Anyone can climb V10/5.14-

Comparing climbing to to a sport like running or weight lifting is a little silly in my opinion. The movement's involved in climbing are infinitely more complex and there are so many different ways to be good at climbing. This also means there is no magic bullet to success. There are so many factors to improve simultaneously that you can actually end up worse off by focusing on the right one if it comes at the expense of others. Not to mention that, often, what climbers need to work on the most at any given time is completely unknown to them. There are so many things that I completely wrote off as unimportant for years that in retrospect turned out to be crucial to my development.

A little thought experiment for the naysayers, do you honestly believe that with consistent, mundane work, you couldn't add 15 lbs a year to your hanging weight on a 20mm edge? 1.25 lbs a month. That your genetic potential would stop you from adding a pound and a quarter to your hangboard sessions once a month? In 5 years, that's 75 extra pounds. Its pretty boring, but I think you would have a hard time arguing that it is an unreasonable level of progression for anyone fit enough to climb there way up any rock in the first place.

All I have to say is that everything I have ever poured myself into fully; I have achieved. 

JohnWesely Weselywrote: Comparing climbing to to a sport like running or weight lifting is a little silly in my opinion. The movement's involved in climbing are infinitely more complex and there are so many different ways to be good at climbing. This also means there is no magic bullet to success. There are so many factors to improve simultaneously that you can actually end up worse off by focusing on the right one if it comes at the expense of others. Not to mention that, often, what climbers need to work on the most at any given time is completely unknown to them. There are so many things that I completely wrote off as unimportant for years that in retrospect turned out to be crucial to my development.

A little thought experiment for the naysayers, do you honestly believe that with consistent, mundane work, you couldn't add 15 lbs a year to your hanging weight on a 20mm edge? 1.25 lbs a month. That your genetic potential would stop you from adding a pound and a quarter to your hangboard sessions once a month? In 5 years, that's 75 extra pounds. Its pretty boring, but I think you would have a hard time arguing that it is an unreasonable level of progression for anyone fit enough to climb there way up any rock in the first place.

I agree with you that there are many ways to be good at climbing, but climbing 5.14 almost always requires finger strength, whether in the form of aerobic endurance or pure small-edge holding power (if you find a 14a that doesn't require that, send it my way and I'll start driving). There's a very good reason that the Lattice guys only test finger strength (in various ways, max hang, anaerobic endurance, aerobic endurance) when they want to get a nice statistical image of your level of climbing. strong fingers don't equal good climber, but pretty much every good climber also has strong fingers.

That being said, there's also a reason that they give an estimated range for your grade based on finger strength, because as you say, there are many ways to be good at climbing.

I'm not sure about the max hang thing-- to me this argument is the same as "just run 0.1 sec faster per lap every day you go to the track and soon enough you'll be a 4:00 miler." At some point, you run into injury or just failure. This thought experiment is definitely fun to think about thought-- what if I did just 1lb more on my bench press every week? Obviously in 10 years I wouldn't be benching 520lbs, but is it actually that obvious? At some point the "just a bit more" and the "it's too much" curves intersect

Here's an interesting data point:   instagram.com/p/BgVyuMrBDNQ…

I'd bet half the people claiming they will never ever send 5.14 are stronger than this, yet Hazel Findlay has climbed 5.14 multiple times, on bolts and on gear. Climbing is very, very technique dependent, and there are probably 20x more roads to sending 14a (long and pumpy, short and bouldery, nightmare death slab, etc.) than there are roads to running a 4:30 mile, or whatever the equivalent of 5.14 in mile impressiveness is.

Edit: her suggestion of 20 hours a week for 10 years to build up that kind of technique proficiency is right in line with what a lot of people here are saying. Most people, myself included, aren't anywhere remotely close to that.

@JohnWesley- as Lincoln S says above, you're 1.25 lb/month example is flawed, since everybody eventually reaches a plateau of finger strength and can't keep adding weight.
The question is whether the average athletic climber hits this plateau before reaching the finger strength necessary for 5.14/V10 or after.
All of us are just guessing about this.

@Dylan Colon- That Hazel Findlay can't campus says nothing about her finger strength.
It does imply that 1-3-5 is adequate for some 5.14s at least, which is encouraging for those of us who are equally as maladept on the campus board :-)
Not that 5.14 is likely to be in my future, but I would like to keep improving from where I'm at now.

The fact that she invokes the long debunked "10,000 hour rule" is disheartening.

Mark Paulsonwrote:

People can squabble over pessimistic hypotheses all day long. However, we have two high profile case studies ((the Anderson Bros.) where guys who were -not- reared in a gym, who got into serious climbing relatively late, and self-admittedly had no particular genetic gifts where climbing is involved, went from 5.11 chuffers to 5.14+ crushers by dint of meticulous training methodologies and an insane capacity for hard work.  They both have families and full-time engineering jobs, btw.  Now, I would absolutely concur that that level of discipline could itself quite possibly have genetic roots. It's also been shown that the extent of our neurotransmitter rewards for exercise and exertion is based on our genes. But that's not what's being argued here. 

I'd say that mental and geographic factors have a -much- larger impact on a reasonably athletic individual's ability to climb 5.14 than corporeal genetics. Why? Because I don't think I've ever seen someone who puts in an Anderson-Bros. level of dedication (and lives proximate to hard outdoor routes) -not- get to that level. However, to my point, the number of people I've seen willing to make that effort has been -miniscule-. The RCTM basically explicitly states, "here's what it takes to go from a completely average climber to elite level".  The secret? Religious devotion to training.  They could have easily called it "The Poor Man's (or Woman's), Non-Genetic-Freak Guide to Climbing 5.14". Hell, I did the RCTM protocol religiously for over a year... and I got stronger! But I also got bored. I wanted to climb the new set at the gym, wanted to climb with my friends instead of hangboard,  wanted to go on trips instead of sticking to the plan.. etc, etc. Had I -actually- stuck with it for EIGHT YEARS (the time it took the Bros. to get from 5.11 to 5.14), I have no doubt I'd have ticked a couple 5.14's by now. But I came to the realization long ago that, although admittedly climbing-obsessed, I'm simply not willing or able to put in the work.

To all the naysayers on this thread; did you meticulously grind it out for 8 years, stick with the program, log every session, do like 350 hangboard workouts, and yet -still- aren't able to climb 5.14? Because that's the only methodology that would -actually- prove your point. There are a million valid reasons to not be climbing 5.14.  However, "I did everything humanly possible to reach the ceiling of my genetic potential, yet still fell short" is certainly not one that -I've- ever encountered.

Total survivor bias. People who train with that intensity and duration who doesn't climb 5.14s doesn't get interviews and blogs about it

Lincoln Swrote:

I agree with you that there are many ways to be good at climbing, but climbing 5.14 almost always requires finger strength, whether in the form of aerobic endurance or pure small-edge holding power (if you find a 14a that doesn't require that, send it my way and I'll start driving). There's a very good reason that the Lattice guys only test finger strength (in various ways, max hang, anaerobic endurance, aerobic endurance) when they want to get a nice statistical image of your level of climbing. strong fingers don't equal good climber, but pretty much every good climber also has strong fingers.

I suppose I don't understand your argument. No one is saying you don't need strong fingers to climb 5.14. And no one is suggesting that Megos/Sharma/Ondra aren't exceptional. What I -am- saying is, in climbing, most people don't work hard enough or smartly enough to get anywhere -near- their "genetic limit". Show me the person who's done 350 hangboard workouts and -doesn't- have extremely strong fingers... There's an anecdote in the RCTM where one of the Anderson brothers pulls a particularly hard problem at the gym, and a bystander is like "Whoa, what's the beta on that move??"... to which he replies something like "Hang for seven seconds, rest for three, hang for seven seconds, rest for three..."  To write off their success as "genetic" is an insult to the incredible amount of hard work they've put in.

The comparison to running is not an apt one. Things like VO2-Max, lung capacity, and muscle-type ratios are, indeed, largely pre-determined, and the pathways to finding these limits are well studied and fairly linear in nature. Was there ever a time when you were demonstrably slower than your fellow competitors, yet still won the race? Of course not, because the sole metric determining success in a race is speed.  Whereas in climbing, reductive metrics of any one attribute are far less instructive. I am -quantifiably- weaker, both in pull strength and finger strength, then several of my climbing partners, yet I routinely climb harder routes than they do. Thankfully, climbing rewards the cultivation of soft-skills almost as much as it does physical strength.

The bench press analogy isn't great either because finger strength for climbing is measured relative to body weight, whereas bench press is not. I'd also like to think that the isometric nature of finger strength also levels the playing field a bit with regards to body type, but that's conjecture on my part. However, I bet Jan Hojer could pretty easily get to a 300# bench, whereas I'd -never- bet on Dave Graham doing the same,  yet they both have extremely strong fingers....

Mingwrote:

Total survivor bias. People who train with that intensity and duration who doesn't climb 5.14s doesn't get interviews and blogs about it

Well, for your argument to hold water, you'll have to show me that person who trained with that intensity and duration who -hasn't- climbed 5.14 or V10.  I'll wait...

Mark E Dixonwrote: @JohnWesley- as Lincoln S says above, you're 1.25 lb/month example is flawed, since everybody eventually reaches a plateau of finger strength and can't keep adding weight.
The question is whether the average athletic climber hits this plateau before reaching the finger strength necessary for 5.14/V10 or after.
All of us are just guessing about this.

Sure, but the finger strength required to climb 5.14/V10 is pretty far off elite numbers. There are lots of route/boulders in that grade range that are not particularly fingery. Is there anybody out there that has been slow, steady, and consistent with finger training over years and never exceeded the finger strength of am average 5.12 climber?

My new excuse is that I'm gifted enough to climb 5.14-, but too dumb to climb harder than 5.10. I run out of fingers.

Mark Paulsonwrote:

Well, for your argument to hold water, you'll have to show me that person who trained with that intensity and duration who -hasn't- climbed 5.14 or V10.  I'll wait...

For your arguement to hold water, the dead will have to speak.   Go ahead, I'll wait...

rebootwrote:

Problem is very few people think they are below average (median).

In fact studies have shown that 90% of Americans think they are above average.  This obviously means 40% are below average in intelligence.   As for the other 60%, obviously only 10% of them have above average  intelligence.  
As one confidently in that 10%, I know I could climb 5.14c if I put my mind to it.

JohnWesely Weselywrote:

Sure, but the finger strength required to climb 5.14/V10 is pretty far off elite numbers. There are lots of route/boulders in that grade range that are not particularly fingery. Is there anybody out there that has been slow, steady, and consistent with finger training over years and never exceeded the finger strength of am average 5.12 climber?

I'll concede that 5.12 finger strength is demonstrably within the reach of the average athletic climber.

But I'd argue that for that same climber to climb 5.14 will require above average ability in some other dimension of climbing- say finger endurance, or body awareness/technical ability.

I don't think we really disagree, we are just at different places in our climbing.
Folks like you, who train hard and climb 5.14, naturally would think that it's genetically possible.
For me, I train hard, but don't come near that level.
For me, the question is whether it's just that my training is ineffective or if my potential is just that much lower.
I'm not ready to give up, so I'll keep assuming that I haven't reached my genetic limit so far. No advantage in doing otherwise.
And I'll tweak the training when I can.

We have dozens of professional sports to pick from to attempt to prove our points.

Why more often than not when a first-string player is hurt she (he) will still outperform #2 player? They have both put in the work.
Genetics are very complicated. You may be stronger than your opponent but if she doesn't feel pain as intensely as you, you may have a problem.
It takes four things to compete at a championship level.

EGO, not the kind that thinks you are better than anyone else (you are not ). The kind that knows you have put in the work. You know what you can do & have to do to win.
DRIVE, a burning pit in you that only getting the most out of yourself will cool a little.  
ABILITY, talent can help but it can also hurt.
SOMEONE THAT DOES ALL THE THINGS YOU NEED DONE FOR YOU. It can be anyone if they want you to be the best you can be.

 

Mingwrote:

For your arguement to hold water, the dead will have to speak.   Go ahead, I'll wait...

You murdered the Anderson brothers!?

I've got a buddy who, though he's been climbing for years, just recently broke through the V10 barrier with aplomb.  Stocky build, mid-30's not particularly graceful, didn't grow up in gyms. We've always been pretty closely matched in the past, but he suddenly got -way- stronger over the past year or so.  Did he just, out of nowhere, get "gifted" all of a sudden? Not likely. Something tells me it had more to do with his purchasing and following to a t the expensive Lattice program, which ultimately involved him getting up at 5:00 in the morning to hangboard three days a week, in addition to his existing 3-4 gym sessions.  He was willing to do the work (he's also a married, PhD-ed professional with a newborn baby, btw).

I'll be the first to admit, "I'm not willing to do the work".  I don't know why it's so hard for other people to do the same.

I think a big part being left out of this conversation is the level of the climbers surrounding the hypothetical 'average climber' being discussed and the degree to which they benefit from that (or don't), both directly through specific personalized advice (which tends to come at just the right time ) and also through observation to identify the things under ones own control which are held in common by those stronger climbers. I know that anyone who I have heard really make and buy into the statement that 'any average climber can climb _____(insert grade here which nearly everyone else would consider elite)____' regularly interacts with many climbers who climb at a very high level, and has pretty much always climbed in those circumstances. They have no reference (and often don't for whatever reason think to put themselves in that persons shoes) for what it is like for the vast majority of climbers out there who have to figure out the way after they reach the ceiling of their local community. Thus, I think a more accurate statement would be something like:

Anyone with an average athletic disposition with respect to the specific genetics it takes to be a rock climber, who regularly trains with or climbs where people regularly climb v10/5.14 and harder, who puts in the requisite training, can climb v10/5.14.

That is a statement I think is actually true, and it sheds a lot of light on why some people think that level is a real achievement and some don't: Some people had to figure it out largely for themselves after somewhere between 510 and 5.12, while other people get shown the way all the way up to 5.15. When I say 'shown the way', this can be, and often is, just knowing which climbs are generally harder than which other climbs and having direct access to said climbs. Thus it is analogous to some people having a nicely set up weight room and often lifting around olympic lifters comparing their expectations and results to people with at best community health clubs who have missing and incomplete weight sets, and who are run by people whos approaches and philosophies often differ vastly from the guys at the olympic level gyms (and not in unique nor novel ways which are more likely to lead to success). I think this helps to explain why these two groups tend to talk past one another: they are not accounting for the huge difference in the environments they exist within and the direct (and likely very measurable) impact that has on their outcomes.

Live is 95% psychological & the other 50% is mental.
Your friend got drive.
I know what it's like to train & perform at a championship level. It's not fun it's PAINFUL.

@JNE- this is really insightful.

I'll probably get flagged for this, but I've long wondered about the "Pro climber's girlfriend/boyfriend training plan".

Sure sometimes the pro bonds with another pro, but often it's with an average climber.
But despite that, the new girl/boyfriend is sending 8b+ in no time.
I think hanging with great climbers, getting their advice and encouragement is part of the explanation.
I suspect the new partners also try really hard, so as to not be left behind.
And can try anything they like, counting on getting their draws hung or removed during their partner's warmups.
Plus they're probably genetically gifted ;-)

Mark E Dixonwrote: @JNE- this is really insightful.

I'll probably get flagged for this, but I've long wondered about the "Pro climber's girlfriend/boyfriend training plan".

Sure sometimes the pro bonds with another pro, but often it's with an average climber.
But despite that, the new girl/boyfriend is sending 8b+ in no time.
I think hanging with great climbers, getting their advice and encouragement is part of the explanation.
I suspect the new partners also try really hard, so as to not be left behind.
And can try anything they like, counting on getting their draws hung or removed during their partner's warmups.
Plus they're probably genetically gifted ;-)

I definitely climb harder with a partner who surpasses me in climbing level. Besides just trying harder I think they offer much better and/or more honest critique.  

Why would you get flagged for that?
That's why coaching is so important. A good coach does two things one is teaching technique (how to put your sock on properly) & the other is mental strength.
So many coaches get the mental part completely wrong.