How hard do people really climb?

christoph benellswrote:

Hangdogging bolt to bolt doesn't count, newb

I took a video but I, uh, dropped my phone. Yeah, that's it..

Whoa.  A (almost) decade old post still going.

Data point: We started in our 40's - already on the physical downslide into the impending decrepitude of old age.
60 pounds overweight (corrected), full time smoker (9 years quit now), malnourished, out of shape, cubicle-dwelling married couple decided they wanted to learn climbing as partners, together.
Took 8+ years to work up to 5.10 and even at that, they're FUCKIN' HARD.
Our ideal outing is a 5 or 6 pitch, 5.6/5.7 trad climb that we can take 5 or 6 hours to mosey up, take a lunch break and a nap half way up and be down before dark because when you're now 50+ starting out late in life with the physical issues we had to start ... you just don't really care about climbing hard. At. All. And just want to have an enjoyable, fun outing with The Wife and live to tell about it without needing prescription strength pain killers for the next week. 

It would be interesting to take an MP data from 10 years ago, and MP data now, and see if there is a change in percentage of people sending a grade, such as 5.12.

Sure, it would only look at people that tick routes...  but if I had to predict, I’d say that the percentage of people ticking 12a would increase in this 10-year interval.

Joffy Jenkins wrote:

Kinda have this for UKC data, which is I guess the UK version of mountain p.

The data gets good from the late 80's and the popularity in sport climbing starts to push down the average sport grade to sit around 5.10b and trad is around 5.7-5.8. 

Interesting that the influx of beginners into the sport must reduce the average, however I predict the true average is far below this. If you took a complete beginners group for the first time how many of them are likely to create and account and tick of climbs?   ukclimbing.com/logbook/grap…

Cool graph! I wish  they didn’t use “project” as the highest grade ticked...

But I’m talking about the shoulder, not the median of the distribution. It makes sense that the median will go down as there is influx of the beginners. But the top grade is also going up, so it is not mutually exclusive that the median is going down, and percentage of people climbing >7a+/12a is also going up.

If that graph that you posted, you can see that the average is going down between 1988 and 2010 from 6b+ to 6a+ (the last year when the highest tick grade wasn’t “project”), but the highest tick is going up from 8a+ to 8c+. So the highest grade is going up faster than the median is dropping (makes sense)

How hard could a climber climb if a climber could climb? 

About has hard as a woodchuck could chuck wood if a woodchuck could chuck wood.

How many climbers could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck climbers?

Lena chitawrote:

It would be interesting to take an MP data from 10 years ago, and MP data now, and see if there is a change in percentage of people sending a grade, such as 5.12.

Sure, it would only look at people that tick routes...  but if I had to predict, I’d say that the percentage of people ticking 12a would increase in this 10-year interval.

It's cool seeing the answers from 10+ years ago then comparing them to today.

That 5.12 is a "wall of glass" answer from the 4th edition of "Freedom of the Hills" got me laughing so hard. It's sort of true though. Many climbers never though something newer climbers are doing now such as 5.15a or V17 were even possible?

The answers will evolve within this thread, and it will be fun to see where it goes in another decade.

At this point in time, it seems like 5.12 on sight should be roughly 10-20% of gym climbers and possibly 5%-10% sport outdoor? Trad maybe about 1% restricted by owning the gear and learning to place in odd body positions?

Statistically:

about 1% play scratch golf

about 1% climb 5.13

about 1% ski to D14 to D16?

Little background: I started climbing in 1970 as a little kid, and climb until late-1990s. By my mid to late 20s, 5.12b/c was my trad grade in Yosemite and various other areas, 5.13bs at Smith rocks, boulder a couple B2 (Gill). I used to do one arm pull-ups on the door thresholds in the office and front levers (both arms). Now that I'm old, I've become a gym rat, of course AFTER spending $$$ upgrading my old gear. . . As a gym rat over the past year I went from barely able to do V1 to flash v4 and on sight 5.11b. A particular 5.12c and a couple v5 problems are within my ability and hope to send them within the month? The gym is softly graded. However, at 61 years old, I currently on sight 5.11b, golf to 12-ish. Have done a single descent down "Girly Man Chute" (easier than the rated D14) in easier slush conditions.

So, . . . seems like with so many younger and stronger climbers >20% should be able to on sight 5.12? Granted they are likely rated by competition standards and possibly not "true" rock grades? Not 100% sure about that, as I am a self admitted "gym rat" these days :-D

Li Huwrote:

It's cool seeing the answers from 10+ years ago then comparing them to today.

That 5.12 is a "wall of glass" answer from the 4th edition of "Freedom of the Hills" got me laughing so hard. It's sort of true though. Many climbers never though something newer climbers are doing now such as 5.15a or V17 were even possible?

The answers will evolve within this thread, and it will be fun to see where it goes in another decade.

At this point in time, it seems like 5.12 on sight should be roughly 10-20% of gym climbers and possibly 5%-10% sport outdoor? Trad maybe about 1% restricted by owning the gear and learning to place in odd body positions?

Statistically:

about 1% play scratch golf

about 1% climb 5.13

about 1% ski to D14 to D16?

Little background: I started climbing in 1970 as a little kid, and climb until late-1990s. By my mid to late 20s, 5.12b/c was my trad grade in Yosemite and various other areas, 5.13bs at Smith rocks, boulder a couple B2 (Gill). I used to do one arm pull-ups on the door thresholds in the office and front levers (both arms). Now that I'm old, I've become a gym rat, of course AFTER spending $$$ upgrading my old gear. . . As a gym rat over the past year I went from barely able to do V1 to flash v4 and on sight 5.11b. A particular 5.12c and a couple v5 problems are within my ability and hope to send them within the month? The gym is softly graded. However, at 61 years old, I currently on sight 5.11b, golf to 12-ish. Have done a single descent down "Girly Man Chute" (easier than the rated D14) in easier slush conditions.

So, . . . seems like with so many younger and stronger climbers >20% should be able to on sight 5.12? Granted they are likely rated by competition standards and possibly not "true" rock grades? Not 100% sure about that, as I am a self admitted "gym rat" these days :-D

First, similar to the ‘anyone can climb 8a’ thread, you really need to be more specific about your categories before estimating percentages. When you say “10-20%” should onsight 12s, do you mean of all those who use the gym—even one time visitors or, presumably, more regular visitors? But even within the latter category, how would you define a ‘regular’ visitor—twice a month, once a week, three times a week, or….?

For what it’s worth, I regularly climb in a gym ( roughly 3 times a week) notorious for soft grades, yet, from my observations, nowhere near 20%, probably not even 10% routinely ‘onsight’ 12s. Somewhere in that % range might get up 12s, but not that often onsight. Those percentages might vary in other gyms in different locales, but not from what I’ve observed in my travels.

Li Huwrote:

It's cool seeing the answers from 10+ years ago then comparing them to today.

That 5.12 is a "wall of glass" answer from the 4th edition of "Freedom of the Hills" got me laughing so hard. It's sort of true though. Many climbers never though something newer climbers are doing now such as 5.15a or V17 were even possible?

I do think the biggest catalyst in the climbing grade progression was the discovery and exploitation of overhanging face climbing. I don't think I'll ever climb a slab 5.12 (and agree with the 'pane of glass' assessment especially on the upper end), and 5.12 crack would kill my fingers, but overhung 5.12 can feel pretty comfortable as someone brought up in a gym. It's kind of comical how the difficulty diverges.

Johnny Dawes has posited that there will eventually come a 'great reassessment' in which either overhung climbing's difficulty scale is consolidated or slab climbing's ratings are upgraded, and (as much as I'm loathe to agree as a slab-hater) I kind of sympathize. It's so much easier to 'train down' the difficulty of steep 5.12 climbing.

MattHwrote:

Johnny Dawes has posited that there will eventually come a 'great reassessment' in which either overhung climbing's difficulty scale is consolidated or slab climbing's ratings are upgraded, and (as much as I'm loathe to agree as a slab-hater) I kind of sympathize. It's so much easier to 'train down' the difficulty of steep 5.12 climbing.

Agree, "pane of glass" is a good description of a 5.12 slab. "pain" is more appropriate... training down a slab would be making your fingers and feet more sticky.  

A thread that allows climbers to humble brag will never die...

Used 2climbwrote:

A thread that allows climbers to humble brag will never die...

That’s exactly what the first post requested albeit a decade or more ago   

Hoping to see this thread in 10 to 20 years expecting 5.16d and v20 sends from newer generations.   

Off Routewrote: OK, so I have the flu-I know who gets the flu in June-and am bored out of my mind. I have heard two comments over the years that I have always wondered about. The first is that anyone can climb 5.10. The second is that any climber who tries can climb 5.12. My actual question is what percentage of the climbing population can onsight 12-? I actually disagree with both and am guessing that maybe 10% of the climbing community can onsight 12-. If we need definitions, a climber is anyone who owns a rope, shoes, and a harness. Please feel free to flame, troll, exaggerate, or even make up your responses because I am essentially asking for free entertainment until my fever breaks or netflixs posts more movies on their instant site. So what are the real stats? How hard do people really climb?

Especially in the gym I do believe anyone can climb 13- and V8 if they really dedicate themselves for like a year or two. Mostly because gyms are soft haha, but I’ve seen it done consistently.

Outside it’s a different story….

For one you have people who won’t even make the leap outside even if they’re offered-just something I’ve noticed lately. Even if they do, fear and the ego crushing grades get to them(especially in LCC if you’re based in northern Utah). Very few climbers I know climb 12a outside unless they’re like super devoted to the sport and actually want to get outside. 12-, maybe, but it depends. 12- on gear? Very rare. V8 boulders outside? In Joe’s or red rocks, absolutely haha.

tanzo sasuke wrote:

I’ve done a week of climbing every day.

It was on time off from my manual labour job.

My logic was my body is already used to hard work every day, and it would cope.

I noticed a definite drop off in my performance on day 4

Where do you climb, "tanzo"?

tanzo sasuke wrote:

I’ve done a week of climbing every day.

It was on time off from my manual labour job.

My logic was my body is already used to hard work every day, and it would cope.

I noticed a definite drop off in my performance on day 4

Seems like your basic reasoning is sound?

It’s possible that doing what you do is at a “pro” level so you can sustain daily activity, but just not at climbing?

Most climbing schedules for 5.10 and below consist of two climbing days to improve then 5.11 three days, at 5.12 four days per week with rests, etc. Possibly only the pros have built up all their climbing muscles such that daily climbing is sustainable? Pretty sure even they need rests now and then?

MattHwrote:

I do think the biggest catalyst in the climbing grade progression was the discovery and exploitation of overhanging face climbing. 

Idk about this assessment. I think the popularity, development of training methods, and commercialization of gyms have all contributed far more towards the advancements of climbing and grades than overhanging climbs. I guess I can see what you mean in that more people are climbing the arbitrary grade of 5.12 due to more overhanging faces being developed….but that would also go back to the increase in popularity of climbing as well

I don't think I'll ever climb a slab 5.12 (and agree with the 'pane of glass' assessment especially on the upper end), and 5.12 crack would kill my fingers, but overhung 5.12 can feel pretty comfortable as someone brought up in a gym. It's kind of comical how the difficulty diverges.

I’m not sure the difficult diverges so much as the style. I got skinny ass fingers and 5.12 cracks can feel just as easy, if not easier, than overhanging 5.12’s. Additionally, take someone who has only ever climbed vertical face climbs and plop them in the Obed, RRG, Rifle, Maple, etc and they are bound to struggle immensely compared to the technical, slab climbs they are used to. 

Johnny Dawes has posited that there will eventually come a 'great reassessment' in which either overhung climbing's difficulty scale is consolidated or slab climbing's ratings are upgraded, and (as much as I'm loathe to agree as a slab-hater) I kind of sympathize. It's so much easier to 'train down' the difficulty of steep 5.12 climbing.

Never going to happen. Too many people have too much ego. Besides, slab will always, inherently, have a “sandbagged” stigma around it and I can’t see a mass upgrade (or downgrade) of an entire style of climbing. Big muscles, dyno’s/deadpoints, and one armed pull ups are always going to appeal more to people than having good footwork, technique, and balance. For some reason it’s also much easier for new climbers to just do a shit ton of pull ups in order to climb some overhung ladder of a 5.12 as opposed to actually trusting their feet and improving mobility to climb a technical vertical 5.12

Not Not MP Adminwrote:

Idk about this assessment. I think the popularity, development of training methods, and commercialization of gyms have all contributed far more towards the advancements of climbing and grades than overhanging climbs. I guess I can see what you mean in that more people are climbing the arbitrary grade of 5.12 due to more overhanging faces being developed….but that would also go back to the increase in popularity of climbing as well

Training methods and gym climbing only work on the terrain they simulate, which requires actual holds and the ability to pull down on something (which overhangs provide). Overhanging climbing provides a finger friendly progression ladder that less steep climbing does not. Look at how popular the 5.13s of the 80s are are vs the ones developed recently. If all we had was vert/under vert face climbing, almost nobody *percentage-wise* would be climbing 5.13+/14 even in a post-gym world. They're tweaky, not very fun, and incredibly condition dependent, so pushing grades forward just isn't as easy or as enjoyable, or as conducive to training as steep climbing.

Edit: I'm not going to post again because nobody needs to be notified for this nonsense, but I think you misunderstand what I mean by 'overhanging' climbing - I'm saying the progression from 'weight on your feet' to 'weight on your arms' is what propelled standards from '5.12 is insurmountable blankness' to 'everyone can climb 5.12'. I'm not saying gyms played no part, I'm saying that over-vert climbing opened the door for people to want to train (and to see fast results) with training. Food for thought: "to bolt or not to be" is still the hardest vert/under-vert route at smith almost 40 years later, and the global top end for sub-vert climbing is a full number below the sport's max. You really think most 5.13/14 climbers, if forced to climb only less-than-vertical rock, would be 1) psyched enough and 2) strong enough in that style to keep the same grade, even with gym access? I wager it'd whittle the hard climber population dramatically. 

12b at the gym this morning.. whoooooo I'm all old 

MattHwrote:

Training methods and gym climbing only work on the terrain they simulate, which requires actual holds and the ability to pull down on something (which overhangs provide).

Training methods (and gym climbing) are meant to help any and all styles of terrain and can simulate any style of climbing you wish to train lol there are literally accessible training plans for specific crags these days (Power climbing has some for Ten Sleep as well as the RRG. These crags are, by and large, complete opposite styles). 

Overhanging climbing provides a finger friendly progression ladder that less steep climbing does not. Look at how popular the 5.13s of the 80s are are vs the ones developed recently. 

I’m not arguing that, but that is irrelevant to whether or not the increase of popularity of steep climbs is the reason for the progression in climbing. 

If all we had was vert/under vert face climbing, almost nobody would be climbing 5.13/14 even in a post-gym world.

Thats not even remotely true. I’m willing to bet far more people who have climbed the routes you described in the last 10 years than the previous 20. Almost entirely due to an increase in popularity of the sport (and training method advancement). Many of the hardest vert and /undervert climbs were done pre-gym world and there is no way you are going to convince me that climbing/climbers haven‘t progressed since the FA of climbs fitting your description. Why would climbers not be able to achieve the same accomplishments from the 80’s in today’s time with access to better training facilities and resources? That makes zero sense. Biographie/Realization is a great example of my point. There’s a reason why it is still a test piece, yet has seen far more ascents in the last 10 years than the previous 10. You can plug in “to bolt or not to bolt” or “punks in the gym” if you want a more vert example to help fit your narrative. It’s very difficult for something, like a sport, not to progress or advance with an increase in numbers/popularity/people participating and, in turn, providing more perspectives and information.

I would also argue that most of the absolute hardest routes today are not much steeper than the hardest routes of the 80’s and early 90’s. 

Let me ask you this; what is going to make someone a better climber or get past a plateau, training with purpose or climbing exclusively on steep terrain? 

Hank Caylorwrote:

12b at the gym this morning.. whoooooo I'm all old 

It’s a cool feat to climb 12b in the gym! Very athletic   

MattHwrote:

Training methods and gym climbing only work on the terrain they simulate, which requires actual holds and the ability to pull down on something (which overhangs provide). Overhanging climbing provides a finger friendly progression ladder that less steep climbing does not. Look at how popular the 5.13s of the 80s are are vs the ones developed recently. If all we had was vert/under vert face climbing, almost nobody *percentage-wise* would be climbing 5.13+/14 even in a post-gym world. They're tweaky, not very fun, and incredibly condition dependent, so pushing grades forward just isn't as easy or as enjoyable, or as conducive to training as steep climbing.

Edit: I'm not going to post again because nobody needs to be notified for this nonsense, but I think you misunderstand what I mean by 'overhanging' climbing - I'm saying the progression from 'weight on your feet' to 'weight on your arms' is what propelled standards from '5.12 is insurmountable blankness' to 'everyone can climb 5.12'. I'm not saying gyms played no part, I'm saying that over-vert climbing opened the door for people to want to train (and to see fast results) with training. Food for thought: "to bolt or not to be" is still the hardest vert/under-vert route at smith almost 40 years later, and the global top end for sub-vert climbing is a full number below the sport's max. You really think most 5.13/14 climbers, if forced to climb only less-than-vertical rock, would be 1) psyched enough and 2) strong enough in that style to keep the same grade, even with gym access? I wager it'd whittle the hard climber population dramatically. 

what the heck are you on about?