Continue with onX Maps
Sign in with Facebook
How hard do people really climb?
Fan Y wrote: I originally claimed (a few posts back) that the progression from '5.12 is only for climbing gods' opinion of the 70s/early 80s to 'everyone can climb 5.12' of the 2000s was primarily because the climbing terrain expanded from 'nothingness' slab and thin fingers 5.12 (in the 'valid' styles of the time, lead bolting and trad pro) to rap-bolted steeper, more fun, more trainable climbing, and the other person disagreed and chalked it all up to gym climbing and training methods (which IMO the terrain change was the catalyst for). I just don't see gyms and training being popular if steep climbing never happens. I also had some aside about the upper limit being pushed more (in the same era) because of this change as well (away from just more monos and tinier crimps to bigger, more physical movement, which he disagreed with too. My point on that front was that if all 5.13+/14 looked like the climbs of the 80s, the grade chasing percentage of the population would be a lot lower because half the desirability of improving is moving onto more fun/stimulating climbing, whereas those climbs just don't get more fun as you improve, they just get more heinous. 'To Bolt or Not to Be' is still the hardest climb of its style at Smith so clearly in order to push the limits of the sport the style had to evolve too. Edit: to your response below, I agree, to a point. I don't find all vert climbing heinous, but its upper asymptote certainly is. My favorite routes aren't very steep (who doesn't love a good crimp), but things get pretty brutal for true vert/sub-vert above 13-. Even the people who climb the handful of such 14+ vert/slab routes describe them as heinous. |
|
I agree with you on some points, but equating vertical climbing to "heinous" and steep climbing to "more fun" probably speaks more about your personal preference than the general public. I know plenty of climbers who prefer a cerebral face climb any day, and interestingly, these people climb indoors much less than the average climber these days. Back in the days of Moffat and Bachar, there was no preference - rock climbing was just that: climbing rock faces that nature has shaped, whatever angles they came in. Climbing gyms used to be more vertical as well. The steeper "terrain park" gained traction probably as a combined result of: rap bolting of some steep crags (mostly limestone - but also know that there are plenty of world famous places that are vertical or just slightly overhung), wave of new climbers who didn't have finger strength for (interesting enough) vertical climbing, climbing photography (steeper climbs made better photos), climbing wall design aesthetics, hold shaping, our evolving understanding of human movement, etc etc. People train on what's easily available, and the easily available steep indoor climbs have "trained" a whole new generation of climbers who consider face climbing "heinous." |
|
Is this like using trad climbing or "alpine" to justify climbing 5.8? Dude Megos probably can't even hang on my slab proj.... |
Used 2climb wrote: If it’s on a hang board, guessing they work on their fingernail crimps.… oh wait, what’s on the hang boards that are that thin are the emblazoned logos. |
|
Hard to keep a conversation going when you post replies to posts that were replied to and you conveniently don’t answer my questions directed towards you…but I’ll do my best to dissect this. MattH wrote: Hard disagree (if I am even interpreting what that even means correctly). The reason “everyone can climb 5.12” now is because there are so many more people climbing and consequently there are more resources and facilities to help. I wouldn’t be surprised if the percentage/ratio of climbers who could climb 5.12 back then to now is similar. In other words; fewer people climbed 5.12 back then because fewer people climbed. How many climbing gyms were around in the US when the first 5.13’s were put up? What about when the first 5.15?
Extremely biased but I would argue much of the same training you see for overhung route climbing is easily applicable to vert. I would argue (and maybe this is to your point) that it’s much easier to train for overhung climbs while not actually climbing whereas the best training for vert climbing is often limited to actual climbing/projecting, mobility, and finger strength
Not true, there are numerous other 5.14’s in Smith (most of which are considered vert) first off. Second off, this is largely due to the time when Smith was developed. Had it been developed for n a “modern era” we would see these 5.14 face climbs being put up more recently. Ten Sleep is an era where this has occurred. Multiple 5.14’s have been put up in the last 10 years. Lastly, this has nothing to do with why climbing has progressed to 5.15c
You’re saying two different things here and missing my point in regards to your post in the process…but to answer your question; yes I just think there would be less of them. The percentage of 5.14 climbers stoked to push the grades would remain the same in my opinion.
|
|
You two are saying the same thing ffs. MattH is saying grades have progressed due to overhanging climbing being able to push the difficulty further. Prince whatever is saying that the grades have progressed because gyms and training have allowed people to climb the routes that have to be overhung to be that difficult. You two jabronis not even realizing you can’t have one without the other is comical. |
|
Climbing is getting WAY softer - soft grading and friendly bolting (for sport). Maybe not at the top of the game, but certainly around the 7a/5.11+ grades. Been climbing 30+ years and my level crept up recently due to places I climbed, not strength. Go to holiday places in Greece or EU in general and up yourself a few letter grades, or places like Staunton, etc. Then go climb in older areas like the Frankenjura, Buoux, etc and see your perceived gains melt away. |
Joe Prescott wrote: Well when the hardest grade in the world was 5.9 when the people who developed there Frankenjura and Boux first started climbing compared to 5.15 being the hardest climb when the developers of "modern" routes started climbing, you're bound to have some discrepancies |
Go Back to Super Topo wrote: Agree. We have Taquitz in So.Cal. where some 5.9 definitely feel 5.10-ish. As a young climber, I don’t remember that a Smith Rock 5.12b was too much different from a Yosemite 5.12b? The main thing is my finger strength allowed me to hit 13b on a couple faces at Smith? Shoes and more targeted training seem to help propel the grades too? For instance, just before I stopped climbing the Yaniro board came out and helped me develop strength in a more controlled manner. Seems like climbers and more of them are climbing better? |
Go Back to Super Topo wrote: I think it is more than discrepancies. Holiday grades are extremely soft. Climbing in places like Rifle, American Fork, Rumney, Smith, Maple, others, of that era (not that long ago) have discrepancies. I'd typically give myself an ok chance at onsighting around 10c-d, maybe 11a for most of my climbing career. Weekend warrior and no training other than just climbing/bouldering for fun. The last few years, after moving to a place nowhere near outdoor climbing, and visiting places like Kalymnos, Leonidio, newer areas in France/Spain/Italy - I've been onsighting up to 7a (11d) and my average grade has increased by several letters, despite much less climbing and advancing age.I really thing softening of grades is contributing to people climbing harder numbers, at least at my intermediate level. |
|
I know this is not really about bouldering but as a Fontainebleau local I thought I might contribute. In Font when you go to the old school areas that locals used to frequent in the eighties (Apremont, Cuvier, Rocher Canon) you can get wrecked by some of the 6B's and 6C's even as an experienced climber. Some 7A's feel straight up impossible. But when you go to the new popular areas where many lines are newish and were often set up by tourists (Franchard is a good example), it is night and day. Some 7A's feel more or less the same difficulty as 6A's from the old school areas, and it is not uncommon to find lines that were first proposed as, say, 7C, and were downgraded so much they are now 7A+ or 7B (and even that can feel soft). It is often said Font grades are stiff but honestly there is a huge discrepancy between the old stuff and the new stuff. I attribute that to the fact 7A has become some sort of benchmark to transition from beginner to intermediate level and every new line that just feels kinda hard has been given the automatic 7A. If you look at the grade distribution in newer areas there is many times more boulders in the 7 range than in the 6 range, while for older areas it is the exact opposite. However it's sometimes difficult to figure out how hard those old school lines were at the time they were first climbed. On one hand the folks might have not had shoes as good as ourse, on the other hand the rock hadn't accumulated the amount of polish and centimeter thick layers of chalk/resin/sweat that we can witness today. Marie-Rose in Cuvier (iconic first 6A) is a good example of this, everything is so glassy nowadays it could easily pass for a 6C if it were proposed in its current state, but you can see how with good friction it could be a comfortable 6A. |
Joe Prescott wrote: This makes me way too stoked to get to newer areas since I’ve been climbing in all those you mentioned being harder haha. Ego boost baby! Although grade discrepancies by era is super frustrating |
Joe Prescott wrote: I agree Holiday/vacation grades are soft. However, I think those kinds of grades are typically due to more modernly development and/or traffic and the ceiling of climbing being 5.15c as an opposed to the ceiling being 5.14b when other areas, like Rifle, were developed for example.
I’m not sure I see your point. None of these places were developed recently/“not that long ago”. AF and Smith are considered the birthplaces of (US) sport climbing… |
|
Hard. Really, really hard. |
Go Back to Super Topo wrote: I'm just saying that there are discrepancies in the range between the old (Frankenjura and similar older Euro areas) and the not too old USA areas listed - ranging from say early 1980s-early 2010s. I've visited a lot of these areas and typically would max out in the mid-5.10 to very low 5.11 Then the very new areas, or sectors in some older areas, there is more than a discrepancy, it is absolutely ludicrous, where I have regularly climbed in the very high 5.11 to low 5.12. It just seems like the softness is increasing at an increasing rate. Just my observation |
Joe Prescott wrote: There are always going to be discrepancies amongst subjective things such as grades. To your point though, there has to be more discrepancies amongst grades of newer routes as there are so many more grades to give route now. When these “old” routes were established, the only grades in existence (or at least that had been climbed) were like 5.4 through 5.9…modern routes are established in a time where grades 5.4 through 5.15 exist, so of course there will be more discrepancies, there is a much larger range of grades to have discrepancies with. That’s just math. Maybe this is the point you’re trying to convey to me, and I just haven‘t realized that yet. I’m still not quite sure how the routes you mentioned are applicable though.
I don’t disagree that grades are getting softer, but I seem to disagree with your reasoning as to how you arrived at that conclusion I guess. |
Off Route wrote: 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-. Alright, back to the heart of this thread. I think 10% is a pretty ridiculous(ly high) estimate for the number of climbers who can onsight 12-. Even more shocking is how many people agreed with (or inflated) this estimate in the first handful of replies. Now, I only started climbing about 10 years ago when this thread was created, but I doubt 10% was accurate then, and I'm quite confident it's not accurate today. I would expect perhaps only 3-5% of gym climbers (say those who go at least once or twice a month) could actually onsight 12- within their next 10 visits to the gym if they tried. (Stop staring at the shirtless grunter monopolizing everyone's attention on the 45 degree wall and actually look around your gym for a minute at all the regular shmoes. 10% of them?) And that's the gym. But outside? Maybe it's 2-3% of regular outdoor sport climbers that could onsight 12- in there next dozen visits to their local crags. (But if you include all the gym climbers who occasionally or never climb outdoors in that denominator its probably 1-2%.) And forget about all that noise about trad, or slab, or run-out, etc. I'm talking about the easiest way to 5.12-, i.e. a well bolted modern sport climb. A decent rule of thumb is that your hardest onsight grade is roughly a number grade below your hardest redpoint grade. So think about how many people are redpointing 13-. 10%? No way. For what it's worth, almost all my climbing is done around Portland, OR, where the grades are I think pretty fair (though plenty of out of towners will call them stiff). Can't wait to hear what others think. |
|
This question has always stumped me. Am I a 5.11 climber (or whatever grade) if I once on-sighted a 5.11 in the gym? Or if I managed all the moves on a 5.11 sport route but took a hang or two? What if, after multiple attempts, I finally redpoint a 5.11 sport route, am I a 5.11 climber? Am I a 5.9 climber after my very first gym visit if I managed to TR a 5.9? For me, I call myself a 5.7 climber because I’m reasonably confident I could climb that grade on any kind of rock, sport or trad, anywhere… even if I regularly on-sight 5.10s at the local sport crag and climb with no falls or takes on the occasional 5.10 local multipitch trad route. Grades are sooo different depending on the context. How many 5.12 (gym or sport) climbers are capable of calmly leading that infamous multipitch 5.7 route up the side of Half Dome? Does that mean they aren’t 5.12 climbers? Not necessarily, I’d say. Context is everything. |
|
It's sort of a ridiculous to label climbing ability as a route grade, but most all of us do it I suppose. I was trying it out in my head, for other sports. I am a 9.5 gymnast. - sounds ridiculous. I'm a 220 mph race car driver - okaaaaaay. I'm a 22 rebound basketball player. I am a 2.45 meter high jumpe See what I mean? For each one of these, to have any meaning, requires tons of context and not a little explanation. It might be more informative to say something like, "I'm climbing a lot of 5.10s, and some 5.11s these days." |
Daniel Joder wrote: It doesn't stump me, it's just something that gumbies with not enough experience to realize that it's almost entirely subjective based on a myriad of factors ask. The late Paul Nelson would say: Take the easiest thing you fell off of in the last year, now subtract two full number grades off that (or 8 letter grades) and that's the grade you "climb". So, if the easiest thing you fell on in the last year is 5.10a, then you are a 5.8 climber. All jokes aside, that's the best and most accurate formula I've seen for such a nonsensical chest-puffing question like this one. |
