Is climbing nature OR nurture???

A few days ago Brooke Raboutou (age 10) sent God’s Own Rock (5.14a) becoming the youngest female and American to climb such a high grade. What I am wondering is: what is the big deal? Before you jump on me for being a hater hear me out.

I am relatively new to climbing (2 years) and I am climbing at a 5.11b and V4/5 level respectively. Having no real background (family or friends) in climbing, being in my early 20’s and having to work a full-time job to pay my way through college I think what I am doing (and other people like me) is just as impressive if not more so than Brooke.

Brooke comes from a pretty elite climbing background, hell two world-class climbers “made” her: Robyn and Didier Raboutou. She has unlimited resources, training and support in her desire to be a climber. Her parents got her started at age 1. Yes - age 1. Age plays a huge factor – kids just don’t feel fear like adults. Kids can learn very quickly. Kids can bend, twist and move in ways most adults cannot. Emotionally and mentally a healthy kid is disconnected from “real-world” problems. So why make a big deal when a 10-year old sends a 5.14a? I’m not saying don’t congratulate and support her but national and international news? I think that’s crazy and unwarranted.

Brooke has a lot of talent. No doubt. But she also had a VERY unique environment to grow up in and has access to resources 99.9% of us “normal folks” can only dream about. She doesn’t have to work. She doesn’t have to stress about school or bills, or her health or life. She can just be a kid. It makes me wonder if Brooke was not in the exact cozy situation she finds herself in would she be climbing at the level she is today? Hell, would she even be climbing?

Is climbing nature or nurture?

I see what you are getting at, but I still have to disagree. I know it's not fair that Raboutou has all the advantages you mentioned, but that doesn't make her send any less remarkable. Regardless of her life outside of climbing, she still logged hundreds of hours of training time, plenty of repoints, failures and hard times being shut down on routes. She worked hard to achieve something that .001% of the climbing community can do, and I feel like she earned it. Despite her privileged upbringing, she did good.

Sampres Jennings wrote:It makes me wonder if Brooke was not in the exact cozy situation she finds herself in would she be climbing at the level she is today? Hell, would she even be climbing?

If you grew up in Cambodia during the Khmer Rouge regime would you be climbing at the level you are at today? We are all pretty privileged so I guess my main point is to not let yourself get down for not having all of the advantages she has. The fact she did this didn't make my last redpoint any less satisfying for me: you can only be happy about your own performance and achievements

Still, it'd be sweet if I had been climbing since I was one....

P.S.
I'm not trying to be a jerk, so I hope you don't take my comment that way.

Sampres Jennings wrote:Before you jump on me for being a hater hear me out.

I read your entire post and you're just hating. Maybe just worry about Sampres.

Sampres Jennings wrote:Is climbing nature or nurture?

You're not really expecting answers to this question, right?

Why worry about Sampres? Whether or not he is 'hating' or whatever, i think it is a legit question...

From the perspective of someone who has made a career in the arena of health care and human performance; this question isn't really that interesting.

It basically comes down to genetics first and then environment second. If you don't have the genetics to start with you'll never get to play with those kids in the 95th percentile and beyond, in any sport.

The rest comes down to resources/environment, in short, outside help. I would imagine that if you took any one of us average or even gifted climbers and relocated them to a town with an abundance of local rock and good weather, they're going to improve pretty quickly initially. Based only on the fact that they get to climb more, more frequently.

There are a couple of things that I find interesting when looking at the elite athlete demographic.

The two most fascinating things about all the elite level athletes I've hung around (Brooke included), are that they are extremely motivated. These folks are always psyched to get out there, day after day and try super hard.
On the genetic side of the equation, it completely boggles my mind the way some of these athletes can abuse their bodies and never get injured to the point of having to take a significant amount of time off.

Just my 2 cents.

I am worried about myself - who isn't worried about themselves? Other than kids...

No idea where that's going Bill. I said she is owed congratulations and support and has talent. How is that hating? Maybe re-read the post?

Her send is just acting as the catalyst for all of this...it brings up an interesting topic and discussion of how much of that climb or ANY climb is forced/trained ability and how much is natural ability? If I climb for 8 more years the way I do now I will be sending 5.14's too. Same time period (10 years) Same grade. But in my case no one will care (nor should they). The hype of her climb comes from her AGE not the grade itself so much. I without a doubt think given her unique situation it is more a forced/trained ability than it is natural ability.

Is Brooke a great climber? Yes. Not the question here. No one will say she is not a great climber because we all know they are wrong.

Sampres Jennings wrote:A few days ago Brooke Raboutou (age 10) sent God’s Own Rock (5.14a) becoming the youngest female and American to climb such a high grade. What I am wondering is: what is the big deal? Before you jump on me for being a hater hear me out. I am relatively new to climbing (2 years) and I am climbing at a 5.11b and V4/5 level respectively. Having no real background (family or friends) in climbing, being in my early 20’s and having to work a full-time job to pay my way through college I think what I am doing (and other people like me) is just as impressive if not more so than Brooke.

Climbing recreationally at a mediocre level is the same as a 10 year climbing harder than any ten year old ever has? Really?

Sampres Jennings wrote: I think what I am doing (and other people like me) is just as impressive if not more so than Brooke.

Your grades are not very impressive, sorry to say.

The reason it made international news is that she is the Youngest male or female in the world to climb that grade.

Sorry you weren't born to climbers

Brent Apgar wrote:The two most fascinating things about all the elite level athletes I've hung around (Brooke included), are that they are extremely motivated. These folks are always psyched to get out there, day after day and try super hard. On the genetic side of the equation, it completely boggles my mind the way some of these athletes can abuse their bodies and never get injured to the point of having to take a significant amount of time off. Just my 2 cents.

The "genetic side of the equation" includes the psychological (motivation, attitude, etc) as well as the physical (muscle structure, ape index, etc). Genetics is certainly not the whole story, but without a high-end genetic architecture you'll never be a high-end climber.

EDIT: Sorry...

Is this site nothing but trolls today?

If this is serious, you sound kind of envious, and not in a good way.

Yeah, let's make little clones of Brooke and send them out to be raised by different parents so we can answer your question.

I'm pretty sure Brooke could be raised by nonclimbing parents, start climbing at age 72, and still climb better than you.

Way less focus on grad and who is sending what... Way more focus on pushing on a personal level and having fun. I say this as I am trolling the forum while I should be working and just talking doo doo. Sorry about that.

Mike McKinnon wrote: Anyone can climb to the 11s with a modest amount of effort and non-redaration. Shit, climbing does not even get hard until mid 12s. I would not use your first two years as a predictor of your future year's success.

+1
I was also climbing low 11's after a year or two of climbing. That was in 2001. You know my hardest redpoint? 11c. Things get real tough real fast as you progress. Prove me wrong and I'll congratulate you but as of now I'm not impressed. Now I am on the other hand impressed with Brooke and Ashima. These kids are kicking ass. Also there is a log of records... period. She broke records... period. You can choose to admire her accomplishments or not. I do.

David Sahalie:
"i am much more impressed by a 50 year old doing 14a."

+1

"If you grew up in Cambodia during the Khmer Rouge regime would you be climbing at the level you are at today?"

Perfect answer.

Also, Sampres Jennings' "in 8 years..." thinking is utter nonsense. My first climb was a 5.6. The next day I climbed a 5.9...I guess by tomorrow I'll be climbing 5.12?!? Don't be ridiculous. A 5.11 climber can't even really comprehend how difficult 5.14 is (I'm only climbing easy 10's after four years, but I know enough to know that).

I'm impressed when anybody reaches that grade, I would assume to climb at that level a climber would need to expend a hell of a lot of effort and have serious dedication to reach that level by either training or putting in the miles. That level devotion to climbing is something that I admire.

Not trolling at all - I am seriously interested in this subject and I think it's a great discussion.

David Sahalie wrote:many kids at age 10 could climb at that level with training and focus. they weigh nothing, repair instantly, and small holds are bigger for them. so, i would say nurture for the focus to keep climbing and not play with dolls and trucks or whatever. i am much more impressed by a 50 year old doing 14a.

+1

"If you grew up in Cambodia during the Khmer Rouge regime would you be climbing at the level you are at today?"

That kind of makes my point. Environment in some situations can make much more of a difference than what's inside you. If you submerge someone into something for long enough most can become great at whatever that is. So nurture. I admit I am new to climbing, only 2 years, however I climb with people that do climb in the 5.13-5.14 range and am fully aware there is a possibility I could never reach 5.14. I have top roped on a few 14's and see how challenging they are and what an accomplishment it is to send one. But I also know that by training how I do and submerging myself into climbing the way I have I will reach it. Whoever is serious enough and trains hard enough and dedicates themselves to climbing a 5.14 - I believe will reach that.

Oh and climbing not being hard until 5.12? I would imagine there are a lot of people that would disagree with that, myself included. I have never heard of anyone who wakes up one day with no climbing experience or training and goes and flashes a 5.11c because it's so damn easy! I have never understood why people say climbing doesn't "start" until the 5.12's. Now you're just being an elitist. And if hard climbing doesn't start until the 5.12's I guess Royal Robbins was a hack...

This is true in pretty much ALL areas of human endeavor. Some people work very hard to get a 'small' accomplishment due to less talent or resources than other people who exert little effort to achieve something seemingly much greater in magnitude.

Effort should be part of the grade awarded, but not all. It is fair that talent is rewarded, even if the effort required is small.

Someone who has talent and resources, but squanders them... FAIL.
Someone who lacks talent and resources, but works hard and achieves something tiny... PASS, just barely. Afterall, the desire to work hard could be considered a talent in itself!

I don't think the commenter intended it that way, but the Cambodia comment is a good reminder that you didn't ask the question in a nuanced way. Nevertheless, I agree it still did generate some interesting discussion.

The answer is, as it usually is: "It depends."

5.12 any fit person can eventually reach even without any training other than climbing, 5.13 you're probably gonna have to train unless you're gifted genetically, 5.14 you need to be gifted genetically, whether you train or not..

In other sports, genetics is more important. If you're not cut out to be a good surfer, you could surf all day every day for the rest of your life and still not become a good surfer.

Christian wrote: The answer is, as it usually is: "It depends." 5.12 any fit person can eventually reach even without any training other than climbing, 5.13 you're probably gonna have to train unless you're gifted genetically, 5.14 you need to be gifted genetically, whether you train or not.. In other sports, genetics is more important. If you're not cut out to be a good surfer, you could surf all day every day for the rest of your life and still not become a good surfer.

I think that's a great point. Although I do think anyone serious enough can reach a 5.14. Maybe that is too romantic of a mindset but it's what I believe.

Joseph Stover wrote: Someone who has talent and resources, but squanders them... FAIL. Someone who lacks talent and resources, but works hard and achieves something tiny... PASS, just barely. Afterall, the desire to work hard could be considered a talent in itself!

+1

Christian wrote:In other sports, genetics is more important.

I don't know about this. I think genetics is important in ANY sport if your goal is to perform at an elite level. In my mind, 5.14 is elite and those of us without the genetics will never climb 5.14 no matter how hard we train. At least that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it.