Grades, information-gathering, and leading near your limit as a short/tall/non-"average" climber

Lena,

Thank you for clarifying what you meant. This is what I typically think of as a "high step" (I always think of slab):

I still wonder about the heel hook though. In this link to Mani the Monkey discussing heel hooks, if it were me in that video (all else being equal), my butt would be higher up in order to get my foot into a heel hook on the same hold, so I think I'd need less strength to lever up. I just wonder if heel hooks are on average easier for me than a taller person.
Interesting to hear your experience with kneebars. That story also shows how useful it can be to climb with different partners!

Here is a very simple way of looking at this issue. Nobody is saying that exceptionally short climbers cannot climb as hard as very tall climbers. However, tall climber will never come across a route that is impossible because they are “too tall.”  If you can reach the holds, you can do the route. you just may need to get stronger/more flexible/etc.  A short climber on the other hand will come across the ocasional route that will be impossible due to a very long move without a reasonable workaround. “Dogleg” and “Take That Katie Brown” were mentioned earlier as good examples. Although these go at quite pedestrian 12a and 13b, nobody could come up with a single send of these routes by anyone under 5’6,” which isn’t really even THAT short.

John Byrnes wrote:
Way back at the beginning of this thread I gave the exact same advice that Neely Quinn gave in her article: get stronger, improve technique and change your attitude.   Did L & E listen?  No.  They don't want advice, they just want to whine about how they can't reach the same holds a tall person can.  Did they acknowledge that small people have other advantages over tall people, such as weight and finger size?  No, they just focused on reach and how hard (boo hoo!) climbing is for them so we should change the grading system.    So they are whining, not looking for advice.

I'm assuming that I'm "E." Not sure why you've switched to using initials.

I did acknowledge that there are routes that are easier for smaller people. Feel free to reread my original post if you want to. You seem determined to continue to mischaracterize posts that disagree with you, so I'm not going to bother to go back and quote from my OP yet again.

It is interesting that you say "change the grading system." All I've suggested is that people who fall outside of average male height/hand size should contribute consensus grade votes that match their experience on the rock--whether that is a vote above, below, or at the current consensus.If your gripe is with the consensus grade system itself, fine, but that's a system that already exists.

Etha, I haven't read all the posts in this thread. So I may have missed one where "someone" suggested that the grading system should be changed to take into account the average climber height being shorter than it used to be. I saw that claim by John, and I figured someone had said that.

If the actual remark was that people should vote to grade climbs according to their experience of the climb, then that's completely uncontroversial.

Well yeah, any registered person can cast their vote, and they might trollishly do so without even ever having actually climbed the route. That's a problem with consensus grading. The other problem with consensus grading is that it might lead to grade inflation. The concern would be that a casual/gym climber will visit an area, and mark all the grades for routes +.2 higher because they're not used to climbing in that area or outdoors. Well, I bet that most climbers, if they bother to vote at all, vote for the grade that was specified when the route was added to MP. "It says 5.10, so I guess it's a 5.10."

Usually, I don't give a grade on MP until I've climbed a few routes in the area, so I get a feel for the usual difficulty of a typical route at a specific grade at that crag. Grades at Rumney are very different from grades at Whitehorse.

As an example, I recently climbed Model Citizen. It seemed pretty difficult to me for a Rumney 5.6, despite the fact that numerous commenters seem to think it was a romp. I didn't fall, but I felt like it was harder than 6, so I graded it as a 7. If I climb it again, I might feel differently and change my vote. I got my one vote and I used it. I can't imagine why anyone would suggest that I have to choose a grade that doesn't match my experience.

Since I am short, I will sometimes leave a comment on the route to that effect, saying something like "this seemed reach-y to me as a 5'0" climber", to help other short climbers. For example, Tree Keys seems like it's harder than 5.6 for me, specifically because I'm short. YMMV. Or maybe I just don't know what a 5.6 should feel like at Humphrey's. In any case, I graded it as 5.7, cause that's what it felt like to me.

Etha Williams wrote:

I'm assuming that I'm "E." Not sure why you've switched to using initials.

I did acknowledge that there are routes that are easier for smaller people. Feel free to reread my original post if you want to. You seem determined to continue to mischaracterize posts that disagree with you, so I'm not going to bother to go back and quote from my OP yet again.

It is interesting that you say "change the grading system." All I've suggested is that people who fall outside of average male height/hand size should contribute consensus grade votes that match their experience on the rock--whether that is a vote above, below, or at the current consensus.If your gripe is with the consensus grade system itself, fine, but that's a system that already exists.

It probably won't be doing anyone a service if a bunch of short people go rate Dogleg as 5.16a.

Lynn Hill is only 5'2"

Randy Von Zee wrote:

It probably won't be doing anyone a service if a bunch of short people go rate Dogleg as 5.16a.

I mean, if there are a bunch of short climbers sending 16a, then more power to them; I don't think they need to be told how they should vote. Otherwise, I think most (albeit not all) people adhere to the idea that you don't vote on a grade until you've sent, so I doubt you'd be seeing a lot of these grades.  

OTOH, why should Mike Doyle's (5'5'') assessment of Dogleg as mid-13 be considered a less useful piece of input than that of someone who is 5'8''? Both are the same difference from average US height. Likewise, why should the experience of someone who is 5'1'' or has #1-sized hands be considered less relevant than that of someone who is 6'0'' or has #2 sized hands?

I could equally say "It probably won't be doing anyone a service if a bunch of people with big meaty hands go rate Coyne's Crack 11+/12-" or "It probably won't be doing anyone a service if a bunch of tall people go rate Erect Direction 10c" (routes that are known for being easier for people with small hands and short stature, respectively). Except, those are the existing consensus grades.

Honestly I'm not sure that consensus grading will ever be shifted by short women, since short women are not the majority of people who are rating climbs on MP. From the standpoint of sheer population count, grading is dominated by men of above average height relative to women. Democracy is not always fair to minorities.

I think probably the most helpful thing as far as beta goes is for short people to leave comments on MP. The grading is good to see too, so that shorter climbers can look at each other's ratings and use it for calibration, even if it doesn't shift the overall MP grade.

Of course, it's also super great for the people who bolt routes to be sensitive to safety for a variety of heights and for people who write guidebooks to throw in a sentence about routes or crags that are significantly harder for the short. For example, Chris McNamara's 2004 Supertopo guidebook for South Lake Tahoe says for Phantom Spires "the climbs are steep and the knobs are generally huge, positive, and spaced out (it's good to be tall)." For Lover's Leap, he warns you that the face is covered in dikes that are 3-10 feet apart and "Most face climbs involve reaches and mantels between dikes. The distance between dikes, not the hold size, determine route difficulty. Face climbs at Lover's Leap favor tall climbers, as a 5.10 move may be 5.9 for someone taller than 6'0", and 5.11 for someone shorter than 5'5". Thank you, Chris McNamara.

dragons wrote: Etha, I haven't read all the posts in this thread. So I may have missed one where "someone" suggested that the grading system should be changed to take into account the average climber height being shorter than it used to be. I saw that claim by John, and I figured someone had said that.

If the actual remark was that people should vote to grade climbs according to their experience of the climb, then that's completely uncontroversial.

Well yeah, any registered person can cast their vote, and they might trollishly do so without even ever having actually climbed the route. That's a problem with consensus grading. The other problem with consensus grading is that it might lead to grade inflation. The concern would be that a casual/gym climber will visit an area, and mark all the grades for routes +.2 higher because they're not used to climbing in that area or outdoors. Well, I bet that most climbers, if they bother to vote at all, vote for the grade that was specified when the route was added to MP. "It says 5.10, so I guess it's a 5.10."

Usually, I don't give a grade on MP until I've climbed a few routes in the area, so I get a feel for the usual difficulty of a typical route at a specific grade at that crag. Grades at Rumney are very different from grades at Whitehorse.

As an example, I recently climbed Model Citizen. It seemed pretty difficult to me for a Rumney 5.6, despite the fact that numerous commenters seem to think it was a romp. I didn't fall, but I felt like it was harder than 6, so I graded it as a 7. If I climb it again, I might feel differently and change my vote. I got my one vote and I used it. I can't imagine why anyone would suggest that I have to choose a grade that doesn't match my experience.

Since I am short, I will sometimes leave a comment on the route to that effect, saying something like "this seemed reach-y to me as a 5'0" climber", to help other short climbers. For example, Tree Keys seems like it's harder than 5.6 for me, specifically because I'm short. YMMV. Or maybe I just don't know what a 5.6 should feel like at Humphrey's. In any case, I graded it as 5.7, cause that's what it felt like to me.

Yeah, I generally will not vote on consensus grade unless I'm fairly familiar with the area and feel I've sent it with reasonably good style. If I sent but sort of muddled through the crux with sub-optimal beta, I'll usually hold off on grading until I can dial it in and see if there's an easier/more efficient way I could have climbed it.

What I find interesting is that on routes with well-attested hand-size- or reach-dependent grades, overwhelmingly the votes on here center around the grade for someone around average male height and #2-#3 hands. E.g.: Coyne Crack (easier with smaller hands), Incredible Hand Crack (harder with smaller hands), Erect Direction (easier if short), or Raubenheimer Special (harder if short). I see no compelling reason that this should be the case.

Semi-relatedly, in one of your earlier posts you mentioned:

I noticed that Etha said she used to look at route comments on MP to see if anyone short had beta for her. But it wasn't useful for her. 

The reason I've stopped finding this a useful way to approach routes is that the data is usually very limited--it is frequently one person mentioning what felt like a height-dependent move, and is sometimes second-hand (e.g.: "my 5'2'' girlfriend struggled at the roof"). For me, I've found that this often leads me to just psych myself out, constantly be waiting for the height-dependent move to come up, perceive reach problems where they aren't necessarily there, etc. For this reason, I would find it useful to have more data--e.g. in the form of consensus grade votes--, although obviously this is tricky since it can't avoid the shortcomings (no pun intended!) of the consensus grade system itself.

As an example, there are a couple comments suggesting that the roof crux on Coyote Rain (5.6) at Longstack Precipice is height-dependent. To me, the crux didn't feel harder than 5.6. However, it definitely felt a bit scarier because I couldn't see the hold above the roof I was going for until I actually pulled the move, and I had to protect mid-crux (or else be willing to do the crux moves protected by two small cams below the roof extended with double runners). By contrast, a taller climber can see, and protect, above the roof from a stance before pulling the crux. I suspect this is where the height-dependent comments were coming from. Ultimately, I was glad that I'd decided to go for the onsight despite the comments.

(Or, maybe I have a skewed idea of what a 5.6 roof should feel like and it actually is harder than grade for the short!)

Etha Williams wrote: What I find interesting is that on routes with well-attested hand-size- or reach-dependent grades, overwhelmingly the votes on here center around the grade for someone around average male height and #2-#3 hands. E.g.: Coyne Crack (easier with smaller hands), Incredible Hand Crack (harder with smaller hands), Erect Direction (easier if short), or Raubenheimer Special (harder if short). I see no compelling reason that this should be the case.

I suspect is partially a matter of expectation / self-fulfilling prophecy (as you've mentioned before I think, people mostly talk themselves into confirming the grade that is suggested to them from past history, which was mostly written by males of average or above average height) and partially a matter of statistics, i.e. that a majority of people grading climbs on MP are average-height males with #2-#3 hands. 

Aweffwef Fewfae wrote: personally, most of the time i see short climbers complain is due to their lack of strength. i see a lot of climbers try to find a low effort 'solution' rather than simply pulling harder and training relevant skills. suppose a reachy hold - rather than training the shoulders to do reachy moves (which is hard work), most climbers try to adjust their feet so that the hold is within their center of gravity; this instead prevents long term progress. training an iron cross/wide pullup will serve you infinitely better regardless of grade because it increases the available holds to you. the same is true of lockoff and campus ladders - they're skills that need to be cultivated over years and solve most of the reach problems. if you can actually do an iron cross and you have a 147 campus and you can lock of at 90 45 10 with either arm then you actually have a right to complain. until then, it's simply laziness. this is why l sits, front levers, v ups and flexibility training are so important - it is the difference why even short pros never struggle on any supposedly 'reachy' move.

The point about greater strength opening up more movement possibilities is an interesting one. You often hear the line that until you're climbing 5.12/V5 there's no need to train strength, because technique is your limiting factor. I sometimes wonder how generally applicable this is, especially for women who not only tend to be shorter but tend to come into climbing with less of the pulling strength you're describing.

That said, if the strength trained by 1-4-7 campusing and iron crosses is necessary for a shorter climber to send a given V3, I think it would be fair to say that the movement on that problem isn't V3 movement for that climber. This isn't meant as a complaint (although everyone finds it cathartic to complain from time to time!), but as an indication that if a climber encounters this, maybe she should take it as a cue that this might not be the right project for her at this point in her climbing.

This type of variance in consensus grade vs the moves you're actually pulling was the point of my OP--not the question of whether with enough training a short climber will eventually be able to do a challenging move, or whether this variance more often makes the climb easier or harder for the shorter climber.

Aweffwef Fewfae wrote: 
being shorter is better if you climb harder. while being taller is advantageous in the beginning up to v6, it really disappears around the intermediate grades. this is because the big moves force everyone to go big, there will be barn doors and cut feet and tall people will start to struggle with the added weight. at the advanced levels, shorter is better. ondra is a rarity due to his neck length. once everyone is flying to micro crimps, it becomes obvious. the shorter levers of shorter fingers have better torque. lower body weight is better.

The vast majority of recreational climbers, especially women, do not boulder v6. This is not "in the beginning" for most of us.

personally, most of the time i see short climbers complain is due to their lack of strength. i see a lot of climbers try to find a low effort 'solution' rather than simply pulling harder and training relevant skills. suppose a reachy hold - rather than training the shoulders to do reachy moves (which is hard work), most climbers try to adjust their feet so that the hold is within their center of gravity; this instead prevents long term progress. training an iron cross/wide pullup will serve you infinitely better regardless of grade because it increases the available holds to you. the same is true of lockoff and campus ladders - they're skills that need to be cultivated over years and solve most of the reach problems. if you can actually do an iron cross and you have a 147 campus and you can lock of at 90 45 10 with either arm then you actually have a right to complain. until then, it's simply laziness. this is why l sits, front levers, v ups and flexibility training are so important - it is the difference why even short pros never struggle on any supposedly 'reachy' move.

The vast majority of climbers are not pros. The vast majority of recreational climbers do not train like this. Most people with full-time jobs or full-time school schedules are grateful to find the time to climb a few times a week, let alone train front levers and iron crosses. If training like a pro is required for short climbers to have the same experience climbing as an untrained but tall recreational climber, that just proves the OP's original point. 

Etha Williams wrote:

Yeah, I generally will not vote on consensus grade unless I'm fairly familiar with the area and feel I've sent it with reasonably good style. If I sent but sort of muddled through the crux with sub-optimal beta, I'll usually hold off on grading until I can dial it in and see if there's an easier/more efficient way I could have climbed it.

This is very principled of you. I will grade a route if I finish it   However, it occurs to me that I have an inherent bias going on. I tend to grade a route at MP if I disagree with the consensus. If I agree, I'm less likely to bother. This means I tend to vote to push away the consensus from the norm. I wonder what others do.

What I find interesting is that on routes with well-attested hand-size- or reach-dependent grades, overwhelmingly the votes on here center around the grade for someone around average male height and #2-#3 hands. E.g.: Coyne Crack (easier with smaller hands), Incredible Hand Crack (harder with smaller hands), Erect Direction (easier if short), or Raubenheimer Special (harder if short). I see no compelling reason that this should be the case.

Okay, but if we just know the grades are mostly tailored to your average male with average hands, doesn't that just help in keeping the grade standardized? Since I'm non-standard, I always look for beta that might help, or look for things that might hinder me that I should be aware of.

Let's talk about Raubenheimer Special, a route I have climbed a few times, but I suspect I will never ever lead due to height issues. The first time I climbed it, on TR, I was able to get it clean. It has been a while, but my journal helps. It says there were two cruxes. Getting off the ground was extremely difficult (I fell several times), but after a few tries, I was able to make it work. In contrast, my taller bf never fell while getting off the ground, and this was because he could reach holds that I couldn't. The next crux for me is at a very tall, large block - the top is just out of reach. There's an extremely thin crack running down the face of the block that I could get my pinky finger in and pull myself up with. I was able to get up clean with that, eventually. However, I'd scare the crap out of myself trying to lead that. It may be that you can put a peenut or something really small in there. It would not be a good fall if you didn't get it clean; I seem to recall ledges involved.

You can check out the comment section on Raubenheimer Special. When I climbed it, I saw an excellent 5'2" climber was able to lead it. I think I'd have to dyno to do what she did (go up the face to get my hand in a horizontal). I tried using the beta in the route description - the small crimp at the left (?) was not helpful.

So yeah, it appears to me that my small height and small hands made this climb doable on top rope. I climbed the crux as a crack climb using one pinky finger. Can we categorize this climb as easier for small people because I could do it this way? What grade should I give this climb? Do tall people ever pull themselves up using a single pinky finger? I wish it were possible to have this discussion without trolling involved.

In contrast, I can climb "Ken's Crack" (5.7+) clean on TR. It's a muscle-y climb for me, but there's no short-person crux, and I'm pretty sure I'll be able to lead this, eventually.
 

The reason I've stopped finding this a useful way to approach routes is that the data is usually very limited--it is frequently one person mentioning what felt like a height-dependent move, and is sometimes second-hand (e.g.: "my 5'2'' girlfriend struggled at the roof"). For me, I've found that this often leads me to just psych myself out, constantly be waiting for the height-dependent move to come up, perceive reach problems where they aren't necessarily there, etc. For this reason, I would find it useful to have more data--e.g. in the form of consensus grade votes--, although obviously this is tricky since it can't avoid the shortcomings (no pun intended!) of the consensus grade system itself.

When I'm "onsight" leading a route, I try to get all the beta I can get (which maybe doesn't make it onsight, whatever). I suppose this could be psyching me out, but I'd rather just have the info as a warning for something to look for, and manage my fears, because I just don't want to be injured. The one person I esp pay attention to is gblauer - she is a way more skilled and experienced climber than me, and if she has trouble with a route (at 5'2"), then I don't see how I wouldn't.

TBH I don't really see the point in a consensus grade voting for short people or tall people. I mean, less experienced climbers are going to grade a climb differently from someone who is more experienced. Even the consensus at MP is kind of rough, +/-.2 I'd say. What I prefer is more specific beta from short people. I try to leave specific comments if I have a difficulty and overcome it (or not), like "As a 5'0" climber, I had to step on a tiny chip to get to the bomber jug at the crux". When I read a comment like that, I find it very helpful. I usually don't pay attention to comments unless they are made by the short person. A tall person saying something vague like "my short partner had trouble" is not useful. It doesn't say what the experience level of the partner was so that information is not useful.

As an example, there are a couple comments suggesting that the roof crux on Coyote Rain (5.6) at Longstack Precipice is height-dependent. To me, the crux didn't feel harder than 5.6. However, it definitely felt a bit scarier because I couldn't see the hold above the roof I was going for until I actually pulled the move, and I had to protect mid-crux (or else be willing to do the crux moves protected by two small cams below the roof extended with double runners). By contrast, a taller climber can see, and protect, above the roof from a stance before pulling the crux. I suspect this is where the height-dependent comments were coming from. Ultimately, I was glad that I'd decided to go for the onsight despite the comments.

Super beta, thanks! We've been planning to get to Longstack, but we got rained out last time we tried.

See, this kind of beta is what I want to see in the comments. I see that you did leave a comment on the route. I guess you didn't want to divulge as much info there for fear of spoiling it for people, but really no one has to read the comments if they don't want beta. I dislike protecting mid-crux; I get scared that I'm going to fall because I'm not fast enough at putting in pro before I might fall. I almost never protect mid-crux unless I can move up, fiddle, and then retreat safely to a better stance. Now that I see your beta, I'd probably still try to lead this, but I'd be looking for options to make sure I could retreat at the crux.

BTW the slab route Bison Burger at Rumney sounds similar to Coyote Rain, in that it has a hidden hold which you won't see until you're mid crux - at least as a short person, that was my experience. You can step up, check it out, and back down. Last time I was there, I made the mistake of just going for it without the inspection because I'd done it clean before. I flubbed the move, and fell. It was the scariest fall I ever took, but I survived uninjured.

L Kap wrote: The vast majority of recreational climbers, especially women, do not boulder v6. This is not "in the beginning" for most of us.

The vast majority of climbers are not pros. The vast majority of recreational climbers do not train like this. 

How you frame the difficulty of the route in your mind is so so key to success it's unbelievable.

OP, be cautious about the attitude of this post. If you think that v6 (or 12a or 10c or whatever grade) is hard, it will be hard. If you think it will be a challenge but do-able for you, you are much more likely to achieve it. There are many, many (short) women I see absolutely crushing v6 at the gym and on the boulders (and i don't see them on the campus board). I would describe all of them as recreational climbers (not including puccio haha). Performance oriented? For sure, but recreational yes.

Our different attitudes and expectations are created by our own experiences but also by the attitudes of the people we choose to spend time with. If you surround yourself with partners who don't focus on the grade just on the climb, or those who don't feel limited to what they are currently capable of doing, you will have an easier time improving. If you surround yourself with people who engage in self-limiting mental talk you will self-limit. If you surround yourself with people who climb 5.12 / 5.13 where 5.11 is the warm up, then 5.11 will become your warm up. We are the average of the 10 people we spend the most time with.

So maybe it would be helpful to climb with some stronger/more psyched people? Strong people will be psyched to climb with you if you a) are psyched and try hard b) are a good belayer c) are not looking for free guiding, i.e., you climb your own routes and don't expect anyone to hang/retrieve your draws.

Last bit of mental/tactical advice, be patient with yourself. Don't try to skip the process of becoming better. If 'beginner' routes (ie 5.11 and under) feel challenging, then maybe there are some movement skills and mental tactics that would be beneficial to work on until they feel smooth. Dynos are a skill. Using tiny feet is a skill. Using small crimps is a skill. Using slopers is definitely a skill.

Sorry if calling 5.11 a beginner grade sounds elitist, it is just a mental tactic that I use to make it feel easier for myself because I am so tall and heavy that it is hard for me ;) . And for most of the men and women, short and tall that I climb with, 5.11 is easy. But you are on your own journey with respect to your climbing performance. Learning to climb well is a craft with many facets and takes years of practice to approach mastery. So above all else be patient with yourself.

All that said if you are not performance oriented and just want to have fun on the rock (as L Kap sounds like she is based on her other posts) more power to you and that is awesome! I used to climb with an older fellow (still in his prime physically) who had never trad climbed harder than 5.8 or 5.9. Performance climbing just wasn't his thing and he didn't like to try hard. He had stayed at that level for 20 years of climbing and had a great time doing long moderates and alpine routes. He was fine with that and it meant he was a great partner for certain types of climbing days.

PS did you get back on millenium falcon?

Lena chita wrote:

Fine, all fine.  But being an analytical person, I am trying to quantify what I believe to be the difference. And for that, I’m looking to find specific examples of routes that feel much different than their consensus grade for tall people who HAVE sent them, because I have such examples for shorter people. 

"Quantifying" will be difficult, IMO, because of the subjectivity and varying skill-sets of the climbers.  It's "that feel much different" part, ya know?   Feel is the verb, so how do you quantify it?

The reasons I’m picking higher grade for this comparison isn’t because the same thing couldn’t happen at lower grade. It does. But I think going with a 11+/12- climb, and a judgement made by someone who routinely climbs 13+/14- eliminates some variables:

I agree, which is why I discount certain people's contention (who only climb 8, 9 & 10 on TR) that tall people have this undeniable advantage.

John Byrnes wrote:

I agree, which is why I discount certain people's contention (who only climb 8, 9 & 10 on TR) that tall people have this undeniable advantage.

As a tall, fairly well traveled climber, I think being tall actually does help to climb 8, 9, 10. I think the advantages are often out weighed (pun intended!) by the costs when the route overhangs, which these folks have maybe never experienced.

They got little baby legs and they stand so low, you got to pick em up just to say hello. Short people got nobody to love. Short people got no reason to live. 

Sorry if this was posted 13 pages ago

John Byrnes wrote:

I discount certain people's contention (who only climb 8, 9 & 10 on TR) that tall people have this undeniable advantage.

I don't know who you're describing there, but I've lost count of all the people whose opinions you discount, including every woman on this thread, Katie Brown, Hazel Findlay, Neely Quinn, Tom Randall and Ollie Tor, and apparently Chris McNamara.

Eric Chabot wrote:

How you frame the difficulty of the route in your mind is so so key to success it's unbelievable.

OP, be cautious about the attitude of this post. If you think that v6 (or 12a or 10c or whatever grade) is hard, it will be hard. If you think it will be a challenge but do-able for you, you are much more likely to achieve it. There are many, many (short) women I see absolutely crushing v6 at the gym and on the boulders (and i don't see them on the campus board). I would describe all of them as recreational climbers (not including puccio haha). Performance oriented? For sure, but recreational yes.

Our different attitudes and expectations are created by our own experiences but also by the attitudes of the people we choose to spend time with. If you surround yourself with partners who don't focus on the grade just on the climb, or those who don't feel limited to what they are currently capable of doing, you will have an easier time improving. If you surround yourself with people who engage in self-limiting mental talk you will self-limit. If you surround yourself with people who climb 5.12 / 5.13 where 5.11 is the warm up, then 5.11 will become your warm up. We are the average of the 10 people we spend the most time with.

So maybe it would be helpful to climb with some stronger/more psyched people? Strong people will be psyched to climb with you if you a) are psyched and try hard b) are a good belayer c) are not looking for free guiding, i.e., you climb your own routes and don't expect anyone to hang/retrieve your draws.

Last bit of mental/tactical advice, be patient with yourself. Don't try to skip the process of becoming better. If 'beginner' routes (ie 5.11 and under) feel challenging, then maybe there are some movement skills and mental tactics that would be beneficial to work on until they feel smooth. Dynos are a skill. Using tiny feet is a skill. Using small crimps is a skill. Using slopers is definitely a skill.

Sorry if calling 5.11 a beginner grade sounds elitist, it is just a mental tactic that I use to make it feel easier for myself because I am so tall and heavy that it is hard for me ;) . And for most of the men and women, short and tall that I climb with, 5.11 is easy. But you are on your own journey with respect to your climbing performance. Learning to climb well is a craft with many facets and takes years of practice to approach mastery. So above all else be patient with yourself.

All that said if you are not performance oriented and just want to have fun on the rock (as L Kap sounds like she is based on her other posts) more power to you and that is awesome! I used to climb with an older fellow (still in his prime physically) who had never trad climbed harder than 5.8 or 5.9. Performance climbing just wasn't his thing and he didn't like to try hard. He had stayed at that level for 20 years of climbing and had a great time doing long moderates and alpine routes. He was fine with that and it meant he was a great partner for certain types of climbing days.

PS did you get back on millenium falcon?

Hi Eric, I just want to note that my post was about a numerical reality - that the vast majority of climbers, and especially women, do not climb over v6, which is hard 5.12 for roped climbers. It does not make a person "lazy" if they are not working the v7s / 5.13s by training iron crosses and front levers. I climb at a gym in Boulder 2-3x / week and try to get outside at least 2-3x / month and have been climbing since 2002. I think I can count on one hand the number of women I've seen in person climbing 5.13 in a non-comp setting and they are mostly pros - Lynn Hill, Robin Erbesfield-Raboutou, and Sasha Digiulian come to mind. And even they aren't hitting the 5.13s at every session. If the OP or anyone else gets satisfaction from trying hard / pushing their physical limits, that's cool. What's not cool is tall men implying that the only reason short women aren't all Ashimas is that they are lazy self-limiting whiners. Which is not what you did, but is what I was reacting to.