Hard bouldering @ 40+... guys and gals who still crush, how do you do it?

My definition of an outlier relies on the following factors:

1. Extensive previous experience at high-end climbing meaning the climber already knows what's involved in training and performing at the level we are discussing. Very different from someone trying to break into the grade at 40+.

2. Employed in climbing industry meaning typically more generous policies and attitudes regarding flexible hours,vacation, travel etc that more mainstream companies most likely will not have. This could also imply any job that allows for flexible hours and pays very well to allow for travel, gear purchases etc., while maintaining a house, family, etc. In America in 2016 these are not that common.

3. No spouse. Negotiating time spent climbing and traveling with a spouse/significant other, especially a non-climber is a big deal. Numerous threads on MP and elsewhere speak to this. Divorce is endemic in high-end climbing and it's hardly a random coincidence.

4. No children. Children are the biggest time and money suck a 40+ climber will encounter hands down. A climber who is serious about big objectives will find this one of the biggest obstacles to overcome. The same issue applies to other relatives who may need assistance such as aging parents, which will certainly be on the radar post-45 years.

5. Ready access to high quality climbing areas and gyms. No matter how psyched you are for trying hard, if you don't have a good climbing locale immediately available, you will be working much harder to train and practice climbing.

6. Good genes. "Time breaks everyone down physically more or less equally." This is blatantly not the case, even if climbers take good care of themselves. Most will never have the physical makeup of Fred Nicole or Steve Hong or their longevity.

I think if you ask the average 40+ serious climber if he/she did not have to contend with these situations that they would climb harder, I'm confident they would say yes. Any one of these is a major advantage and if you look at the people well-known for climbing at a later age, they typically have several going for them. Remaining psyched goes only so far.

Yes the Anderson brothers are outliers, no question. I admire their ability to make their climbing work with daily life but as the disclaimer says, "your results may vary." My guess is that without the cooperation of at least one or two of the factors above, anyone's path to truly high-end (V12 and up, 5.14 and up) climbing is going to be very bumpy indeed.

My view is that climbing V12/13 or 5.14c at 40+ implies serious outlier status, yes, for sure. I could be wrong about this argument so I'm not stating this as fact. It is however based on over 20 years of steady observation and participation in one of the most driven climbing cultures in America. I have yet to hear about someone achieving at that level who doesn't have a number of those factors I listed and that includes the Andersons. I agree that the training regimen they have put together could be very effective but there is much more to climbing hard than training, something that is acknowledged in the book itself.

Lacking the factors I listed doesn't automatically eliminate potentially performing at that level. Motivation is still key. But the reality of climbing hard later in life is that it sucks time, energy and money at a time when all those assets are usually in short supply. I think it's productive to accurately understand the material advantages your role models may enjoy before trying to emulate them too closely. Without that understanding, any resulting frustration may undermine your ability to believe in and reach your goals.

I like how Horst puts it in his "Training for Climbing" books. He states that anyone of average physical well being can ultimately achieve 5.12 given enough training and perseverance. He has a theoretical graph that illustrates a 1 grade standard deviation from this. He even discusses the physical abnormalities of the outliers like Sharma. Unusually strong digits, etc.

His point is that 5.13 and above is the land of physical outliers. Anyone who disagrees is probably an outlier themselves or doesn't know what they are talking about.

Ray Lovestead wrote:I like how Horst puts it in his "Training for Climbing" books...

Well, the world of sport climbing has improved by 2 letter grades since his book came out, so at least you'll need to add 2 letter grades to his numbers. At the other extreme, this somewhat discredits his physical abnormality theory: when people w/ the same physical makeup are still improving.

It's a great question as to whether the average climbing ability in a population is a moving average. My guess is that it is getting less and less so. I may eat my words but I seriously doubt that real 5.13 will ever become what 5.12 is now. The very best are clearly stronger than the very best 20 years ago and they are better climbers thanks to so many more routes and of course gyms. But I am unconvinced that those advances will trickle down to a more general climbing population. Even today, 30 years after 5.14 came to the US, that grade is a very notable level of achievement attained by a minuscule percentage of the climbing population.

Pointing to how 5.11 was superhuman in the 1960s but is now an average warmup discounts how insular and hazardous climbing was back then. Cams and bolts killed off the specialness of 5.11 and 5.12 in a hurry and a modicum of physical training did the rest. No similar developments/changes are in store for sport climbing's future and in fact a lot of old school 5.14s are seen today as quite hard and rarely repeated. So I don't think Eric or anyone else will be claiming that 5.13 is accessible to the average climber, let alone 5.14. In my view the global average across the population is settling in at 5.11-5.12 for a dedicated but not particularly gifted climber.

reboot wrote: Well, the world of sport climbing has improved by 2 letter grades since his book came out, so at least you'll need to add 2 letter grades to his numbers. At the other extreme, this somewhat discredits his physical abnormality theory: when people w/ the same physical makeup are still improving.

i don't know if i necessarily agree with this. i would say the median climbing level has probably gone up a bit, but it is at the far (upper) end of the spectrum that has jumped quite a bit. this makes sense, as the sheer increase in number of climbers has naturally increased the number of folks at the 99.9th%, 99.99th%, etc.

i don't think this necessarily means that the potential for the average climber has gone up a couple letter grades. in my experience, both climbing and watching a lot of other folks train/climb, i would say horst's assessment of average climbing potential is probably pretty accurate. for example, think of all the folks who have put so much work into the training programs at BRC/etc that really haven't ever made it past the mid-11 to low-12 range. a lot of these folks, by appearance at least, would be considered by the majority of the population to be above-average athletes.

one thing that i think distorts our perception, on the front range at least, and boulder in particular - is the insane number of climbers that are way above average. sometimes we forget that this is the case. When i hear some of these folks talk about themselves as average, i always think of that famous bill bowerman quote (to steve prefontaine) in the movie without limits:

Your belief that you have no talent is the ultimate vanity.

Peter Beal wrote:...Cams and bolts killed off the specialness of 5.11 and 5.12 in a hurry and a modicum of physical training did the rest...

not to mention tactics and evolution in style/ethics.

This morning I was searching the web for training older climbers and came across this thread. I knew there were a bunch of us older climbers out there that want and are pullin' hard late into there years.

I am 45 currently going through my second mid-life crisis - CLIMBING!!!; about 5 years ago I went through my first crisis. Backing up a little more, I started climbing in '89 and climbed until my mid-thirties. I had children and stopped climbing - No Regrets! I became way out of shape, 60 pounds over my climbing weight. One day I freaked out and started running and that year signed up for the Leadville 100 Run. Finished a number of other mountain races and then one day my daughter asked if we could go climbing. It was awesome! I could not believe how much I missed it . . . I stopped running that day - literally. After 7+ years break without climbing, I was back. And that was 7 months ago.

Since then I have been training hard. The first few months I slowly transitioned and climbed maybe 3-4 days a week - easy. I was just focusing on base and the key was NO CRIMPERS. I stayed with pinches and my favorite, slopers. I developed a training routine and worked hard, strength and power. About a month ago I started working campus (no feet) workouts and now I am working hangboard.

Over the weekend, Denver Bouldering Club hosted the 3rd Annual Heart & Soul Charity Climbing Competition. This event was held to raise funds for the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. This year they added a Master's division for climbers 45+. I attended and had a blast! I registered as Adv level (V7-V9) and felt strong but did not have the stamina or experience to hold out for 3 hours pulling really hard. I completed a number of ADV problems and one Open problem (V10+). I felt I could have pulled even harder, but after 2 hours of intense climbing, I was drained for the last hour. Competition climbing is a whole other beast.

Many have mentioned time constraints, but I feel that gym training particularly for bouldering works the best for my schedule. I can train whenever and also at night after the kids go to bed. I can easily fit 10+ hours a week of intense training. Climbing outside even in the Denver area can take the entire day, more so because of the driving. And since I started climbing in May, I have only found time to get outside twice.

So after the competition, I decided I was going to compete in the USA Climbing ABS Masters Division comp in the fall. It gives me goals, periodization training, and when I do have time to get outside, I will be strong enough to have fun.

Last night, I was pumped and created two Facebook groups. Climbing Masters, which will be more for general training and support of older 45+ climbers. Colorado Climbing Masters, which will be more specific for events, meetups, and competitions here in Colorado.

facebook.com/groups/Climbin…
facebook.com/groups/Colorad…

Keep Pullin’ Hard!!!

slim wrote:for example, think of all the folks who have put so much work into the training programs at BRC/etc that really haven't ever made it past the mid-11 to low-12 range.

I think you are sorely mistaken here. People have made a lot more strides than you have given them credits for: your favorite no-talent runner has managed to free El Cap, for example. And one of the older guys in the program has broken the 5.13 barrier. Even our own MD here has improved at an age of rapid decline in almost any other sports.

slim wrote:A lot of these folks, by appearance at least, would be considered by the majority of the population to be above-average athletes.

You think so? I wonder how many climbers (those that started after adolescence), were considered above-average athletically when they were young. I know I wasn't (that's a fact, maybe not the whole story), and I definitely didn't get into climbing b/c I thought I'd be particularly good at it.

SKA I joined up! I'll be interested to see what pops up on FB

Reboot, a sample based on Boulder CO is, well, a bit skewed? :)

Peter Beal wrote:Reboot, a sample based on Boulder CO is, well, a bit skewed? :)

It definitely is, but I doubt it's so much genetically skewed than the environment, not when people move here (for other reasons) and their climbing start to change.

There is a saying in Boulder, "You are always number 2 in Boulder"

I was trying to be more competitive as a 5K runner (40-50 age group), but the closer I got to Boulder the less competitive I was. Come on 50 year olds who can run a sub 15 minute 5K??? Ridiculous! But also humbling . . .

Yeah, Boulder is a special place. I remember one year that I trained pretty hard on the cyclocross bike. I got some placings in local races, and then I went out East and was relatively competitive. When I did a couple of races in Boulder, I struggled to stay on the same lap. The guy who won those races, 35+ Master Cat. 3, ended up as the world champion for his Masters age group. (and he was a Cat 3!) I'm sure that this is the case for most outdoor sports in Boulder.

SKA wrote:Come on 50 year olds who can run a sub 15 minute 5K??? Ridiculous! But also humbling . . .

That's pretty sick. I (used to be) somewhat fast given relatively little training. I felt I ran pretty quick when doing a a 16:53 5K in my late 20s. But 2 whole minutes faster over 2 decades later?! Hard core.

reboot wrote: I think you are sorely mistaken here. People have made a lot more strides than you have given them credits for: your favorite no-talent runner has managed to free El Cap, for example. And one of the older guys in the program has broken the 5.13 barrier. Even our own MD here has improved at an age of rapid decline in almost any other sports. You think so? I wonder how many climbers (those that started after adolescence), were considered above-average athletically when they were young. I know I wasn't (that's a fact, maybe not the whole story), and I definitely didn't get into climbing b/c I thought I'd be particularly good at it.

ha ha, i never said running man had no talent - he has plenty of talent and a lot of drive. give him my congrats on freeing el cap. that is a great accomplishment and i know he must have busted his ass to do it. there are obviously a few people who have done well with that program, but i have seen a bunch of them just basically tread water. climbing hard is hard. i always say this to people, but i think 99% of them don't know what i mean...

now, i am going to have to call you ridiculous for not admitting you are a freak of nature. don't make me post that photo of you doing the ring finger one pad mono planking! FREAK! (i mean that in a good way). i would definitely list you in the freak level athlete category - people (probably including yourself) just didn't realize it when you were younger.

I really like that quote from the Prefontaine movie "Your belief that you have no talent is the ultimate vanity."

I hate when people do the "oh its average for people to be able to run a 4minute mile. You just have to try harder." BS. People who claim 'anyone can do it' are simply insulting the other 99.999% of the population who aren't and can't.

"What? You can't climb 5.12? What are you some kind of wimp? You and your kind disgust me."

reboot wrote: I wonder how many climbers (those that started after adolescence), were considered above-average athletically when they were young. I know I wasn't (that's a fact, maybe not the whole story), and I definitely didn't get into climbing b/c I thought I'd be particularly good at it.

Well, I did not start climbing until college. Other than summer soccer, I just played Dungeons And Dragons to put it in perspective. With that said, I grew up in the woods hiking the trails and cross county skied almost every weekend in the winter. Also my father built me a tree house and the only access was to climb a very tall rope.

I never trained hard, but ran track and cross county in middle school through high school. I am very competitive and I wanted to get on the varsity track team, I ran a 4:40 mile at tryouts in 10th grade. Also, in elementary school I had the school record for climbing the rope without feet. But I was considered a non-athletic computer geek. When I started climbing, it was so natural and got really strong fast. And I was good at problem solving. I guess the point is, I agree, it is not the whole story.

SKA

slim wrote: there are obviously a few people who have done well with that program, but i have seen a bunch of them just basically tread water. climbing hard is hard. i always say this to people, but i think 99% of them don't know what i mean...

Ray Lovestead wrote:People who claim 'anyone can do it' are simply insulting the other 99.999% of the population who aren't and can't."

I think it's equally insulting for the 99% to say the ones climbing hard purely did it on talent. Fact is, the successful in the program were also the more driven ones, and their weaknesses better tailored to the program (along w/ whatever else they did on the side: they didn't just take the cookie cutter program & ran w/ it), their personalities fit a group training setting, and probably had less distractions from life, etc, etc.

I think it wouldn't have insulted anyone to say the ones succeeded are more motivated & prioritized climbing. And yes, on average, they do have more talent (not always physical, as SKA has alluded to). But I bet for almost everyone, you can find a person that has succeeded more on less talent.

I am age 62 and have been bouldering for a very, very long time. I am still climbing pretty much whatever I want to. Yes, I have been lucky in the injury department. My secret has been this: do not stop training or climbing...ever. That becomes more difficult as you age, but if you love it enough, you can do it, too.

reboot wrote: I think it's equally insulting for the 99% to say the ones climbing hard purely did it on talent. Fact is, the successful in the program were also the more driven ones, and their weaknesses better tailored to the program (along w/ whatever else they did on the side: they didn't just take the cookie cutter program & ran w/ it), their personalities fit a group training setting, and probably had less distractions from life, etc, etc. ...

i don't think most people who climb hard do so purely on talent, although i do think there are a small few who are able to do so. i definitely agree that there are many facets to it, and the higher a person rates in as many facets as possible will always be helpful.

when i say that 99% of people don't really understand what i mean when i say "climbing hard is hard", is that without ever really working hard at something it is really difficult to understand what is required to keep improving. you hear a lot folks say "yeah, if i applied myself i could do it too". "if i started training i could easily do it...". etc. not necessarily.... this is only part of the battle. it takes a lot of effort, particularly the older you get, to make everything (work/family/life/injuries/etc) line up to be successful. if a person is too lazy to bother with training, what makes them think they will be able to get the rest of the job done? these other things are often the hardest part.