How hard do people really climb?

Joe Prescott 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

I kind of suspect that the Frankenjura just isn’t your style. On our trip to Franken, I was onsighting at my low-end redpoint grade. Certainly was climbing higher grades there than at Rifle. There was one crag at Franken that handed our lunch to us, but that had more to do with the sketchy state and nature of the fixed pro. Now as for Ceuse, Ceuse WAS a reality check. 

Daniel Joder wrote:

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… 

Maybe not even this… but, 5.7 at nearly all places?

There’s a bunch of Alpine routes in the 5.7 range at altitude or other really terrible conditions.

The only good reason to say you think you can climb so and so is for safety reasons to a prospective partner. That way they can gauge your abilities before putting their life into your hands.

That said, people are climbing super hard these days in the gym. What I see in the gym is a ton of athleticism. Will they be able to climb high grades outside? My take is if they can easily clip off 1/2” three finger sloper in a layback position at a negative 20 degree incline or more, they could probably place pro into a crack on a trad climb near the same grade. Could they do it? Who knows, too many other factors to consider?

Cherokee Nunes wrote:

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."

For some of your examples you have a point. For others, you’re too fixated on verbiage. We often label athletes based on their ability/accomplishments (which is what route grades are, albeit often more subjective). It’s fairly common to refer to a basketball player as a “25/10/5 guy” or as “someone who will get you 12 rebounds a game”. It’s the same thing as saying someone is a “5.12 climber” just with different verbiage. I’ve also watched enough fast and furious to know about a “10 second car” is a thing.

Most climbers  understand that a “5.12 climber” means they can climb many/most 5.12’s. There are plenty of 5.15 climbers who haven’t sent a 5.14 nemesis route. Just the same as saying a basketball player that’s a “25/10/5 guy” isn’t going to have a shitty game and get 10/5/2 on occasion. 

All of these comments about defining what "I am a 5.X climber" means is exactly why I was trying to steer things more in the direction of the part of the original question about what percent of climbers can onsight 5.12-. I generally agree with what has been hashed and re-hashed ad nauseam about the inherent ambiguity of being a 5.X climber. Sprayers will want to use something like their max redpoint grade. Fine. I'm not here to deflate anyone's ego. Others will humbly (and I would argue misleadingly) state they are 5.7 climbers. The point (like Li Hu mentioned) of defining your climbing ability vis-a-vis a grade is simply to help your prospective climbing partner(s) know what they are getting into and with whom. If I'm looking for a partner to climb the North Ridge of Mt Stuart in Washington with, I don't care how many 12's you flashed at your gym. I'm going to tell you I feel comfortable leading 5.10- in the alpine, have plenty of alpine and crack experience at that grade and feel confident about the route, and will want to know the same from you. I need to know if I may need to lead everything, if you are going to be quick and efficient, or if you'll even be experienced and fast enough to get up the thing. If we're just out for a single pitch crag day, consequences are smaller, but let's get on the same page about what/where we want to climb so both can have a fun/safe time. It's about setting expectations with partners. That's it. I'm a 5.X climber is meaningless without the context of the objective.

And for those really hell-bent on assigning a single grade to themselves or others - I think your hardest current onsight grade is the least ambiguous metric. That will almost invariably be a sport route friendly to your style and area. Of course this still leaves a ton about your ability and experience undefined, but if your partners need more info, they'll ask.

PortlandRob wrote:

All of these comments about defining what "I am a 5.X climber" means is exactly why I was trying to steer things more in the direction of the part of the original question about what percent of climbers can onsight 5.12-. I generally agree with what has been hashed and re-hashed ad nauseam about the inherent ambiguity of being a 5.X climber. Sprayers will want to use something like their max redpoint grade. Fine. I'm not here to deflate anyone's ego. Others will humbly (and I would argue misleadingly) state they are 5.7 climbers. The point (like Li Hu mentioned) of defining your climbing ability vis-a-vis a grade is simply to help your prospective climbing partner(s) know what they are getting into and with whom. If I'm looking for a partner to climb the North Ridge of Mt Stuart in Washington with, I don't care how many 12's you flashed at your gym. I'm going to tell you I feel comfortable leading 5.10- in the alpine, have plenty of alpine and crack experience at that grade and feel confident about the route, and will want to know the same from you. I need to know if I may need to lead everything, if you are going to be quick and efficient, or if you'll even be experienced and fast enough to get up the thing. If we're just out for a single pitch crag day, consequences are smaller, but let's get on the same page about what/where we want to climb so both can have a fun/safe time. It's about setting expectations with partners. That's it. I'm a 5.X climber is meaningless without the context of the objective.

And for those really hell-bent on assigning a single grade to themselves or others - I think your hardest current onsight grade is the least ambiguous metric. That will almost invariably be a sport route friendly to your style and area. Of course this still leaves a ton about your ability and experience undefined, but if your partners need more info, they'll ask.

Onsighting a single 5.12- is significantly different than consistently onsighting 5.12-

Which one are we counting for the purpose of the original question? What does “someone who climbs 5.12” mean? Does it mean that they have done a single 5.12? Does it mean they can get to the top of a lot of 5.12’s? Does it mean they can send the majority of 5.12’s they get on? In how much time will it take them; a day? An hour? 

Li Hu wrote:

Maybe not even this… but, 5.7 at nearly all places?

There’s a bunch of Alpine routes in the 5.7 range at altitude or other really terrible conditions.

i assume when someone says, "i'm a 5.7 climber," they are not referencing being in boots/crampons with tools out at 19k...

Not Not MP Admin wrote:

Onsighting a single 5.12- is significantly different than consistently onsighting 5.12-

Agreed.

Prince Kitty Hatr wrote:

Which one are we counting for the purpose of the original question? 

Yeah, that's left ambiguous by the OP but my response was framed around doing it at least once, but recently, i.e. you could probably do it again soon, or very close to it. And in either case, it ain't 10%.

What does “someone who climbs 5.12” mean? Does it mean that they have done a single 5.12? Does it mean they can get to the top of a lot of 5.12’s? Does it mean they can send the majority of 5.12’s they get on? In how much time will it take them; a day? An hour? 

This again falls into the trap of ambiguity. It means whatever the speaker means it to mean. To the listener it means almost nothing until they're more explicit with context.

It's kind of impossible to productively debate what it means to be 5.12  (or 5.X) climber since it's inherently ambiguous and subjective. And no one who knows better would hear someone say "I'm a 5.12 climber" and say "great, I know all I need to know - here are some perfect objectives for us."

For me, it's far more nuanced than that, when you're trying to talk partners to other partners. What you know they are willing to hop on, just to give it a shot, might mean they can see the moves, even on much harder stuff. It might be a good fit for someone who is that stronger climber and wants a belayer who "gets it", and they can happily crag together. 

Or, all that is needed for ability is the bare bones minimum, to rope gun for sorry assed old ladies who attempt a top rope now and then. That, is far more about patience, kindness, and friendship, than numbers. Although, it was pretty damn sweet to have a double digit boulder friend, literally jumping up and down and clapping in delight when I miraculously managed a named v nothing he was coaching me on.

Then, there is that person who needs a truly solid partner in so many more important ways than just what grade they climb. I've only been able to "matchmake" once, for two alpine friends, when it really really matters that the partnership works.

But, it turned out to be the partner of a lifetime for my friend. They were perfect for each other.

How hard anyone climbs, is just as much shorthand for an approximate idea of what to perhaps anticipate, as a route grade itself is. Only the barest bit of a start, at seeking more information before making potentially life changing decisions. 

How hard do I climb? None of the people I climb with care at all. 

Best, Helen 

PortlandRob wrote:

It's kind of impossible to productively debate what it means to be 5.12  (or 5.X) climber since it's inherently ambiguous and subjective. And no one who knows better would hear someone say "I'm a 5.12 climber" and say "great, I know all I need to know - here are some perfect objectives for us."

If someone says they are a 5.12 climber, and asking for objectives, then my suggestions would be 5.12 climbs…

Frank Stein wrote:

I kind of suspect that the Frankenjura just isn’t your style. On our trip to Franken, I was onsighting at my low-end redpoint grade. Certainly was climbing higher grades there than at Rifle. There was one crag at Franken that handed our lunch to us, but that had more to do with the sketchy state and nature of the fixed pro. Now as for Ceuse, Ceuse WAS a reality check. 

I think I didn't state my point very well - now the Frankenjura is my local crag over the past 5 years (but I don't get down there that much). I have climbed in a lot of places, starting in `92 in Rumney and Cathedral Ledge, then all over CO, UT and NM, with trips to various states. Throughout that time, after the first year or 2, I've hovered around 5.10/+ onsight, sometimes 5.11-. I climb around the same level in the Franken as Rumney, Smith, UT, CO (a little soft sometimes), Siurana, Margelef, etc. This is on routes that were established when the scale was into the 5.14s. I climbed a Rifle a lot during my undergrad, climbed similar grades, but a little harder as i got it dialed in a bit. So, all of these areas obviously have discrepancies between them, and there are some notoriously sandbagged routes/areas. I feel like a pretty consistent climber with no real strengths or weaknesses at the moderate level. Now, contrast that with the modern development and modern climbers. Even climbing less, I've onsighted into the upper 5.11 to low 5.12 fairly regularly at these newer places. And this is not just me - I've met several partners over the past 3-4 years in these places, and they are climbing similar levels with much less experience. Some of this is gym/training, but a lot of it is the grades of the routes. Of course this is anecdotal, but climbing extensively over the past 30 years, the number of people (and %) that walk up to 7a-7b and send it in these newer areas is far greater than the number that do this at the more established areas. My 8a.nu scorecard is up several letter grades over the past few years, and not because I am stronger, but because I've been climbing in newer areas.

Haven't climbed Ceuse, but climbed in the Briancon area and that is a good example - the routes in areas from the 90s-2010s, I fire 6a-6b. Some newer areas in the same valley, I climb 6c, and almost onsighted a few 7as recently, and got them on 2nd go. Of course these areas are the busy areas with people sending 7a-7c along side me, where they would be sending 6b-6c in other areas.    

This thread probably doesn't need to be resurrected, but I found it thought provoking after reading through and have a few observations. People seem to have perceptions that all over the map, but I'm going to make the case that for a reasonable set of criteria, being a true onsight 5.10 trad climber is quite rare, with certainly less than 5% of climbers at that level. Onsighting 5.12 trad is extremely rare, definitely less than 1% of climbers do this.

People's perception of the climbing population is strongly biased by the climbers they encounter at their home area and the difficulty of climbing a certain grade in that area. Different areas attract climber populations with different skill levels. The climbers at a gym in a major metro are a very different population from the seasonal crowd at a major trad climbing area like Yosemite. 

The next source of confusion is about how hard it is to climb a certain grade in different areas. I think we can all agree that climbing 5.9 at the gym is massively different than climbing 5.9 in the backcountry, maybe with alpine conditions. Most styles of climbing fall somewhere in between. This additional difficulty is mostly down to risk, whether that's due to difficulty of protection, injury potential from a fall, or consequence from injury. This is a huge factor that can often override physical difficulty in determining how hard it is to climb a certain pitch.

I think the onsight ethic comes from trad climbing and implies that you can climb a grade in a variety of situations. So you need to be able to climb the grade in a variety of styles and a variety of risk situations. I'm not claiming that you need to be able to climb an X rated pitch to be an onsight climber for that grade, but you should be able to climb the grade some of the time when there's more consequence— potential for a bad fall, non-obvious protection, a longer fall, or in a remote area far from rescue. You should also be able to climb the pitch with exposure and on a multipitch with more pitches around the grade above or below you. You could definitely come up with a stricter criteria for claiming an onsight grade than this, but I think it's a fair one and similar to what most people who seek to climb big routes apply to themselves.

I think onighting 5.10 on gear like this is actually pretty darn rare. Yes, there are a loads of 5.12 climbers in the gym or the sport crag with the strength and technique to throw down 5.10 trad pitches if they applied themselves to it. But most people are not doing that and never will because they don't want more risk or they don't have the desire or ability to learn the mental skills that you need to climb 5.10 on gear in a wide variety of situations. It's definitely less than 1 in 20 climbers that are able to consistently climb 5.10 on gear in a variety of styles with some level of risk involved. Doing that on 5.12 is even rarer— hard to say the exact percentage but way less than 1% of all climbers.

Doug Leonard wrote:

This thread probably doesn't need to be resurrected, but I found it thought provoking after reading through and have a few observations. People seem to have perceptions that all over the map, but I'm going to make the case that for a reasonable set of criteria, being a true onsight 5.10 trad climber is quite rare, with certainly less than 5% of climbers at that level. Onsighting 5.12 trad is extremely rare, definitely less than 1% of climbers do this.

People's perception of the climbing population is strongly biased by the climbers they encounter at their home area and the difficulty of climbing a certain grade in that area. Different areas attract climber populations with different skill levels. The climbers at a gym in a major metro are a very different population from the seasonal crowd at a major trad climbing area like Yosemite. 

The next source of confusion is about how hard it is to climb a certain grade in different areas. I think we can all agree that climbing 5.9 at the gym is massively different than climbing 5.9 in the backcountry, maybe with alpine conditions. Most styles of climbing fall somewhere in between. This additional difficulty is mostly down to risk, whether that's due to difficulty of protection, injury potential from a fall, or consequence from injury. This is a huge factor that can often override physical difficulty in determining how hard it is to climb a certain pitch.

I think the onsight ethic comes from trad climbing and implies that you can climb a grade in a variety of situations. So you need to be able to climb the grade in a variety of styles and a variety of risk situations. I'm not claiming that you need to be able to climb an X rated pitch to be an onsight climber for that grade, but you should be able to climb the grade some of the time when there's more consequence— potential for a bad fall, non-obvious protection, a longer fall, or in a remote area far from rescue. You should also be able to climb the pitch with exposure and on a multipitch with more pitches around the grade above or below you. You could definitely come up with a stricter criteria for claiming an onsight grade than this, but I think it's a fair one and similar to what most people who seek to climb big routes apply to themselves.

I think onighting 5.10 on gear like this is actually pretty darn rare. Yes, there are a loads of 5.12 climbers in the gym or the sport crag with the strength and technique to throw down 5.10 trad pitches if they applied themselves to it. But most people are not doing that and never will because they don't want more risk or they don't have the desire or ability to learn the mental skills that you need to climb 5.10 on gear in a wide variety of situations. It's definitely less than 1 in 20 climbers that are able to consistently climb 5.10 on gear in a variety of styles with some level of risk involved. Doing that on 5.12 is even rarer— hard to say the exact percentage but way less than 1% of all climbers.

Valley Koolaid anyone? Been there Doug. Once you start climbing at harder trad crags, you will find a lot of people who can onsight 5.10 trad at the drop of a hat. As for 5.12, that depends on the rock type. Plenty of people onsight 5.12 gear routes on sandstone, but not a lot of people doing that on granite. Splitters vs Houdini vs sporty trad can make a difference. I personally do okay on sporty trad when it comes to onsighting, but a houdini corner like the first pitch of romulan stumps the hell out of my onsight ability.

Theres a lot of bias based on the bubble/crag/crew you hang with. Lots of strong trad climbers aren’t out there ticking things on 8a or MP either, so it’s sort of a crap shoot on judging how hard other people climb. I try not to think about it and focus on my own progression. 

John Clark wrote:

Valley Koolaid anyone? Been there Doug. Once you start climbing at harder trad crags, you will find a lot of people who can onsight 5.10 trad at the drop of a hat. As for 5.12, that depends on the rock type. Plenty of people onsight 5.12 gear routes on sandstone, but not a lot of people doing that on granite. Splitters vs Houdini vs sporty trad can make a difference. I personally do okay on sporty trad when it comes to onsighting, but a houdini corner like the first pitch of romulan stumps the hell out of my onsight ability.

Theres a lot of bias based on the bubble/crag/crew you hang with. Lots of strong trad climbers aren’t out there ticking things on 8a or MP either, so it’s sort of a crap shoot on judging how hard other people climb. I try not to think about it and focus on my own progression. 

Definitely, but that's the benchmark right? ;) I agree with your point about the meaning of it all, everyone has there own standards and it's about what kind of climbing you want to do.

Pulled from a similar MP thread. I believe it’s taken from comprehensive MP users hardest ticks. Doubt OP even cares anymore, but it’s relevant.

José Flovin wrote:

Pulled from a similar MP thread. I believe it’s taken from comprehensive MP users hardest ticks. Doubt OP even cares anymore, but it’s relevant.

There used to be an API but I think it's been shut down for a long time now, so is this several years out of date? Also curious if that is just hardest tick including TR

Jason wrote:

There used to be an API but I think it's been shut down for a long time now, so is this several years out of date? Also curious if that is just hardest tick including TR

The other thing is that this is a self selecting population already of folks who are passionate enough about climbing to not only have an MP account but also to be accurately updating it. I know a significant amount of people IRL who climb weekly who either don’t have an MP account or just have one to manage a to-do list and get info on climbing areas and never actually use it as a log book.
Though it’s pretty clear the point of this thread is to thump it our chest and call everywhere except where we climb soft and to make sure everyone knows how hard and humble we are so probably a better conversation for somewhere else

FWIW based on my personal experience I’d guess ~2% of all regular climbers and maybe 5% of all regular climbers who also get outside have ever redpointed 5.12a, and that number shrinks 5-10x if your definition is coin flip odds of flashing any given 5.12a pitch 

Tal M wrote:

The other thing is that this is a self selecting population already of folks who are passionate enough about climbing to not only have an MP account but also to be accurately updating it. I know a significant amount of people IRL who climb weekly who either don’t have an MP account or just have one to manage a to-do list and get info on climbing areas and never actually use it as a log book.
Though it’s pretty clear the point of this thread is to thump it our chest and call everywhere except where we climb soft and to make sure everyone knows how hard and humble we are so probably a better conversation for somewhere else

FWIW based on my personal experience I’d guess ~2% of all regular climbers and maybe 5% of all regular climbers who also get outside have ever redpointed 5.12a, and that number shrinks 5-10x if your definition is coin flip odds of flashing any given 5.12a pitch 

Interesting to think about the selection bias for who has an updated MP account. On one hand maybe more casual or beginning climbers don't use it but also many of the best climbers I know don't seem to tick stuff either.

Doug Leonard wrote:

Interesting to think about the selection bias for who has an updated MP account. On one hand maybe more casual or beginning climbers don't use it but also many of the best climbers I know don't seem to tick stuff either.

Except for a few things that are not on here for a reason, everything I have climbed I have stupidly logged on this site. Fun to scroll through the progression and regression sometimes for nostalgia

Doug Leonard wrote:

Interesting to think about the selection bias for who has an updated MP account. On one hand maybe more casual or beginning climbers don't use it but also many of the best climbers I know don't seem to tick stuff either.

For sure, but there’s far more climbers at the low end of the spectrum than the top end

Data from another angle,

I did a bouldering class recently (I figured any type of in-person session with a better climber was worth more than an online plan...I was totally right IMO). This climbing school runs about 12 classes a week at 3 different gyms, for beginner, intermediate V3-V5 and advanced V6+, and youth and adult streams for all those...but they only run a single Advanced class a week, in only one location. And it was half empty and the same 3 or 4 guys guys every week.

So over about ~70 available coaching spots per week there were ~4 spots for V6+ climbers.

Now of course a lot of people at that level are simply climbing with friends or doing their own training, or choosing e.g Lattice plans or 1-on-1 sessions if they want coaching...but so are many of the people climbing easier grades as well.

Secondly, I acknowledge I am in a backwater of performance climbing. Very different numbers in a major USA, European or Japanese city I'm sure. But I wonder if the proportion would be that different? 

But what about the team kids I hear you say. Actually, one of our friend's kids is doing the program at the biggest gym in the city. I've joined them a couple of times and I tell you most of them ain't climbing that hard. I'm sure there's other streams for the future Olympians but for most of them they're frankly just mucking around for school sport. (Again...climbing backwater) I mean I played a good amount of organised soccer from a young age and I'm not a conditioned soccer mutant with huge developmental advantages over someone starting amateur soccer at 30.