Thoughts on training and Individual Limits

Caleb wrote:

Are you saying personal agency does not exist and behavior is just circumstance and chromosomes?

No, in fact I am a huge believer in Agency and untapped potential excellence.

That however is far different from the standard pablum that "you can do anything with hard work" that really is just an elitist meme to justify their "superiority" being greater/harder workers than others (but has a genetic basis that they have no responsibility for having). This ignores genetics, support systems and being born into the right class etc.

People change behaviors all the time, BUT there are limits to what can be accomplished both physically and mentally no matter the rigor of the training. While I am a firm believer that nearly anyone I meet has untapped genius in some area that "clicks" for their brain, be it music, the arts or just a fantastic mind for rock and roll trivia (my sister despite no other real talent is a savant for that stuff), I know for a fact that hard work alone will not make you Issac Newton, Mozart or Janja Gambert.

And very importantly, we do not choose our Genius, it chooses us. Just because you would love to be a genius at Math and work incredibly hard at it you very, very likely cannot reach world class ability. That is a gift from birth.

The idea is to end the "didn't send" shaming and embrace each individual's accomplishments in climbing. I really think we all deserve the ultimate participation trophies just being out there pushing personal limits (in some way or form) nearly every day we go climbing. We literally risk our lives pushing ourselves regardless of the rating of the route.

I guess at the end of the day I don't really see comparing yourself to others to be a problem- its just how you do it that can be a problem. 

If your ego is tied up in your performance then comparison to someone better than you can hurt just as comparison to someone worse than you can feel "good". The solution to hurtful comparison isn't to stop comparing, the solution is to get your ego out of the equation. 

Every body is different, grades are inherently subjective, the challenge any particular route presents varies not just according to the different individuals climbing it but the external conditions (Humidity, temp, sun etc), as well as the internal conditions of any individual climber, ie a given route will be much easier if you are well rested, hydrated and fed versus coming off a three day bender. 

On any given day whether I feel good about my own performance is largely based on the effort I gave rather than the outcome-Did I show up prepared? did I try hard? did I use good tactics? Did I fall going for it or did I get tired of being uncomfortable and try to rush to the end or just give up and fall with a halfhearted attempt at a move? 

None of these things have anything to do with other people. But over a longer term I feel good or bad about my climbing based on wether I am learning and growing, and a lot of that growth comes from watching other climbers and learning from them. If I decide "Oh that persons just better than me because of genetics." I am robbing myself of the opportunity to learn from them, and every single very good climber is doing a lot of things better than me besides having strong fingers and a light body.

I'm interested in progressing towards my own personal potential both because I enjoy the process and because being a stronger climber opens up more cool terrain to play on. Seeing somebody climb something above my grade gets me stoked and motivated to get better. Giving myself a preloaded genetics excuse just feels like an easy excuse to save my ego at the cost of hampering or capping my progression.

If watching This video makes you feel bad about yourself rather than psyched you need to work on your mental game.

i think there should be a two question survey for folks who have climbed 14a or harder:

1) Do you think you are of average ability?

2) Do you think your children (or your pets!) are gifted and talented?

i think the results would be interesting.

slim wrote:

i think there should be a two question survey for folks who have climbed 14a or harder:

1) Do you think you are of average ability?

2) Do you think your children (or your pets!) are gifted and talented?

i think the results would be interesting.

No need. 

The statistics are quite clear that far less than 0.01% of climbers have ticked 5.14a so by definition they cannot be of average ability.

Sharma did not train other than projecting and bouldering for the first 20 years (at least) of his climbing career yet was the first to climb 5.15a and second to do 5.15c (iirc). THEN he decided he might need to focus on certain weaknesses. Many, many climbers have the desire to climb all the time but are very limited in their final progression. I do agree that focused training is the key to a "max grade" for a given individual but there are just going to be limitations both in brain chemistry and muscle physiology that will reflect that max. And that is more than fine!

We are all Chris when we are projecting at our limit.

Every ability known to humans has a standard curve of distribution. The outliers have genetic gifts that others don't. The point is to appreciate your own climbing as much as any others and not follow the latest headline from Climbing like it matters to your own climbing.

16yo Sam Ruthe of New Zealand just ran a 3:48 mile. It wasn't because of hard work and focused training. It was genetic gifts.

Your "marathon" will be the next approach to that hard to get to crag. That is all that matters.

John Tuttle wrote:

No need. 

The statistics are quite clear that far less than 0.01% of climbers have ticked 5.14a so by definition they cannot be of average ability.

I don’t know where you get these statistics. This would mean that one out of every 10,000 climbers managed to climb 5.14. Off the top of my head, I came up with eleven climbers from the Albuquerque/Santa Fe area who I know personally who are still active, and have climbed the grade. This would mean that there would have to be at least 110,000 climbers in a metro statistical area of about 1.1 million.

Frank Stein wrote:

I don’t know where you get these statistics. This would mean that one out of every 10,000 climbers managed to climb 5.14. Off the top of my head, I came up with eleven climbers from the Albuquerque/Santa Fe area who I know personally who are still active, and have climbed the grade. This would mean that there would have to be at least 110,000 climbers in a metro statistical area of about 1.1 million.

Frank, respectfully, statistics doesn't work like that.

Just because you can anecdotally report a knowledge of crushers does not remotely create a larger climber population surrounding your immediate area. It just means you know some crushers that have located themselves in a mountain town.

The one in 10,000 number would mean that 2500-3000 current climbers have ticked 5.14a and I bet that number is high (as well as the estimate of total numbers of climbers, such is the web).

Literally the most famous 5.14a in the USA has 8 ticks. That of course is low. But I bet there aren't 10 climbers at Smith Rock that can climb 5.14a on a given high traffic day. Just like that "crowd" at Ceuse photo you posted that had 10 people in the picture....10...there are 10 people a day on single routes that are 5.10...this is the average climber at most.

I can think of maybe six or eight 5.14as in the entire state of California and only about two dozen 5.14s total. According to you that should be a popular grade?

This is not anecdotal. The fact is that the 11 that I mentioned are known to me personally, and I am certain that there are several more who I don’t know. The Albuquerque metro area is not a mountain town, but a small town midsize urban area that is hardly a climber Mecca. According to your statistic, one out of every 10 residence would have to be an active climber.

John Tuttle wrote:

I can think of maybe six or eight 5.14as in the entire state of California 

You might want to get out more.

Data v. Anecdote:

Data refers to systematically collected observations, measurements, or facts that can be analyzed to identify patterns, test hypotheses, or make predictions. It is objective, quantifiable, and reliable in aggregate, allowing conclusions to be drawn about larger populations or trends. Data is essential for evidence-based decision-making because it reduces bias and provides a foundation for reproducible results.

Anecdotes are brief, engaging stories or personal accounts that illustrate a particular point or experience. They are subjective, often emotionally compelling, and can highlight issues or insights that data alone might not reveal. While anecdotes can humanize data and make it more relatable, they are prone to selection bias, confirmation bias, and overgeneralization, meaning they may not accurately reflect broader trends.

As well, as posted previously, the number of people you know who have climbed 5.14a does not magically create a population of climbers around them in their community that is 10,000 times their number. Statistics don't work like that.

John Tuttle wrote:

Literally the most famous 5.14a in the USA has 8 ticks. That of course is low. But I bet there aren't 10 climbers at Smith Rock that can climb 5.14a on a given high traffic day. Just like that "crowd" at Ceuse photo you posted that had 10 people in the picture....10...there are 10 people a day on single routes that are 5.10...this is the average climber at most.

I can think of maybe six or eight 5.14as in the entire state of California and only about two dozen 5.14s total. According to you that should be a popular grade?

Mainliner in the Jemez is a very obscure .14a and has eight ticks.  The Gayness in Rifle has thirteen ticks and so does Zulu (I am sure that the actual total number of ascents is probably in the hundreds for both), and The Project Wall has ten 5.14s by itself. This would mean that according to your calculations a 50 yard wide strip of scrappy limestone on the western slope of Colorado would have more 5.14s than the entire state of California.

The truth is that 5.14- is no longer rare, and is a bit of an every man grade. Claiming that .01% of all climbers have the ability to climb .14- is objectively insane. I could maybe get behind 1% but even that seems very low.

And two Grug, I have not climbed any because I am old, fat and weak.

Frank Stein wrote:

The truth is that 5.14- is no longer rare, and is a bit of a every man grade

You are being intentionally obstinate and combative. 

How many 5.14's have you climbed? 

Frank Stein wrote:

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.

"all three had demanding jobs as scientists int he Labs..."

again....not average....

kind of a funny story that is sort of related...  a few years ago i went to lunch with a few guys from work. one guy, let's call him "ron" was a guy in his 60s who loved to brag about benching 400 and wanting to fight anybody who disagreed with him about anything.

anyway, he had just listened to some rush limbaugh episode about "anybody can do anything if they put their mind to it." ron was going on and on about it.  after a bit i asked "hey ron, could some dude that is 6'-2" and weighs 120 bench 400 if he dedicated his life to it?"

he literally blew about half a can of diet coke out of his nose and busted up laughing. he said "that is the dumbest f***ing thing i have ever heard. f*** no he couldn't."

i agree with saign (i think this is basically what he is saying, and if not he can correct me).  imagine there are 10 "categories" that combine for someone to be able to climb 5.13. these could be finger strength, mental fortitude, flexability, discipline, etc... assume it is a 10 point score and a score of 5 in a category is average.  

a person needs to score high enough across these categories to climb 5.13.  maybe they score 7 out of 10 on each, or maybe they score 10 out of 10 on something and score just high enough across the rest of them to scrape by.  is an "average" person going to average 7 across the categories? probably not. is an average person going to score 10 on anything? probably not. another big problem is that if you suck bad enough in any one category it could tank you.

as climbers, i think right off the bat we are above average in the category of being willing to try climbing at all. most people are mentally paralized by the thought of it. i think we bias our thoughts on the average person by being surrounded by not really average peole.

https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/117787505/maxaverage-grade-of-ticks-for-crag-by-climber-example-the-gunks

Not many 5.11s ticked, much less 5.14

The idea that 5.14 or 8b/9a is an everyperson grade attainable by average humans is ridiculous. 

Brendan N wrote:

You might want to get out more.

You are absolutely right :).

An MP search shows ~40 5.14a in California. Of course, there are at least 50,000 rock climbs in the state though they might no all be on MP. Doubtful that there are many 5.14 that are not posted here.

This low number or routes is of course due to the scarcity of naturally occurring routes of the grade but, at one in a 1000 climbs it is reflective of there being very, very few climbers at that grade. If it was remotely "average guy" climbable there would be more super hard routes. New route creation is most definitely a function of the number of climbers and the number that climb at a given grade. Everyone that does FAs looks for at least a few climbs at their max.

Frank Stein wrote:

Mainliner in the Jemez is a very obscure .14a and has eight ticks.  The Gayness in Rifle has thirteen ticks and so does Zulu (I am sure that the actual total number of ascents is probably in the hundreds for both), and The Project Wall has ten 5.14s by itself. This would mean that according to your calculations a 50 yard wide strip of scrappy limestone on the western slope of Colorado would have more 5.14s than the entire state of California.

The truth is that 5.14- is no longer rare, and is a bit of an every man grade. Claiming that .01% of all climbers have the ability to climb .14- is objectively insane. I could maybe get behind 1% but even that seems very low.

And two Grug, I have not climbed any because I am old, fat and weak.

Reread the definition of "anecdote" please.

As well, if you think any scientist athlete is average then that is one source of the problem. 

Having a PHD (which typically takes a decade of study) and climbing 5.14 is the epitome of unicorn. I bet that is less than 1:100,000 climbers.

Your selection of this group and claiming it as "average" is actually as anecdotal a creation as it gets, thinking this unique experience represents a larger whole.

OK, so we've talked about "trying hard" in this thread.  I think that is a huge component of success (in addition to genetics of course).   

Check out this video.  This has to be an example of trying, over and over, really, really, really hard. 

The climber decided not to grade this multipitch sport route, but it is most likely in the 8c+ or 5.14c range.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EdCVWT_xlY

There's a great deal that could be said about the video itself. The translation from Swiss German is endearing, and the scenes of the idylic Swiss countryside are wonderful.  Of course, living here, and knowing the realities of tourism and politics in that region, I see it somewhat differently, but, why not, let the steotypes of alpine pastures and cows and cheese making in Switzerland endure!

Anyway, it's really about ths climbing, and the effort out into this climb is awe inspiring and humbling.  

It also clearly shows everything required to establish and climb a 5.14 route is far, far, far outside the normal range of most humans. 

Bruno Schull wrote:It also clearly shows everything required to establish and climb a 5.14 route is far, far, far outside the normal range of most humans.

Not to belittle the achievement, it obviously took tons of work and dedication, but how is that something beyond average potential?

Sweet video!

You got me Caleb!  Of course this falls within the range of human potential because...it was achieved by a human!  

What I meant to say to that efforts like this fall near the extreme end of the range of human capability...not anywhere near average. 

Thanks for the correction. Accuracy in language is important!