Anyone can climb V10/5.14-

Lena chitawrote:So there is no point in trying to pretend that a statement, such as heard on Power Company podcast, is aiming for any sort of statistical accuracy. It isn’t. It simply means that if you walk into a random gym and randomly point at someone, you can be pretty much guaranteed that a statement “this person doesn’t climb nearly as hard as their genetics/biology allows” would be correct.

+1 here.    It's true, but look at Beth Rodden, for some people climbing at your genetic/physical limit means serious injuries and lifetime of pain.    The happiest old fogies I have climbed with who can climb hard because they have avoided much of those injuries over the decades.   It's a super fine line with no clear boundary, so it is prudent for most people to tread carefully.

Yabo once said to me that he had MAJOR respect for a person that held a job down & raised a family & could climb 5.10, & zero respect for full time climbers that were not at the cutting edge unless they didn't care & were in it for the fun of it. 

Tomily mawrote: So the real question is what separates V11/5.14- climbers from V12/5.14 climbers?
You can apply this line of thinking to anything: nunchucks, cage fighting, or computer jacking skills. But we’re all just too busy playing patty cake when we could be out there making some sweet moolah. We’d rather spin the Rolodex of excuses than cut out sugar and Netflix binge nights.
A line from Flannery O’Connor comes to my mind, If you’re so smart, how come you ain’t rich?

I had to like this just for the O'Connor reference. Just read that story the other day!

I think the idea presented is that getting someone to V10 or 5.14a might be reasonable if they were given unlimited funds, quit their job to just train, and had a skilled coach who could help them avoid injury and identify their weaknesses. Also restrict their diet to whatever it is Olympic gymnasts eat, no cheating, ever. I'd bet if you took a totally untrained 20-year-old off the street and put them through this regime for a decade they'd have a 50% chance of hitting 5.14 in whatever style worked best for their body. As has been pointed out, this is unrealistic to the point of being beyond reasonable discussion for most people with lives outside of climbing. For these people, 5.14 may be physiologically possible, but not actually possible because of life constraints.

Mark E Dixonwrote: With the exception of reboot, are there any V10/5.14 climbers posting on this thread?

I know I have genetic advantages (skinny, mostly), but I've climbed V9 and 5.13b on rock and gotten very close on one V10, and it was a loooong grind. I might have climbed V10 in a gym once or twice, but who the hell knows with gym grades. When I started climbing, 5.7 was simply beyond my ability to cleanly toprope most of the time. After I started climbing regularly-ish at age 17, it took me just under 2 years to reach V4, 3.5 years for V6, 4.5 years for my first V7, 9 years to hit V8, and 11.5 years to do a V9. Based on this slowing progression, I suspect V10 is possible for me, if not necessarily likely.

Now, how do I compare to "average?" No idea, I have to admit, but I'll concede I'm almost certainly above the mean in the genetic lottery for climbing. My motivation to train could easily be a product of how climbing has gone pretty well for me so far. That said, I also know that I decided climbing sounded cool and could name all the 8000m peaks and understood how the Yosemite decimal system worked before I ever tied in for a climb (I was a weird kid), so I definitely had unusually high levels of motivation before my actual ability could be put to the test.

Training is everything.

Mark E Dixonwrote: With the exception of reboot, are there any V10/5.14 climbers posting on this thread?

Ive done a lot of v10s and mid 13 sport climbs and am definitely not what you would call a natural athlete. I was definitely in the bottom 5% of any team sport I played as a kid, and that was playing on non competitive, didn't even keep score, teams. I also am extremely easy to injure and have scoleosis. If I had to make an estimation, I would guess that 50% of the people I see climbing 5.11/v5 are stronger than I am. Most climbers have such terrible tactics and technique that they aren't even scratching the surface of their current physical ability, let alone their mythical genetic limit.

abandon moderation wrote:

I'm curious; what specifically are you talking about by tactics and technique?

Tactics: The biggest tactical mistakes I see are people climbing tired because they don't rest enough, and wasting effort trying to send routes/boulders that they haven't refined the movement of yet. What happens when you give 100% effort to a route/boulder? You get tired real fast. Most people I see at the crag/boulders, will try figure out something that sort of works/might work and then start sieging the climb from the bottom. Better climbers will figure out the absolute best way to do every part of the climb before they start giving real physical effort. The better climber has a little more success and learns a little bit more from each climb than the average climber. When you extend this process over years, the average climber improves a little or maybe not at all, and the better climber improves quite a bit. A small benefit over time adds up. 

Technique: Learning technique is all about being open minded. You try something and it doesn't work. Do you try it again? maybe. Do you try it 10 times hoping to just get lucky? Not really a winning strategy. Try a move, if you are way off, try something very different. If your close, try something a little different. You have to be conscious of what your body is doing in space for this to work though, which means you have to be mindful and paying very close attention to the cues from your body. Oftentimes turning your foot, knee, or hip a few degrees is the difference between a move feeling easy or impossible.

The one thing I have found to be true is that better climbers are almost always operating on a higher level of technique and tactics than worse climbers. A lot of it has to be learned experencially, but there is also a ton to be learned by paying close attention to how better climbers approach climbing. There is no magic bullet, just the additive effect of mundane effort over time.

Don't know if this helps answer anything https://www.8a.nu/news/souvenirs-du-pic-by-theo-blass-10-s008y

10 year-old climbs 14b, etc.

Schuyler Baerwrote:

But the difference between two people of the same size, age, sex, activity level is going to be negligible.

It would be interesting and valuable to see a well designed study on this. I think it's much more than negligible. I'm probably in the middle of the bell curve. Probably a little on the harder to stay thin end of the spectrum. I've been that way my whole life. My wife is naturally thin. My sons are naturally thin. They have a similar diet and exercise as I did at their ages and they are way thinner than I ever was. They are also lighter framed. I wonder how much that affects things, it's bones, but if you're bones are thicker maybe your whole body "wants" to be thicker. I have huge hands and I still can't come close to touching my middle finger and thumb around my wrist.

To measure your frame: Wrap your thumb and middle finger around the smallest part of your wrist. If they overlap, you are small framed. If they touch, you are medium framed. If you can barely get them to touch or they are not touching, you have a large frame.

I would guess a heavy frame means your body tends to be thicker overall (also more muscle and fat, and perhaps easier to gain both), but even if it doesn't coincide it still shows the variability in human genetics. Frame size less important than your % body fat for climbing, but a light frame will be about 10 lbs less than medium, and a heavy frame about 10 lbs more.

I have friends the same sex and age, some are heavier than me, some are lighter. And they've been that way pretty much our whole lives.

As anyone who is a little older will tell you, your metabolism slows as you age. If it changes with age how would it be the same among all people of a certain age? I would have to think there's variability, on a classic bell curve, like height.

And of course that just one of the factors in how hard you can climb. The mental aspect of technique and strategy, endurance, power all have variance. Earlier comments about natural guitar talent I believe are similar. Climbing, especially crack climbing has always come naturally to me.

JohnWesely Weselywrote:

Tactics: The biggest tactical mistakes I see are people climbing tired because they don't rest enough, and wasting effort trying to send routes/boulders that they haven't refined the movement of yet. What happens when you give 100% effort to a route/boulder? You get tired real fast. Most people I see at the crag/boulders, will try figure out something that sort of works/might work and then start sieging the climb from the bottom. Better climbers will figure out the absolute best way to do every part of the climb before they start giving real physical effort. The better climber has a little more success and learns a little bit more from each climb than the average climber. When you extend this process over years, the average climber improves a little or maybe not at all, and the better climber improves quite a bit. A small benefit over time adds up. 

Technique: Learning technique is all about being open minded. You try something and it doesn't work. Do you try it again? maybe. Do you try it 10 times hoping to just get lucky? Not really a winning strategy. Try a move, if you are way off, try something very different. If your close, try something a little different. You have to be conscious of what your body is doing in space for this to work though, which means you have to be mindful and paying very close attention to the cues from your body. Oftentimes turning your foot, knee, or hip a few degrees is the difference between a move feeling easy or impossible.

The one thing I have found to be true is that better climbers are almost always operating on a higher level of technique and tactics than worse climbers. A lot of it has to be learned experencially, but there is also a ton to be learned by paying close attention to how better climbers approach climbing. There is no magic bullet, just the additive effect of mundane effort over time.

I guess one problem I have is determining whether a move simply requires more strength vs more technique. Often on the moonboard I feel I just need more strength especially starting routes (I am 6'3''). On the moonboard I have done most the benchmark v4s and a few v5s, when I am outside onsight 11b/c and the hardest thing I have ever sent is 12a/b (the most I have ever tried a route is 6 times). When I don't onsight I generally only hang once or twice on the climb, I am not figuring out the beta for an extended period of time. I often feel my barrier is strength, so do you have any advice when you know there is a difference? 

Climbing 5.14 is harder than climbing v10. You've gotta be strong and good to do 5.14, gotta be strong to climb v10 (being good doesn't hurt, but not necessary)

Princess Puppy Lovrwrote:

I guess one problem I have is determining whether a move simply requires more strength vs more technique. Often on the moonboard I feel I just need more strength especially starting routes (I am 6'3''). On the moonboard I have done most the benchmark v4s and a few v5s, when I am outside onsight 11b/c and the hardest thing I have ever sent is 12a/b (the most I have ever tried a route is 6 times). When I don't onsight I generally only hang once or twice on the climb, I am not figuring out the beta for an extended period of time. I often feel my barrier is strength, so do you have any advice when you know there is a difference? 

Based on your onsight grade, I’d say that limitation is technique based, and not strength based. It simply takes more than 2 or 3 tries to dial in the beta (technique) to climb closer to your current physical limit. You should be redpointing at around 12+, not 12-, based on where you are onsighting.

JohnWesely Weselywrote:

Ive done a lot of v10s and mid 13 sport climbs and am definitely not what you would call a natural athlete. I was definitely in the bottom 5% of any team sport I played as a kid, and that was playing on non competitive, didn't even keep score, teams. I also am extremely easy to injure and have scoleosis. If I had to make an estimation, I would guess that 50% of the people I see climbing 5.11/v5 are stronger than I am. Most climbers have such terrible tactics and technique that they aren't even scratching the surface of their current physical ability, let alone their mythical genetic limit.

I know a woman who sends 12s who can't even do a pull-up.   I can do 20 pull-ups but I can't do a particular overhung route that she can.    I dyno for a V4 boulder problem that she can do static - when I try the same hold I physically peel right off due to my weight.   So what kind of strength are you referring to?   I had 3 friends who all had shoulder labrum tears while bouldering within a month of each other.  They all had multiple, multiple years of climbing under their belt.  Bad technique?   Maybe.   But sometimes it's one's body trying to tell the person something.  Genetic limits are not mythical.    

Mark E Dixonwrote: With the exception of reboot, are there any V10/5.14 climbers posting on this thread?

I have only climbed as high as V9/12+. I don't really climb sport and my hardest sport send was a second burn because I went off route on the first. Anyways, I have terrible coordination, always sucked at sports, parents are even worse. When I was a junior in HS I was 135lb at 6 foot 3. I started weightlifting and by age 23 was around 230-240lbs and competed in powerlifting hitting a 702 squat, 425 bench, 605 deadlift. Got bored of that, lost most of the weight and raced bikes. At one point in time my 60min peak power was 5w/kg. As a climber I managed V4 my first time outside, V6 in 6 months, V7 in 7 months, V8 in 2 years, v9 in 2.5 years with injuries.

My point is mostly that I managed to do things faster than most because I was able to identify why people ended up not improving and I just avoided those mistakes. Many climbers never fully develop technique or power, don't accumulate enough sends and mileage when they start climbing outside, have piss poor body tension, are way too concerned about grades, get caught up in too many training programs they don't need, don't climb on steep walls enough, and don't ever work towards a goal (i.e. let's go social trad climbing even tho I wanna send some hard boulders). I'm sure I could find a soft V10 that suits me and tick it off just to say it's possible, but this is a total noob fallacy that would prevent progression.

This brings me to my final point, which is getting lost- anyone can probably get really good at figuring out what they are good at and search long and hard for just the right climb to tick a V10/14-,  but that is not the same as "climbing V10/14-" to me. The former is an exercise in luck while the latter is a more complete climber. The two are very, very different. I think the Anderson Brothers are a great example of how anyone can accomplish the first and have definitely become the second.

Mingwrote:

I know a woman who sends 12s who can't even do a pull-up.   I can do 20 pull-ups but I can't do a particular overhung route that she can.    I dyno for a V4 boulder problem that she can do static - when I try the same hold I physically peel right off due to my weight.   So what kind of strength are you referring to?   I had 3 friends who all had shoulder labrum tears while bouldering within a month of each other.  They all had multiple, multiple years of climbing under their belt.  Bad technique?   Maybe.   But sometimes it's one's body trying to tell the person something.  Genetic limits are not mythical.    

Sounds like you found your way around the bad holds. Your friends probably tore their labrums because they were overtraining or have bad technique. I’ve been there and done that. If I took injury as a sign that I reached my genetic limit my hardest send would be a really soft 12a. The genetic limit is a myth because it is incredibly rare that someone is evening climbing at their current physical limit.

Another piece of perspective. All the people I know who are stuck at an intermediate level think they have good technique. Everyone I know who climbs V10 and up knows that they suck.

Frank Steinwrote:

Based on your onsight grade, I’d say that limitation is technique based, and not strength based. It simply takes more than 2 or 3 tries to dial in the beta (technique) to climb closer to your current physical limit. You should be redpointing at around 12+, not 12-, based on where you are onsighting.

But if I could redpoint 12+ don't you think I could go harder than a moonboard v5? This is slightly skewed because I have never climbed in the gym a lot but right now I can hang one arm on a 10mm edge for 10 seconds with 25lbs of assistance (and I weigh 180lbs) which implies I have pretty good hand strength. But also I can't half crimp with both hands at body weight. Honestly right now is the worst time to project since everything I want to project has 20 people hovering around it, so hopefully I can find something harder with less people.

JohnWesely Weselywrote:

Sounds like you found your way around the bad holds. Your friends probably tore their labrums because they were overtraining or have bad technique. I’ve been there and done that. If I took injury as a sign that I reached my genetic limit my hardest send would be a really soft 12a. The genetic limit is a myth because it is incredibly rare that someone is evening climbing at their current physical limit.

Another piece of perspective. All the people I know who are stuck at an intermediate level think they have good technique. Everyone I know who climbs V10 and up knows that they suck.

I think that's not right. It's like a beginner not knowing how to handjam, saying if they just did it right they'd not scuff their hands. You have to be strong to jam hard enough that your skin isn't sliding along the rock, and to a lesser extent your skin needs to be toughened up. 

You have to have the strength to do the technique correctly, to have good technique. 

Princess Puppy Lovrwrote:

But if I could redpoint 12+ don't you think I could go harder than a moonboard v5? This is slightly skewed because I have never climbed in the gym a lot but right now I can hang one arm on a 10mm edge for 10 seconds with 25lbs of assistance (and I weigh 180lbs) which implies I have pretty good hand strength. But also I can't half crimp with both hands at body weight. Honestly right now is the worst time to project since everything I want to project has 20 people hovering around it, so hopefully I can find something harder with less people.

I can’t hang two hands on 10mm edge. You have very strong fingers. I probably wouldn’t put any more time in on a hangboard unless it’s the only convenient way for you to train.

Spencer Cwrote:

I think that's not right. It's like a beginner not knowing how to handjam, saying if they just did it right they'd not scuff their hands. You have to be strong to jam hard enough that your skin isn't sliding along the rock, and to a lesser extent your skin needs to be toughened up. 

You have to have the strength to do the technique correctly, to have good technique. 

Absolutely correct. You can’t really separate the two, but focusing on getting strong by itself is not going to make you strong in the way required to climb better.

Princess Puppy Lovrwrote:

I can hang one arm on a 10mm edge for 10 seconds with 25lbs of assistance (and I weigh 180lbs) which implies I have pretty good hand strength. But also I can't half crimp with both hands at body weight.

Really?! That seems like close to elite one-hand strength, but very pedestrian for two-hands. 

Any ideas why you seem to be so strong with one-handed hangs? I have basically the opposite results: one-handed hangs that are much weaker than you'd expect from my two-handed hangs. Any suggestions for how to improve?