Thoughts on training and Individual Limits

John Tuttle wrote:

There are very few substitutes for the right peer group for any kind of pursuit be it the arts, academia or sport etc. 

But the right peer group with not get you up 5.13c or V12, imo. I know too many guys that gave their whole life to climbing and trained like fiends to believe differently.

"I know too many guys that gave their whole life to climbing and trained like fiends to believe differently."

I have seen that as well. However, training like a fiend is not the same as training effectively and meaningfully. 13+ or V12 are not anywhere near even average climber genetic limits, despite those levels appearing to be that a couple of decades ago. Climbing is still a relatively immature sport with a lot of room for expansion in terms of techniques, equipment, and training concepts and applications. Being open to these innovations and changes is critical. I wish I could say most climbers were open to those but it's actually hard to get people, especially older people, to broaden their horizons and embrace change.

John Tuttle wrote:

Take Track events. 

Are you trying to tell me that genetics don't hinder people?

Nope.

John Tuttle wrote:

The point of reminding yourself of that is the opportunity to realize that your personal goals are your own in this individual sport. And as above, comparison is the thief of joy.

No one is limiting you, other than yourself and your physiological limits. While those limits may be improvable, that may be to a limited degree. 

Be all you can be, just don't beat yourself up comparing yourself to others. 

Keep in mind that less than 0.001% of climbers have ever done 5.14a...I guess we all suck?   

Absolutely. The lovely thing about climbing is that the feeling the 5.6 leader gets is the exact same (or more potent!) than that of a 5.12 leader, and that the most meaningful accomplishments usually come from experiences and not grades! 

That being said, I think the level at which genetics comes into play is not nearly low enough to where the average climber who isn't aiming to be the world's best needs to necessarily care about it.

I would say that 0.001% of climbers climb 5.14a because the rest chose a more balanced life, not because they reached their physical limit at 13+ (obviously that doesn't mean you suck, I know I would rather run up 5.10 multipitch in the mornings and have a happy family than climb 14a).

I can understand that some people find comparing themselves to hyper-elite athletes to be negative.  I don’t and I’m not sure how common that is.  I think it’s a lot more common for people to blame their failures on genetics or morphology, instead of identifying factors they have agency to change.  

Some people need to let go of unrealistic expectations and stop beating themselves up, sure.  But a lot more people need to believe in themselves and commit.  

I really don’t like “I can’t”.  Maybe it’s helpful for some people but I think it’s more commonly harmful.

Dave Graham started climbing at 16 and climbed 5.12a after 2 months, 5.13a after 5 months and 5.14a after 1 year.  Simply blow my mind.

Peter Beal wrote:

"I know too many guys that gave their whole life to climbing and trained like fiends to believe differently."

I have seen that as well. However, training like a fiend is not the same as training effectively and meaningfully. 13+ or V12 are not anywhere near even average climber genetic limits, despite those levels appearing to be that a couple of decades ago. Climbing is still a relatively immature sport with a lot of room for expansion in terms of techniques, equipment, and training concepts and applications. Being open to these innovations and changes is critical. I wish I could say most climbers were open to those but it's actually hard to get people, especially older people, to broaden their horizons and embrace change.

Respectfully, you have absolutely no evidence to suggest that 13+ and v12 are "average climber" attainable. 

I have overwhelming statistics that those are not attainable by average climber genetic makeup. Literally something like 1 in 10 thousand climbers have climbed V12 making that grade an extreme outlier. Someone above posted "Oh, but 2500-3000 climbers have done 5.14a....well, current estimates are 25-30 Million climbers worldwide. That's like one in 100 thousand. That is not the "mortal grade". That is gifted, maybe not crazy mutant.

That is not to say all of us cannot improve our current level, but you are overly optimistic. :)

John Tuttle wrote:

Respectfully, you have absolutely no evidence to suggest that 13+ and v12 are "average climber" attainable.

I have overwhelming statistics that those are not attainable by average climber genetic makeup. Literally something like 1 in 10 thousand climbers have climbed V12 making that grade an extreme outlier. Someone above posted "Oh, but 2500-3000 climbers have done 5.14a....well, current estimates are 25-30 Million climbers worldwide. That's like one in 100 thousand. That is not the "mortal grade". That is gifted, maybe not crazy mutant.

That is not to say all of us cannot improve our current level, but you are overly optimistic. :)

<<<Respectfully, you have absolutely no evidence to suggest that 13+ and v12 are "average climber" attainable.>>>

"Attainable" is not the same as "genetic limits." Both qualities are of course, extremely hypothetical, but the necessary capacity, genetically speaking, to achieve those grades is, (admittedly I'm asserting this without evidence) but in my opinion, are latent in the average climber. Whether that level is "attainable" is another problem since many other factors can intervene in preventing that achievement but that are not genetic in nature. The numbers you're presenting (1 in 10K can climb V12) are not necessarily helpful since we haven't defined what an "average climber" actually is, or, for that matter, even what a climber is or how many there actually are. So the statistics per se may be less "overwhelming" than meets the eye. Furthermore there are many different types of V12 out there, some more accessible and accommodating to some climbers than others.

I prefer to remain overly optimistic in this regard. 

John Tuttle wrote:

Respectfully, you have absolutely no evidence to suggest that 13+ and v12 are "average climber" attainable. 

I have overwhelming statistics that those are not attainable by average climber genetic makeup. Literally something like 1 in 10 thousand climbers have climbed V12 making that grade an extreme outlier. Someone above posted "Oh, but 2500-3000 climbers have done 5.14a....well, current estimates are 25-30 Million climbers worldwide. That's like one in 100 thousand. That is not the "mortal grade". That is gifted, maybe not crazy mutant.

That is not to say all of us cannot improve our current level, but you are overly optimistic. :)

Not to be pedantic or come off as *well acktually* but these are not overwhelming statistics. 25-30 million climbers worldwide is not 25-30 million climbers trying to climb 14a. I don't know where that number is from, but it possibly includes people who bought a rope and quickdraws that sit in the corner of a garage, or my old coworker Jake that had a great time climbing 5.8 in Eldo and quit when he became a dad, or aid lords that have been hauling up El Cap for 50 years. It really assumes that anyone who is a climber has a goal of climbing 14a or whatever grade, which is not at all true. If you wanted to make this point you would have to find the amount of climbers that redpointed 14a as a portion of climbers that are seriously training to try and redpoint 14a. That latter portion is waaaaay less than 25-30 million. 

I generally agree w your point that it's not healthy comparing yourself against the best climbers in the world, but if we're doing anecdotal evidence, I know enough randos with full time jobs in Boulder climbing double digit V-grades or 5.13 to be able to accept that anyone can't do that if they really care about it.

Shay Subramanian wrote:

Not to be pedantic or come off as *well acktually* but these are not overwhelming statistics. 25-30 million climbers worldwide is not 25-30 million climbers trying to climb 14a. I don't know where that number is from, but it possibly includes people who bought a rope and quickdraws that sit in the corner of a garage, or my old coworker Jake that had a great time climbing 5.8 in Eldo and quit when he became a dad, or aid lords that have been hauling up El Cap for 50 years. It really assumes that anyone who is a climber has a goal of climbing 14a or whatever grade, which is not at all true. If you wanted to make this point you would have to find the amount of climbers that redpointed 14a as a portion of climbers that are seriously training to try and redpoint 14a. That latter portion is waaaaay less than 25-30 million. 

I generally agree w your point that it's not healthy comparing yourself against the best climbers in the world, but if we're doing anecdotal evidence, I know enough randos with full time jobs in Boulder climbing double digit V-grades or 5.13 to be able to accept that anyone can't do that if they really care about it.

Disagree Shay.

When someone like Peter (despite his admirable optimism) claims that 14A is "attainable" when the numbers simply don't hold up.

What does that 25-30M total climbers mean to 14A? It not only means they don't have that goal it's a de facto realization that they cannot attain it for all the reasons we have talked about. If they could, far more likely would.

If someone has incredible natural gifts and loves the sport, they naturally see what their limits might be. This does not mean "train like a fiend" but at least discover just how hard they might have to work to progress much further. This is a very common path in nearly all sport.

I assert that the vast majority find their "wall" that they cannot get over without extraordinary commitment and that "wall" is in fact, remarkably low (ie the average climber is barely a 5.10 gym climber). This is just like we all have tried to run 100M at one point or another and when we found we had zero talent for the event we moved on to other things that came more easily to us. I feel quite certain this is the case in climbing. People find a limit and settle for that as reasonable given their time/commitment and natural ability/inclination. All of those have a basis in genetics, both muscle physiology and the mental aspect. Climbing 5.14a takes both.

My OP is to elevate that personal limit to ones PR and to equate that experience with those that have more gifts. After all, it's the same once we're on the sharp end. Same risk, same reward. a 5.15 climber does not get more out of the sport than a 5.8 dad, imo. They just get to climb more but miss baby's first steps etc.

They say that comparison is the thief of joy...but it also the source of gratitude ie 75-100M cannot even walk. It's an attempt to get people to enjoy the path more: to be themselves wherever they are on the path.

Also, Boulder is an outlier just by proximity to all the climbing. It's like saying "everyone I know in Salt Lake City crushes"...but the vast majority of climbers never get past 11- in the gyms around the world.

John Tuttle wrote:

Disagree Shay.

When someone like Peter (despite his admirable optimism) claims that 14A is "attainable" then the numbers simply don't hold up.

What does that 25-30M total climbers mean to 14A? It not only means they don't have that goal it's a de facto realization that they cannot attain it for all the reasons we have talked about. If they could, far more likely would.

If someone has incredible natural gifts and loves the sport, they naturally see what their limits might be. This does not mean "train like a fiend" but at least discover just how hard they might have to work to progress much further.

I assert that the vast majority find their "wall" that they cannot get over without extraordinary commitment and that "wall" is in fact, remarkably low (ie the average climber). This is just like we all have tried to run 100M at one point or another and when we found we had zero talent for the event we moved on to other things that came more easily to us. I feel quite certain this is the case in climbing. People find a limit and settle for that as reasonable given their time/commitment and natural ability/inclination. All of those have a basis in genetics, both muscle physiology and the mental aspect. Climbing 5.14a takes both.

My OP is to elevate that personal limit to ones PR and to equate that experience with those that have more gifts. After all, it's the same once we're on the sharp end. Same risk, same reward. a 5.15 climber does not get more out of the sport than a 5.8 dad, imo. They just get to climb more but miss baby's first steps etc.

It's an attempt to get people to enjoy the path more.

"They just get to climb more but miss baby's first steps etc."

I'm going to bet that there are more people who missed their kid's first steps thanks to work than thanks to redpoint burns on the proj. I have climbed 5.14 and V12, have a daughter, and didn't miss any of those moments. I think it has more to do with climber attitude than actually trying hard.

For sure climbing 5.7 is awesome but to me harder climbs are awesomer and I like helping people get there, if they want.

Peter Beal wrote:

"They just get to climb more but miss baby's first steps etc."

I'm going to bet that there are more people who missed their kid's first steps thanks to work than thanks to redpoint burns on the proj. I have climbed 5.14 and V12, have a daughter, and didn't miss any of those moments. I think it has more to do with climber attitude than actually trying hard.

For sure climbing 5.7 is awesome but to me harder climbs are awesomer and I like helping people get there, if they want.

"Missing baby's first steps" is just a metaphor for all of the rich experiences that life offers of course. :)

We all have the time; it's just a question of priorities. Most do not prioritize training for 5.14 but I contend that lack of genetic talent for the grade is a major component of that.

I was just having this conversation the other day. Genetic limits in climbing as well as any sport is 100% a thing. 

It's not just physical, but the whole package. Look at Lebron James and Kobe Byant for example. Both the best of the best, extremely dedicated to taking care of their bodies. One was out of the league at 38 because he couldn't keep up with the wear and tear on his body and the other is still playing at a high level at 42. Genetic freak amongst genetic freaks.

There was a coach online who made a video about 2 climbers who had both been climbing for 3 years. One was climbing v6 and one v10. He said the only difference between the two was not genetics, or how hard they tried, it was intentional training and structure. Surprise, surprise, he came out with a product that sold just that... 

Anyway, not that I disagree that structure and intent make a huge difference, but selling that anyone can climb v10 in 3 years with enough structure and training is complete bullshit. I would argue that is higher than most peoples genetic potential in a lifetime, and is selling false hopes and dreams. Most people who climb v10 in the first 3 years don't train at all because the are just genetically gifted.

If you gave 100 random people who never climbed before the opportunity to win $1,000,000 if they could reach v10 in 3 years, with no other obligation, unlimited resources, etc, you think all 100 would? No chance in hell. Probably way less than 20. The average human would get injured because they couldn't handle the load. It's not just how hard you can pull or how fast you can build strength and technique. It's also about your bodies ability to handle the load. Some people are just built different and can adapt to the stress. 

Adam Ondra and Magnus Midtbo had a conversation about genetics. They agreed that 8a (13b) or around v8 was that ceiling that the average Joe could reach if they dedicated their life to it. To go above, they both agreed that you need to be genetically gifted.

It's not an excuse, it's reality.

At the end of the day, if you want to get stronger, train, try hard and continually push yourself, and above all have fun. But at some point, you will reach a place where you can't squeeze any more juice out of that lemon, and that's ok.

saign charlestein wrote:

I was just having this conversation the other day. Genetic limits in climbing as well as any sport is 100% a thing. 

It's not just physical, but the whole package. Look at Lebron James and Kobe Byant for example. Both the best of the best, extremely dedicated to taking care of their bodies. One was out of the league at 38 because he couldn't keep up with the wear and tear on his body and the other is still playing at a high level at 42. Genetic freak amongst genetic freaks.

There was a coach online who made a video about 2 climbers who had both been climbing for 3 years. One was climbing v6 and one v10. He said the only difference between the two was not genetics, or how hard they tried, it was intentional training and structure. Surprise, surprise, he came out with a product that sold just that... 

Anyway, not that I disagree that structure and intent make a huge difference, but selling that anyone can climb v10 in 3 years with enough structure and training is complete bullshit. I would argue that is higher than most peoples genetic potential in a lifetime, and is selling false hopes and dreams. Most people who climb v10 in the first 3 years don't train at all because the are just genetically gifted.

If you gave 100 random people who never climbed before the opportunity to win $1,000,000 if they could reach v10 in 3 years, with no other obligation, unlimited resources, etc, you think all 100 would? No chance in hell. Probably way less than 20. The average human would get injured because they couldn't handle the load. It's not just how hard you can pull or how fast you can build strength and technique. It's also about your bodies ability to handle the load. Some people are just built different and can adapt to the stress. 

Adam Ondra and Magnus Midtbo had a conversation about genetics. They agreed that 8a (13b) or around v8 was that ceiling that the average Joe could reach if they dedicated their life to it. To go above, they both agreed that you need to be genetically gifted.

It's not an excuse, it's reality.

At the end of the day, if you want to get stronger, train, try hard and continually push yourself, and above all have fun. But at some point, you will reach a place where you can't squeeze any more juice out of that lemon, and that's ok.

Yea, what the number that is what "mortals" can attain can be the subject of conjecture but hard to put real numbers on it with data to back it up. v10 was the hardest boulder in the world at one time. Climbers are not getting better other than footwear; there are just more climbers and that means the outliers with mutant ability stretch farther out.

Regardless, using the "100mph fastball" analogy the vast majority will never even throw 85 mph as much as they would like to be a pitcher and love baseball etc. One kid who throws 90 mph in a good high school league is a huge standout. "Only about 5% or less of all high school baseball pitchers reach or exceed 90 mph. While elite showcases and top-tier travel ball teams feature more velocity today, the true average fastball speed for a high school pitcher is much closer to 74–76 mph".

If you look at a standard curve which can be applied to the distribution of climbing ability the mean is going to be something like v3, maybe v4 at most. Outside, I would guess probably less. That's how incredibly far from "average" even v8 is let alone v10.  V8 is probably like the top 0.5% of climbers or less. The highest grades are stratospherically harder than that with the leading edge of ability being something rarer than one in a million climbers. That's what it means to be truly gifted genetically and be a world champion in a sport with many participants: You are one in a million. I mean, we all literally can run so truly top world class runners are like one in 100,000,000 participants or something. There are thousands training just as hard and with as much intention that never even qualify for any Olympic event etc.

And yet those dudes from Kenya just dominate the marathon.

Genetics.

whenever i hear somebody say that an average person can climb 13+ i think of the famous bill bowerman lecture to prefontaine. "your belief that you have no talent is the ultimate vanity." i find it to either be completely delusional, or full-on humblebragging.

slim wrote:

whenever i hear somebody say that an average person can climb 13+ i think of the famous bill bowerman lecture to prefontaine. "your belief that you have no talent is the ultimate vanity." i find it to either be completely delusional, or full-on humblebragging.

For someone to reach their genetic limit in any specific area, they need to start training with a singular focus as a child and develop the specific strengths and skills as their body develops. I actually do think that someone of average climbing genetics would reach 5.13+ given a lifelong Olympic level training schedule. Of course, this is a complete guess and would be hard or impossible to test

Except that we are surrounded by very average people doing just that. Just off the top of my head I can think of five or six individuals who have climbed 5.14, not counting the three or four who are borderline pros. Among these half a dozen or so, is a lawyer, an accountant, and three scientists, three with family with children. The common denominator is that they became obsessed with a goal, adjusted their diets and lifestyles, and trained hard until their projects went down. I would say that the actual genetic potential in perfect circumstances for the average schmuck is more like mid 5.14 or just a notch harder. 

Frank Stein wrote:

Except that we are surrounded by very average people doing just that. Just off the top of my head I can think of five or six individuals who have climbed 5.14, not counting the three or four who are borderline pros. Among these half a dozen or so, is a lawyer, an accountant, and three scientists, three with family with children. The common denominator is that they became obsessed with a goal, adjusted their diets and lifestyles, and trained hard until their projects went down. I would say that the actual genetic potential in perfect circumstances for the average schmuck is more like mid 5.14 or just a notch harder. 

Where's your data?

There is no evidence that "average people" are succeeding in climbing 5.14.

Instead, we have 8 ticks on To Bolt or Not to Be one of the most famous 5.14s in America. If "average people" were doing it then it would have thousands of ticks like a popular 5.7...

You are not surrounded by 5.14 climbers anywhere other than a destination climbing area (and then it's like 10-15 guys and gals out of 25 million climbers worldwide).

You make it sound like there should be thousands of people climbing El Cap or at the base of Ceuse every year when it's in reality probably less than 100 people from all over the world in an entire year. The 5.14s on El Cap literally have just a handful of ascents.

Not a single "average person" gets up 5.14a. They are exceptional individuals by definition. That's what statistics tells us.

ps. And as below as slim posted there is also a genetic basis to personality. The motivation, focus and drive to attain such rarified goals is not remotely the "average" person's mental makeup.

Frank Stein wrote:

Except that we are surrounded by very average people doing just that. Just off the top of my head I can think of five or six individuals who have climbed 5.14, not counting the three or four who are borderline pros. Among these half a dozen or so, is a lawyer, an accountant, and three scientists, three with family with children. The common denominator is that they became obsessed with a goal, adjusted their diets and lifestyles, and trained hard until their projects went down. I would say that the actual genetic potential in perfect circumstances for the average schmuck is more like mid 5.14 or just a notch harder. 

how do you know these people are average?  in a similar notion, a lot of folks from boulder point out that their "average" friends climb 5.14. boulder isn't a realistic slice of "average" america. spend some time hanging out in mid-western america and report back about "average". 

another thing to keep in mind is that the "average" person probably has an "average" mental game.  that could be the genetic limit for a LOT of people. i have met a shit-ton of people who have said something along the lines of "i could climb 5.13 if i tried." no they can't. they don't have the discipline, motivation, etc to do it.

slim wrote:

how do you know these people are average?  in a similar notion, a lot of folks from boulder point out that their "average" friends climb 5.14. boulder isn't a realistic slice of "average" america. spend some time hanging out in mid-western america and report back about "average". 

another thing to keep in mind is that the "average" person probably has an "average" mental game.  that could be the genetic limit for a LOT of people. i have met a shit-ton of people who have said something along the lines of "i could climb 5.13 if i tried." no they can't. they don't have the discipline, motivation, etc to do it.

Well, Central New Mexico is hardly a Mecca for climbing. But I’ll give a couple of examples without outing anyone. Two of the ones that I mentioned, never climbed harder than .13-, but around the same time, they decided that they wanted to do Mainliner (.14a) and A Date With Death (.13+ trad). Within two years, they both sent both routes. Another one, claimed that he could not climb 5.13, and systematically downrated pretty much every single .13- in New Mexico to .12d. He then went to the Red, and sent Omaha Beach in six tries.  All three had demanding jobs as scientists in the Labs, but, all three worked really hard at climbing hard.

Oh, and about Ceuse not being crowded (Dr. Tuttle). Sector Biographie on a rainy weekday looking like a Saturday afternoon at the Gunks.