An explanation of the varying (ultra)drawability of semicrystalline polymers is proposed, based on NMR evidence of αc‐relaxation‐associated helical jumps and chain diffusion through the crystallites of polyethylene and several similarly “αc‐mobile” polymers; these include isotactic polypropylene, poly(ethylene oxide), poly(oxymethylene), poly(tetrafluoroethylene), poly(vinyl alcohol), and several others. The chain motions provide a mechanism by which hot drawing of these polymers can extend an initially formed fiber morphology by an order of magnitude to draw ratios > 30, without melting. A second class of polymers, including nylons, poly(ethylene terephthalate), syndiotactic polypropylene, isotactic polystyrene, and isotactic poly(1‐butene) (form I) lack a crystalline α‐relaxation and the associated chain mobility. Therefore, these polymers are “crystal fixed” and drawability is limited to draw ratios < 14, arising mostly from break‐up of crystalline lamellae and deformation of the amorphous regions. On this basis, we can explain which polymers are drawable to high draw ratios, given a sufficiently low level of entanglement. The motion through the crystallites is thermally activated and the applied stress only biases the direction of the jumps; this explains the crucial role of temperature and rate in tensile drawing and solid‐state extrusion processes. The behavior of the crystal‐fixed, poorly drawable polymers strongly suggests that melting, straight chain pull‐out, and sliding on crystal planes are not significantly operative during ultradrawing, and that weak intermolecular forces are not a sufficient condition for ultradeformation. Various stages of drawing are distinguished and other models of ultradrawability are discussed critically.