have a much easier time if you are close to the average height of your route setting team. It’s not necessarily a fault of the setting team either - just a natural side effect of how they experience the climb
I find the easiest height to be somewhere around where I'm not.
I just started bouldering and am 4'11". I feel like being this short really throws off the grading system because I have to be so much more dynamic then someone who's taller, which, at least at the early learning stage I'm at, means I get tired half way through half the routes. I also sometimes get stuck because there's just no way for me to get to the next point because I can't reach it. It's cool seeing a shorter climber navigate these routes, but it really makes me wish I had his extra 5".
I feel like a better way to test tall vs short climber is to change the distance of the holds and have the same climber do it both ways. That way if someone is better with specific holds it won't skew the results. You'd be able to see how much more difficult the spacing is for the same person. Unless the tall climber is at the same exact skill level in all climbing techniques you just can't really compare.
I know this is like 5 months old, but I’d also say that you’d need to change the size of the holds themselves. Even though I’m relatively new to climbing, I can already tell that there’s a difference in terms of grip and center of mass compared to smaller (and larger) climbers that had to be compensated for. Still, I agree that it’d be interesting to have a ‘same’ route regardless of relative size!
The thing with being shorter is that being dynamic in your moves can definitely tire you out way quicker. Being able to just reach up to a hold has its advantages for sure. In the end, strength and having good awareness is huge and arguably the most important parts in my opinion
I really don’t see how a foot or a few inches would be much of an advantage when reaching things rock climbing.
@@asiangoose90tiu would be so shocked😭
@@asiangoose90tiWell, imagine being able to reach something and then imagine not being able to reach it. Pretty much sums it up.
@@asiangoose90ti1cm can make a huge difference, let alone 20 or more.
I'm 5'1 and recently started getting into climbing. It gets pretty hard having to do more dynamic movements and jumps just to reach certain holds but I like the challenge!
I'm 5'3 and I'm a very static climber. Dynamic movements intimidate the shit outta me but I'm going for the challenge so I can improve! Hope your climbing journey goes well
Dynamic movements are always an option (even though, as you said, challenging).
When you're tall, if you don't fit in the box, you can't do anything. The yellow one (Sixth boulder, 19:40) is a prime example of that. You simply can't hit the start. Your CoG is too far from the wall compared to what was intended.
Anyway, the goal is always to have fun :p
short ppl fly better xD
@@Karlyr_ This, I think it’s confusing for people but what really annoys someone is when they’re hard locked out of moves. This happens for short people when they can’t reach far enough happens for very tall people when they’re too long and get pushed out from the wall.
While there are several problems where being tall puts you in a "tight space", in my experience most of the times having more reach outweighs any drawbacks.
as a 5ft 3 climber i can tell you being small has advantages - but 90% of the time being tall would make things 100x easier
As a tall guy I find the opposite to be true. The amount of times I simply don't fit into a position is wild
Agree as 5'0 climber
Unfortunately you're not considering the most relevant difference: weight!
There are pros and cons for both being short and tall (perhaps shorter is a bit better for bouldery stuff and taller for lead), but a taller person is always going to be heavier, which definitely impacts their climbing potential.
That being said, being at the extremes of the height distribution is negative on both sides
@@uzituchi to be fair as a short person im pretty heavy - not from being fat just muscle weight
@@shinraninja Yeah that might be the case with your body type, but one can't deny that with analogous body types a taller person will weigh more.
Apart from this factor, I think in easier climbs being taller is definitely better, having longer reach. Going up in the grades things start to shift. A shorter person will be able to keep their centre of mass low and close to the wall for vertical walls, and will have a much lower leverage effect on overhang, in addition to smaller/shorter fingers for crimps and pockets.
That's just my opinion, but it's kinda backed up if you look at elite climbers (especially boulderers), who are mostly shorter than average.
You and jon are a great duo, loved this vid. Thank you for showing the disadvantages of being tall 😅
Thank you! Was a great time 😊. Haha you’re welcome
"be like magnus: strong, sexy, probably rich"
Well richer than Josh at any rate 😂
My life moto
I think that being short you have more mechanical advantage (more strength at the end of your limbs)
But being tall you can reach further and higher, and can sometimes make some static moves where short people couldn't
interesting perspective! I havent thought about that but it rings true for me (shorty)
Pretty spot on analysis. I'd add another con to being a tall guy (just because I experience it daily as routesetters in my gym are at most 5'8" and I'm 6'4" at +0) :
When setters place "box starts" just like the 6th boulder at 19:40, you just can't fit your center of gravity in said box if they set it too small preventing you to do the climb at all.
Having long limbs also means having more to try and fold and sometimes that's just not possible ^.^'
@@Karlyr_Personally I think if you’re obviously too tall you should be allowed to start on a higher hold as if the climb were part of a wall your height means you would have been able to reach it anyway.
@@Karlyr_you can train flexibility though. You can’t train being taller.
Depends on the gym. The routesetters at mine are all 4 feet tall and it is killing me.
6'4 and io feel that my gym is super crimpy and all the setters are mostly 5'7-5'8 and below males included
it's only been one minute and 40 seconds and i'm already in love with this video; great concept, great execution, fantastic editing style, and some all around great climbing. instant subscribe - looking forward to more of your videos!
Wooo thank you! 🙏 so happy you liked it!
@@JoshRundle really did mate! your videos are exactly what i need to remind myself of home (uk) while i'm living abroad (usa)
It seemed like the differences really started showing up more on the last few problems. Very fun vid!
Yea it did didn’t it! Thank you 😊
Best video you’ve done imo could be a series even since it’s the best illustration of tall climber problems I have seen and sick Anna cameo
The guy dramatically falling off the wall in the background cracked me up 😂 2:22
That's how I land too. Usually when I'm falling unexpectedly or when I'm out of power. I feel safe landing that way.
I really enjoyed this video. You guys have a great synergy
Funny enough as a taller climber (6ft 3) on harder climbs I often feel I have to compensate my height by going more dynamically because I can't hold the tension required for the "regular" beta.
The ideal height is anywhere between 5'7" to 5'11" I'd say. Anything shorter is a disadvantage and anything taller is a disadvantage.
@@yaboibSLT I have 6’2 wingspan and 5’10 height and I’m still shit at climbing 😅
@@yaboibSLT yup. 4'9'' and the worst wingspan ever seen but since I'm a dancer I'm at least good with turning out my hips and footwork and have a strong lower body...
Congrats on going full-time! Great video! Different doesn't mean wrong. Love how you both worked with what you got.
As a 5'4” male climber I was rooting for Jon. Epic climbing by both. Great to see the different approaches and styles, but both making it work
This was a fun video!
Jon was using impressive strength and technique to make moves that Josh just grabbed for, seems they climb a very similar level despite the fact that Jon is a better climber…
All this video proved (to me anyway) is that you can climb harder with worse technique if you’re taller! (In most cases)
Well a lot of times it's hard to see the disadvantages of being a taller climber. On the second boulder (the slab) Josh came out of the wall cause he had to fight harder against his limbs (his right leg in particular). The position was more crunched up for him than for Jon.
just wait until Josh has to do a super low sitting start in a cramped space XD
I'm 6"5' and that's exactly my opinion, too. I see people having to use technique where I just flail through :D
Waiting for the next round of Anna merch, "Slab is sexy, being tall isn't". ;) Joking aside, I feel that shorter people thinking it's better to be tall is (often) because it's very evident when a tall person can reach a hold that they can't. However it isn't so obvious when a tall person is at a biomechanical disadvantage because they are crunched. If you look at the yellow (boulder 6) problem Josh couldn't even pull on, but as soon as he used the same hold type that was just a few inches higher he pulled on with almost no effort. This happens all the time to really tall climbers. Especially with things like toe hooks that are set for the average leg length and so tall climbers are trying to toe hook with a bent leg that is a zillion times harder than if you can keep your leg locked. Or not being able to stay low and drape on a sloper because the feet are relatively higher. E.g. Look at Josh's shoulder position on the next to last hold on the pink (boulder 2) problem. They are above his hands. Jon's are clear below the hold. Of course being shorter the movement between the holds was quite a bit more difficult for Jon. But what is more obvious?
That's pretty much my friend's and my height difference. Roughly speaking, being tall helps reach holds further away and being short helps with holding body tension especially between holds closer together. Generally, the climbing styles differ. My tall friend is pretty much spread all over the wall and more static, while I'm more squeezed in or semi-dynamic. Either way I think everyone needs to do a boulder in the way that suits them best. When it comes to who has it easier there's more factors at play than just being tall or short.
This doesn’t prove anything, he’s just a better climber than josh…..love you bro, and great channel….
Thanks 😊
Anna cameo was much appreciated
Love that bit 😊 so happy we could get it in
I’m 6ft and even at my height I constantly do climbs where holds feel too close or too bunched up, but obviously being very small has disadvantages as well. So I think the perfect height is in between at 5’7-5’10. If you look at the heights of the best climbers the majority are around that height, with an insane ape index (long arms). DThe main outlier is Adam Ondra but he has insane mobility so he gets away with being tall.
It's definitely better to be taller (than me anyway) at the gym I go to though because they set these crazy cave problems that require you to brace with the feet with an undercling with the hands and I've measured them and the distance they set it at is like 2 feet longer than my entire foot to hand reach
If height continued to be an advantage as it kept increasing past 6' or so, it would show up in trends of the physiques of winning comps, like how the average NBA player is 6' 6". The median male olympic climber was 5'9 iirc, and was about 5'10 for IFSC finalists the same year. People at this height saying people who are josh's height have an advantage are just coping, but yea if you're 5'4 then it is likely something of a disadvantage.
Nice sesh. But the answer is obvious - esp for indoor it really depends on who is setting. Most gyms have almost exclusively males of average height setting, so I'd bet money it advantages one to be a male of average height (or whatever the predominant body type of the majority of setters in your personal gym).
Unless we are talking ropes. Inside or outside I haven't felt disadvantaged in the slightest. Like most lady born people, I don't like to jump and I don't have a large reach -- I have often been surprised at the climbs my boulder bro friends haven't been able to complete on the wall after absolutely smashing me at bouldering. Bouldering is absolutely harder as an average height female (at least everywhere I've climbed)...but only because most setters are not born female (not only are we shorter, we generally have negative or neutral ape indexes, so take several more inches off that 6" disadvantage and those who grade bouldering routes are also generally of a diff build.
Sometimes it sucks, but after ten years of this, climbing stops being about the grade and more about intrinsic value.
I imagine that the farther away from the avrege height (of route setters at that particular gym) the harder time you will have. Different ends of the spectrum will have different challanges but both sides will have valid complaints. As someone who is 5'2 I often find that I cant reach holds the way it was clearly inteded by the routsetter that you should. I feel like short climbers are forced to develop more dynamic climbing and better technique earlier in the grades than tall climbers though.
This is said as someone who climbs like v2-v4. Many people have pointed out that elite level climbers often are relatively short so it might be different on harder grades or comp style boulders.
Everything you said is absolutely correct. The only reason most elites are short is because like you said you had to learn more techniques early on. Bigger people learn later and don't get as good muscle memory for the move. And elite climbs are all about technique and endurance. So being smaller and lighter becomes even more of a advantage as you don't have to hold up a lot of weight for long periods of time. But there's always the acception, Alex Honnold is a tall man, and Alex Ondra isn't particular short.
Humm you have to take into account the fact that only 10% of men are taller than 6foot (182cm) while 80% of men are between 5,5 and 6foot (167-182cm). So its logical that there is less tall climber !
As Someone who is 1,85cm and climb with my gilfriend who is 1,59cm, its true that she needed to develop dynamic climber and power to be good but because she so light, she could already hold crimps without training her finger and can fit pretty much everywhere. Me in the other hand, i needed to develop way more my finger strengh and way more my flexibility and my core.
In my opinion its harder and require more work to be a good tall climber than a regular/short height one. But if you compare 2beginners, then yes the tall guy will often be better in the beginning.
You make a very good point about routesetting. I'm Dutch and the average male here is like 183cm and most of the routesetters are close to 180cm. A guy I sometimes climb with is around 175 and he sometimes can't reach the stuff that I can reach. He went to Thailand and climbed there, said he felt like a 190cm guy in those gyms.
@@jehm.7194 your argument holds no value at the top. why isnt the average nba player 1.76?
So funny, i have to stop the video and write a comment. This grey haired young guy makes me laugh in a row while falling of a thousand times at that red boulder no. 4. trying to get his foot on that small foothold. Thank you, you made my day! All the best, Dave
I'd say 170 cm, 60kg and ape index +10 is the best. But whatever we gotta work with what we've got and enjoy the process.
as a 4'11 climber it does get very frustrating when I have to dyno a lot of moves that regular climbers can just reach, however, there are times where being tiny or weighing very little makes it easier! also, I think having to be much more aware of my feet and overall body position has made me have better technique than other climbers
I'm about average height, which puts me at a disadvantage to both short and tall climbers
Or the perfect size 🧐
Not really, the best climbers in the world are average height... the extremes are at a disadvantage. There's a reason there are no elite climbers who are 6'10" or like 4'10"
@@billr5842 shawn rabatou is no taller than 5’6” and he is an elite boulder. Avg height is like around 5’10 for reference. (also, sean bailey is 5’3)
@@billr5842 It really is time everyone understands there is no "perfect" height. Some boulders will be harder, some easier, but in average bouldering is the same difficulty for everyone
@@nicolasc.8380 I agree some routes are more suited for different individuals. But no it does not average out. Mechanically being too short or too tall is a MAJOR disadvantage
You two are great together this is the best video of yours I've watched
Thank you 😊 I feel like it’s my best edit yet. Really happy with how it came out
Yay
watched a Video of a pro Coach who said that smaller climbers cant get bigger so have to be more inventive, stronger to pull of reachy lock of moves and work more on dinamic moves. A tall climber has to work on mobility to fit in the smaller boxes, other than that should have all the advantages.
At lower difficulty grades (~v1-v5) I think height gives you a significant advantage as of the ability to reach up/across for pretty good hand and foot holds. On more challenging higher difficulty grades (v5->) I think technique is far more important which gives the illusion shorter is better than taller - short folk even on the lower grades have needed better technique as they cannot just reach or stretch for holds.
I also think technique can be much easier for shorter climbers because of the lower demand on mobility
Also being tall and fitting into tight drop knees, high heels, short toe hooks, and cramped sit starts is a nightmare. Especially toe hooks can be difficult, because they require a pretty straight leg generally
This guy was really fun
Jon is a legend
i got the chance to meet jon when he was in italy this july. he was super cool to climb with
It depends on the boulder, but some absolutely have a "tall beta"; I know because, as a shorter (5'7/8") dynamic climber, I often get told I use the "tall beta" by tall climbers lmao
Then again, there are certainly spaces even my body doesn't fit, and I can tell how difficult some climbs would be with even more height.
The answer for me is Adam Ondra.
If you're gonna be a tall climber, you best be flexy as hell.
I understand you because you are talking to me and they say, he finnished the climb because his hight. I am 6'3 tall. Now you show them. ❤🤝
honestly, as someone who is 5ft 1, I think that Jon is tall :'D
Under V6 taller = better, above V6 shorter = better
Want to know which is better: take all pro climbers and see if there are more tall climbers than short ones. Like for instance, if you do the same for marathon, for basketball, for gymnastics… you may see that some type of body are best for some sports. Another interesting thing is to take the extreme (very short and very tall, like +/- 20cm from average) that are able to do hard stuff (e.g. more than 8c or 8A) and see if you find more tall or short climbers
I feel like being short makes it easier to control your movements and while that takes more time, it's easier as in "staying more consistent". But being tall usually means you can reach further and maybe even skip steps which means you can reach the top faster, but some holds and situations bring you in really weird positions
The scientist in me is annoyed you guys didn't match for technique. Of course a shorter climber with amazing technique can outdo a taller climber on some problems. Doesn't mean height isn't important.
Imagine increasing the space between holds by the difference in the climbers' heights. This would make the climbs for the tall guy equivalent to what the shorter guy achieved. He'd need to learn some new tricks to climb as many problems.
Exactly!!!!
Being a data scientist myself, I'd agree that a single video with 2 cohorts with each N=1 is not sufficient, but dare I say this video might have been a bit tongue in cheek.
Anyway, we can of course look at the heigh/weight data of well known top boulderers. Now if being tall was an absolute advantage, the top boulderers would look like an NBA draft. The dataset* that I used averages at roughly:
males 173cm, 62.6kg
females 161cm, 50kg
I think the prime reason for that is power to weight ratio, which in short means the smaller you are the more power you have relative to your weight. But there are other biological factors at play here. Yes, tall people can reach further, but as they need to support more weight their tendons also take more strain, and being taller doesn't automatically mean that you have stronger baseline tendons. So very crimpy situations, where the holds are very tiny, it is quite likely that a tall person will have more issues trying to hang on as the tiny hold will only have a certain amount of friction-coefficient. Maybe the small grip doesn't even in total have enough surface area for the heavier person to generate enough grip, where a smaller person could perhaps hang on to it.
There might be more biomechanical reasons e.g. increase of arm length will also increase the lever which increase the effort that the muscle has to exert to lift something. Your proposed experiment would greatly benefit the smaller person, unless you would also make the holds proportionally smaller for them.
Anyway, my personal experience is that at lower Vx ranks, tall people have a benefit if the route does not contain crunched up start, until the Vx gets high enough and crimps get really small, then it starts to pivot. I've been at gyms where I feel like I can cheat most routes, I've been at gyms were I can't even get off the floor as all starts are insanely crunched.
It is all fuel for nice bickering amongst climbing friends :)
*based on the climbing guy "Does Height Matter in Rock Climbing?" article
@@gerardhermus8297 who cares bro…it’s literally not that big a deal…
@@ABSVabeautifulsunsetvlog As I indeed indicate with my closing statement, it's all fun and games. To me, the difference adds fun banter and hijinks between friends. I'm called cheater when I use my reach, I tell my not as tall friends that they climb like a salamander up a wall.
It all doesn't matter for regular people climbing, but it's for sure fun to bicker about :)
Agree!
In the end it just comes down to how skilled you are and the effort you put in. (Both have advantages though)
163cm isn't even that short. It's pretty much average for female world cup climbers.
Not for men
@@eduardomoraeslima3416 Are women an uncommon occurrence in your gym? My gym only has gendered setting for comps, but maybe yours is different.
@@MS-rx8itI am unsure but I would presume world up level climbing sets their boulders according to average female height. Where as random gyms probably set to like 170-175 so 163 would be more difficult there.
They both have advantages. Tall climbers have reach and can static bigger moves, but shorter climbers have a much easier time controlling they’re center of gravity and body position.
there is a reason that mostly all pro climbers are around 170-175cm. if being tall would automaticly make you a good climer. every good climber would be tall but that isnt the fact. just like in nba you sometimes see smaler players succed but moste of them are really tall. most climbers arent tall
Rotflmbo, Anna Hazelnutt WTF Josh 😂
Love a Josh video.
24:41 😂 ooh err missus
Thank you 😊
I feel like the real answer is that climbing walls are designed to be climbed by humans of a variety of sizes, so you should expect people of average size (probably average sized men tbh, sorry ladies) to find problems most size appropriate. The extremes, whether tall or short, likely are at some disadvantage. It's no different than fitting in a sports car properly really. That's just how any one size fits all solution works really.
To make up for being short you can be dynamic. If you're too big for a box there's nothing you can do. This and most setters are 6-7 inches shorter than me... It's frustrating.
That pink looks like so much fun
It was such a good boulder!!
I like to think Jons hair isn't dyed white, instead it's white from constantly touching his hair with chalk
Being tall is a disadvantage in overhangs where you have to deal with much greater forces and in cramped spaces. Like sometimes I'm trying to hold something under my waist and to reach something after must be a dynamic "now or never" move whilst for my short friend it's a hold in her chest height and she can nice and easy reach out and test the hold.
Most fun climbing video I think I've ever seen!
Aw thanks!!! Stay tuned for another tomorrow 👀
At an advanced level being tall is actually is a disadvantage. Most of the best outdoor or competition boulderers or climbers are below average height. In Sport where height is an advantage the pro athletes are way taller. This is caused by simple physic ( cube square law, longer levers, w = f x d, proportionally less surface area on holds, crimps are proportionally smaller, more momentum when cutting loose) who lead to decrease in strength to weight ratio with increasing height ( the same physics cause pro gymnasts to be short). Theoretically one could calculate the percentage impact of those factors in strength to weight ratio , but it is very hard to calculate the positiv impact of height and longer limbs into climbing performance as every problem is different. Taller climbers are more disadvantaged on overhangs than on vertical climbs.
In conclusion you can see that top tall climbers are always physically weaker than shorter climbers but sometimes can use their longer reach as an advantage. The optimal height is 5’5” to 5’9” for men and 5’2 to 5’6” for women.
Question to everyone:
In my opinion competition boulders and routes should be set to favor tall people due to the fact that if there are no moves that favor tall people short people will always have the advantage because they are stronger. Do you also think high level setting should be fair?
This is amazing!! So interesting, thanks so much for your time writing this comment! I really appreciate it 🙏
If a move is set to advantage a tall climber it is automatically designed to disadvantage the shorter climber. The only normal and fair way to do things is to set boulders for someone around 5’9 for men and like 5’5 for women. About average, then the most people possible can compete roughly fairly. Those at the extremes will always have to deal with their situation in some way it is pointless to tailor things to one or the other.
I like the guy in the teal, he seems super chill! 😂
It’s the white hair. John (or Jon) was in super saiyan mode the entire time. So of course he’s gonna do better 🤗
Short climbers are just forced to be better, and then they often are
From personal experience I have noticed that short climbers often have way more strength and a little bit more technique than tall climbers have. So when a tall and short climber both do the same boulder, the short climber does it way better, even if both climbers send it right away. In other words: for most boulders being tall is a pretty big advantage, which explains why they're usually a bit less skillful and strong. After all, you don't practice what you don't need.
Me and my friend started climbing a while back at the exact same time. He's taller than me, though, so he can finish most boulders with 1 or 2 moves less than I need to send it. Now, after climbing for some time, I have noticed that I have stronger arms and fingers, even though we both put in the same amount of hours.
being tall is an advantage
being light is an advantage
being strong is an advantage
but those 3 attributes don't correlate very well
so being average height is the perfect advantage from what i see
Pretty much I think
I am 5.2 and have been bouldering for a while now. Whilst my buddies might climb harder on reachy routes and dynamic climbs, I end up having a strenght and coordination advantage. Simply because when they could reach, i had to pull myself up. In the long run, I get more chances to train myself, whilst they do not. It pays off in strenght now. When you're used to failing, you keep trying!!!
Please also do a wingspan vs wingspan challenge and the person with the biggest wingspan will win out most of the time, no matter what height
I'm 6'9" it has its ups and downs. Knee bar? Non existent. Dynos? Naw static move for me
27:39- RIP Jon's fist bump
Being taller is always worse until there is something smaller people can’t reach where taller people can do a different beta.
I think it's still rough when you see a tall climber easily skip an entire beta and you're over there like mapping every part. But i do think it evens out in the end and i think slab is easier for shorter people actually.
Im happy to be at the perfect height for climbing in between not too short or too tall
really can FIT any dynamic necessary for a climb :)
The red seems to be so much fun, would love to try it
Eventhough its probably way out my league 😂
Great stuf you guys, keep it up
Can see you and @miguelclimbs collab. Tall people sending vlog!
I think the conclusion that we can draw is Jon has much better technique than you, yet you still manage to send boulders at a similar rating. Therefore, being taller is an advantage.
Agree. We short climbers have to be better in technique.
but it's also easier to have better technique when you're small because of a much lower center of gravity
@@SuperXicor center of gravity has *nothing* to do with proper technique.
@@nelsongalan1417 it does, it makes it much easier to balance yourself which makes it easier to climb in a more technical way
@@SuperXicor technique is proper sequencing and using particular tactics at a proper junction (back flags, drop knees, high heels, etc). Balance is another matter altogether and that is mostly based on core strength (ain’t nobody shifting your center of gravity up or down from day to day).
It seems Jon has a much stronger core than Josh, but that’s *training.*
Great fun video thanks
Thank you 😊
I want to do that mint green climb next to the last problem. My gym hasn’t ever set a climb in that color.
haha the pink boulder is a great watch 😆😆😆
Haha - loved this! Shorter people, lower center of gravity, less weight on the wall. Taller people, reach. Makes little difference - just work to your strengths and attributes!
I’m 5’3. The brushing comment hit too close to home.😮💨
😅 I’m sorry.
thanks for that video pretty cool choice of the boulders! would have been nice to know the grades :) cheers a fellow 6’4 climber :)
btw what brand tshirt is john wearing its super cool 😂
cheers
They were awesome boulders!! Unfortunately the climbing hangars don’t have grades just colour circuites. I don’t know sorry!!
I'm 6'8 with very very little body fat, yet still weigh 215lbs. People don't understand the challenges us tall people face when climbing
Wow you're still light for 6'8 ! I'm 6'3'' at 200 and I don't have much body fat as well 😂
People at the true extremes are the ones who feel it, personally I don’t think height matters much between like 5’6 and 6’1 as the reach largely counters weight. Taller than 6’1 really struggle with core strength as they fight a huge lever to keep their legs up and will naturally weigh a lot. Bellow 5’6 and you are going to struggle reaching a good amount of holds and will have to work with your body stretched out which is again a leverage issue.
7:18 „think like Magnus“ -proceeds to climb with his shirt on 🤨
My big mistake
"Think like Magnus be strong, sexy and probably rich"
A good moto for life 😂
Im 5"6... everyone tells me the only reason I have the strength that I do is because im small... The only people who say "you only did this climb cause your short/tall" are always average height and average climbers.
I’m 6’2’’ it make most climbs easier but importantly it doesn’t make you a better climber. Height is relevant when the measure is the quality of the climber. It is was all about height the worlds best would look like an NBA lineup.
Lets go Hong Kong represent 🇭🇰
Yessss 💪🇭🇰
As a tall climber, apparently shorter folks complain a lot about me skipping holds and having bad technique, and that would definitely bother me if I could hear them from up here.
Being a shorter male climber (5'9) i gotta agree. But i believe that being around 5´5 to 5´10 is ideal for bouldering. I feel for me most climbs are easier because of the mechanics, but easier mechanics aren't that visually obvious as skipping hold.
I mean, i never heard anyone say something like "hey you are shorter, of course a one-arm pull up is easier for you", even though it's physically quite obvious that is actually easier.
I'm 5'4" and felt every one of Jon's attempts. Also, I named that giant red boulder "Rolling Stones" ;)
I live in a house with 2 mates, both of whom are taller than me by 5cm and 10cm respectively. And we basically started around the same time, with myself having a month or so "advantage". Guess who's about to plateau around the same grade 3 months later...yup. Height plays a major role, especially for beginners all the way to probably intermediate level.
As a taller climber (188cm), I agree that height might be relevant for the first 3-6 months after that you usually get to problems where it matters less or rather: there are more problems where short climbers have an advantage. Basically when you stop just climbing on jugs it equalizes
@@jkraemo but you see, those first bunch of sessions are where it matters I feel, especially for newbies. It's a little discouraging when you start with friends but you end up with a pretty big handicap so early on, and continue to struggle for months until you're good enough. I fear that for some people, that might cut their interest in climbing too soon.
@@phyoishere I think you have something there. Anecdotal, but at least where I've climbed, tall people seems over-represented compared to population at large. My suspicion is that this is caused by beginner problems being easier for tall climbers who can often skip holds or go static on dynamic moves. Basically they experience a more positive experience which makes them more inclined to keep with it. Even though it doesn't actually help that much on the harder climbs, where other aspect than reach plays a bigger role.
@@sebjan180 yes, absolutely. Whilst I agree that once you get to certain levels, tall or not doesn't really matter. Technique, strength, flexibility, route reading etc, all these things play a much bigger role. But when you're beginning, and all the taller people are ascending things that shorter people are struggling with, simply because of their reach...the psychology is real. In the last 3-4 months of climbing, as a beginner, I've dragged along at least 10 different friends to try, only 2 remained, both of whom happen to be taller. The rest of them, give or take my height, pretty much gave up cos it wasn't as fun for them, and a little demotivating to see other (re: taller) beginners flashing things
I go climbing with my tall friend, and despite both being beginners, he was instantly grades above me. A few months later, he has only improved by one or two grades, where as I have now improved to his level (by 3 or 4 grades). I would argue that my technique has to be better to make such big moves that he has never had a problem with. Though I have the small advantage when it comes to squashed areas - but you tend to want to reach more in climbing.
I m 5 , 3 live in India suddenly watched this vedio and got inspired by this sport , why should indians only do bodybuilding when we have this excellent sport in which any one can loose fat , gain unimaginable strength and build muscle
The thing that tall climbers don’t understand is that all things equal (similar skill sets and flexibility) the ability to balance yourself by reaching to the next hold is always an advantage. Why do tall climbers insist that it isn’t? And that doesn’t mean that being tall automatically makes you a better climber, but if you take two people who start at the same time, and who maintain the same training regimen thus garnering the same skill set, the tall climber will most likely initially progress quicker because of the ability to not have to figure out how to get to the next hold (you can simply reach out and grab or touch it, thus balancing yourself). Now, when you’ve reached the harder grades, the height thing may be neutralized somewhat because climbs aren’t as simple as just reaching and grabbing, but even then there are dozens of times where reach is extremely beneficial, ask Adam Ondra, he’s 6’1”
Good thoughts. There is a cool study saying it’s harder being a certain height (taller) www.alessandromasullo.com/blog/analysis-of-4-million-climbing-ascents/
Ondra is 6’1
Still, he, sharma, and Jimmy Webb are all over 6’ tall so when they set routes outside they’re setting based on their length, which means that when someone shorter comes to climb it they’re going to have a more difficult time replicating the beta. So basically what it boils down to is the height of whomever set whatever problem or route. Being tall definitely equalizes certain struggles (balance, ie you’re usually able to maintain 3 points of contact, especially on vertical climbs), which inherently makes the climb not as difficult. An easy way to test this is to get with your gyms setters and have them set a problem with a certain distance between holds and have someone short climb it, and then have them adjust the distance to your height wherein you’d be faced with the same problem as the shorter climber and not be able to simply reach and grab the next hold) then a tall climber would be forced to learn technique the same as the shorter climber.
@@ABSVabeautifulsunsetvlog Average height of the GB mens climbing team is 5ft 7.
@@frederickmead7943 and? What does that have to do with anything? I never said that being tall makes you a better climber, I said that all things equal being tall gives you an advantage in most situations. Your point just means that there aren’t any elite level British climbers.
@@ABSVabeautifulsunsetvlog 9b+ not elite then? Additionally in a recent study by Alessandro Massulo it was shown 180cm+ is as bad for your grade as 150cm-. 160cm being the optimum height. 160 seems to give most options for any given line. “All things equal”
at the end both sides have pros and cons :) we just have to learn to manage around the cons!
I just developed a crush on Jon watching this 🫠
What society doesn’t understand is saying “you’re only good because you’re tall” is insanely disrespectful and discredits all the hard work you put in something, when in reality, just like talent, it’s something you’re born with and do not choose. Yet talent is respected and length is a reason to disrespect. To all you jealous short guys, we’re all just trying to get by, be respectful, you don’t know how hard one is working.
i'm 5'0 is it possible to climb well what if some routes is just impossible for my height?