"Aging" climbers

Enjoyed this thread so much I quit being a lurker, I started at age 36 and at age 49 put up "Elders of the Tribe" 5.12c at Jackson. I am now 63, lock off doesn't seem to be what it once was but my technique is as good as ever.

That's inspiring j payne! Do you have any thoughts about the issues being batted around? Technique still good. How have your increased experience and extra mileage combined to treat you...or you them?

Andy Laakmann wrote: Ahhhh.... this explains a lot, having just turned 40. Better cue up the porn.

Hankster to the rescue Andy! My personal recommendation list is on the way.

Peter Beal wrote:Tony, the comparison with horses or dogs would be more applicable if climbing was a simple repetitive athletic activity. However it is clear that is not the case. This is why talk about genetic potential is so counterproductive as it does not take into account the extraordinary mental, emotional, and psychological complexity of the sport. What is natural at 20 is more difficult at 30 or 40 even if physically you are close to your prime. (By the way is your math right on the testosterone count? Something doesn't sound right there.) In any event, the idea that in climbing you are anywhere close to tapping your maximum physical potential is misleading. Very few climbers are good enough to actually get to that point. What is more typical is misapplication of strength and use of poor technique leading to the mistaken belief that you have hit the limit of your strength. Body fat, muscle mass, etc, etc, while important are not the determining factors in climbing well. Technique, balance, coordination, and emotional and psychological readiness are far more decisive and anyone with a full-time job, a family, a mortgage, etc. who can say with a straight face that all those factors are well in hand is doing way better than I am.

My math on the testosterone is what is published by the Crenshaw clinic about a decade ago.
I agree that there is more to the sport, but with a lesser body, your total potential as a climber is lower. And as you age, your body becomes lesser. (edit) Which means you have to work harder to achieve the same goals, or achieve less with the same effort... unless you are mentally growing as a climber. Which is to say, were short on achievement Vs potential at a younger age. (end edit)
I never said that's the end.
Shoot Peter, I am out there flailing on 12's with 1 leg now, still trying to improve as a climber.

Hank Caylor wrote: Hankster to the rescue Andy! My personal recommendation list is on the way.

Oh god. I'm scared. And so is my wife.

Shawn, I've found rest to be a more important ingredient as we age, and something easy to discount. After two days at the crags I should take two if not three days off of training, by that I mean home wall etc.That depends on what routes I've done or worked at the crags, but generally two to three days works for me. I try to do some running and light yoga during rest from wall workouts etc.

I agree with Tony that physically we decline as we age, however I am convinced that for most individuals physical potential is irrelevant as a limit even for fairly high-end climbers. Through more careful attention to training, stretching, and intelligent choices of routes and application of technique, that potential can be much more fruitfully put to work.

Here are my thoughts on the matter:

8a.nu/articles/ShowArticle.…

I'm 58 & my climbing partner Harvey T. Carter is in his 80's and we're STILL doing first ascents. And the older we get the harder we climbed.

I just can't believe people are actually arguing that they get physically better as they age. You dont. You simply learn to live with it.

I thought Samet's article was funny and when I was 29, I certainly thought that 37 was "old" (at 37 it duidn't feel that way). It's funny how your perspective changes with age! Well I suppose that at 50 I'm not getting physically stronger, but I'm a better climber than I've ever been and I've been at it for 30 years.

Mostly, this is due to the following factors:
• I listen to my body and stay within what the muscles and tendons allow.
• I train in the winter and have developed good technique for handling difficult terrain
• I have learned to move quickly over difficult terrain and to stop where a rest is possible
• I have learned to place gear or make that clip from the correct stance or hold
• I have learned to look ahead and anticipate the movement, protection, difficulties and potential danger.
• I have learned to deal with adverse conditions and perilous situation and to be self-reliant

I don't always succeed at these things, but all of this experience matters.

Experience and conditioning count for a lot—I ran a 29.5 mile burro race last Sunday and finished with a guy who's 60 and half an hour behind a guy who's 63!

Sam, For me, at least, it's a race between improved technique and increased susceptibility to overuse injuries, if not actual loss of strength.

Sam Lightner, Jr. wrote:I just can't believe people are actually arguing that they get physically better as they age. You dont. You simply learn to live with it.

Amen brother...!

I am amazed by some of the arguement people are making here as well, but perhaps that's hyperbole.

Peter Beal believes that the agining component of the physical aspect of climbing hard is less important than other factors and that is only a peice of thepie, since there is the mental and emotional components besides. That's an arguement I can respect.

I gafaw at anyone, however that paints a picture of aging being imaginary.

Perhaps my perspective comes from my own somewhat unique experience. I never really trained. I was always more or less off the couch. I was a power climber with so-so footwork, but 12"+ forearms and huge grip strength. I drug myself up routes on fingertips. I still hate slopers. Over the years, all things being equal, it's harder and harder for me to do.

Skilled climbers might notice less. People without Arthritis might notice less (don't preach to me about my artritis and training, becuase it's genetic, and AGE RELATED, not related to crimps). people who train more and watch what they eat might notice less.

I think the real arguement is centered on how much it matters, and depending on you , your body, your aspirations, experience, and climbing style, there are different answers.

Layton Kor was a good climber in his day. So was Fred Becky. Both are struggling on 5.8 now. It's didn't magically happen at 70- it's a long slow curve. We should all be able to agree on that.

So is Matt S's article really all that bogus? Nah... his experience is just a little different than those who disagree. I happen to agree and we are more or less the same age. I'm feeling it too.

I think of the Saturday Night Live skit, one of those spoof commercials, where the actor is advertising a sure fire method of getting a date. He says, "It's simple, just lower your standards."
If high number grades are all that matters to a climber, then aging is bound to be a depressing experience and one might as well give up the sport to avoid the dismal frustration.
At one time I climbed high numbers, but these days I am content to climb at a much lower grade.
I am only fifty and though I realize that age will be an increasing factor in lessening my ability, I truly feel that, at present, it is the fact that I have so much less time to devote to climbing these days that contributes to my lessening ability.
When I look back on thirty-eight years of climbing it is not the high number grades that stand out in my memory, it is the myriad other facets of the sport that elicit my fondest memories.
I can recall no other climb that stands out more than doing Durrance Ridge on Symmetry Spire in The Tetons when I was seventeen years old.
That route is rated 5.6
When I run into an old friend who I haven't seen in years, they often ask if I am still climbing.
I always assure them that as long as I am abulatory I will always be climbing to some extent.
I truly had more fun pulling down on 5.7 when I was a young teenager than I did cranking 5.13 in my prime.
I'm looking forward to my next thirty-eight years of climbing.
Who knows? Perhaps senility with reinstill that youthful sense of adventure that I had so long ago.

I go to a 6 a.m. spinning class and the gal that teaches it is 85 years old.

She misses class sometimes if she is running a 10k race that weekend.

Sam Lightner, Jr. wrote:I just can't believe people are actually arguing that they get physically better as they age. You dont. You simply learn to live with it.

Indeed. Every organism that has ever lived has grown, flowered, declined and died. It's just reality. It happens at different points and at different rates to different people. Accept it, embrace it and enjoy what you have right now.

Larry Pedigo wrote:I was expressing admiration for those who push past social mores and other potential excuses (i.e. aches, pains, injuries, fear of becoming injured) to continue partaking in an activity they obviously love. I admire those who find a way to make it happen. That was my point.

Excellent! The second time.

I'm thinking the "Experts" on the shy side of 50 should just shut your traps and go climb rocks. The only "Decline" is in your minds.....

Sam Lightner, Jr. wrote:I just can't believe people are actually arguing that they get physically better as they age. You dont. You simply learn to live with it.

Sam speaks the truth!

Ditto!