Continue with onX Maps
Sign in with Facebook
Thoughts on training and Individual Limits
Frank Stein wrote: I wouldn’t call 14- rare, but it’s far from an “Everyman grade”. If you took 10 random gyms across the country, you really think 1 out of 100 members has climbed 5.14? No way. Maybe 1 out of 200 might be getting closer. But even if 1 out of 100 did, that would mean they are the 99th percentile. Literally the top 1% that’s so far from average, you’re basically arguing against yourself with that argument. Another related but a bit off topic that I have had quite a few debates about it what grades one would consider to beginner, intermediate, advanced, elite, and work class?
Beginner >5.9/v2 Intermediate 10a-11c v3-5 Advanced 11d-13b v6-9 Elite 13c-14c v10-14 World class would be anything above |
|
Let's call Chris Sharma the GOAT, and note that he achieved 100% of human capacity in sending 5.15c. What is interesting is that if you consider the 32 grades in the YDS, the middle grade is .11c. So a completely average person should be able to achieve this level with completely average motivation. It is after all the exact middle of the grading scale. Now if you take a somewhat normal person and give them exceptional training and they have exceptional motivation, shouldn't we be able to get to 75% of human capacity? 75% of human capacity is .13c....not too shabby? Seems like .14a isn't really that exceptional...only 77%! When we consider that 5.14a, is now 7 grades below elite in only a few decades, how can any of us claim to know what the actual genetic potential for humans in climbing is? Instead of focusing on a variable you cannot readily determine, instead focus on the variables you can control, like training and fitness. Your genetics are pre-determined, your motivation is not. |
Kevin Stricker wrote: Kevin, if you would do some investigation, you would learn that motivation and most personality traits also have a genetic/hereditary basis. I agree that most people possess the capacity to suppress negative traits and maximize positive traits, but to claim that motivation is soley a personal demonstration of “will,” is not scientifically supported. |
Daniel Shively wrote: I have a degree in Biology, so have done some investigation into the topic. While the basis for my motivation may be genetically determined, I do have the capacity to effect it through my environment and mental state/psyche. As I can change my motivation I consider it not pre-determined. EDIT: I guess I see your point. I will stick with skill training and fitness! |
Kevin Stricker wrote: That’s my preferred solution to life’s challenges too. I’m not an advocate for a deterministic mindset, I just want to acknowledge that there are many pieces to the puzzle that makes up everything. |
Kevin Stricker wrote: I like the mental exercise, but that is assuming human capacity for climbing (or anything, really) follows a normal distribution, which I am doubtful of. More likely seems to be that the tail of human performance is quite long and would skew any average. |
|
I think individual limits are probably more important than people give them credit for. Training can take you a long way, but trying to copy someone else’s volume or intensity doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll get the same results. For me, consistent training without constantly pushing into exhaustion makes more sense. Progress is still progress, even if it comes slower than you hoped. |
John Tuttle wrote:
I'll take this logical disconnection as a sign that the conversation was a troll. The original question was about climbing genetic limits. A reasonable way to test it would be to reduce the variables that the community has said hold them back: work, family, other sports, etc. A look at what level youth team climbers achieve would be as close as you could get without a double-blind 40 year identical twin study. What grade do you think most youth team climbers achieve before they transition to the responsibilities of adulthood? |
|
If you looked at what level youth team climbers achieve to draw general conclusions that would reflect massive selection bias. The original point of the OP (I think) was to try as much as possible not to measure onself against others, to climb hard if that's what you like, and to derive satisfaction from the process and not from grades. That's all great advice. Later, it became a conversation about where the genetic ceiling is for an "averge person" or an "average climber." That's difficult to explore because there are so many ways to frame the question. Looking at the level achieved by youth climbers does provide some interesting information. For example, it sheds light on the level that can be achieved by genetically gifted climbers (mentally and physically) who start young and are encouraged and supported by a community and infrastructure, without the pressures and responsibilities of adult life. That level is very high. But it doesn't tell us much about the average person and their potential. Imagine that you took a random sample of children from some level (primary school, secondary school, high school, etc.) and gave them the opportunity to participate in three or four years of structured and supported training. How many would choose to do that? How many would stay after a few weeks/months/years? How many would not get sick or injured? How many would plateau? How many would become elite climbers? I still don't know if this hypothetical scenario would relate directly to the question, becasue the physical changes associated with growing older, and the pressures and responsibilities of adult life are part of the equation, but it would provide more information about averages than youth team climbers. |
Bruno Schull wrote: What grade do you think they would climb? I would specify age 12 to 22, ten years of training. It seems like the age range where free will is starting until adulting is generally starting. 100 children to keep the maths easy. |
|
I think of those 100 children, probably less than 10, maybe less than 5, maybe even just 2 or 3, would stay with the program for 10 years. Most just wouldn't be interested. Some would stay to hang out with friends for a while and then leave. Some would get distracted by social things or academics. Others would have life problems (divorce, parents moving). Some would find other sports more interesting. Some would play video games. Some would dvelop serious diseases and medical problems including mental disorders (depression, anxiety, etc) and physical problems (diabetes, epilepsy, etc). Some would drink and do drugs. Some would try really hard and get injured (ligaments, bones). Others would get eating disorders and REDS. Some would really want to be successfull but just wouldn't have the ability. Some would gain weight and their bodies would change so much in puberty that what they could do at 12 they could no longer do at 18. Some might have legal problems and enter the judicial system. Some would find it easy and not challenging and get bored and stop. Some would get jobs or go to college and move on to other interests. Some would die in car accidents or drownings or overdoses. Some would become parents. Of that 100 you started with....maybe 1 would become an elite climber, say, a 5.14 climber. |
Bruno Schull wrote: Boy, you're cynical! My 16'year olds on the team here in Sacramento. Maybe 25 kids on the team when she started at 11. She's not super into climbing once she started XC, but she's climbing V7 and 12c. She has 3 male teammates that have climbed v10 outside and V12 inside. At least 3 female climbers and maybe 4 in the 5.13 and V8/9 both inside and I see similar abilities from the other teams in the Bay area. |
Todd Berlier wrote: Hi Todd, I've been a teacher of young people for over 25 years. First I worked in the US, and for the last 18 years, I've worked in the Swiss school system. It's sort of like American middle school + high school + the first year or even two years of college. My youngest students are 12 or 13 and my oldest are 19 or 20. I teach them biology and geography, so two classes per year, every year, for 7 years. I get to know them well, and I see them develop from pre-puberty to young adults, year after year, in a constant cycle. I've watched 1,000s of children grow up over the course of my career. So the possibilities I describe are based on that experience. It's not cynical, it's just the way life is. Remember, we're not talking about 100 kids in climbing teams...we're talking about a random sample of one hundred 12 years olds. It's cool that your daughter is on a climbing team! My 17 year old daughter also climbs...much harder than I do in the gym! She projects 7a! She's also a truly skilled skier, has a black belt in Tae Kwan Do, mountain bikes, plays the French horn, and does crazy, deeply immaginative, filming and theater projects outside of school in her free time. In these respects, foremost her physical gifts and her focus/obsession with her creative projects, she's an extreme outlier in her peer group. In other respects, such as her dedication to studying for school, her higher-level intelectual engagement with the world, her maturity, her independence, she's totally average. So in the end...she's just a person. I mean...I think she's amazing but...I'm her dad :) |
Bruno Schull wrote: That's what a cynic would say! Jk!
Yeah, I was assuming climbing team! But since this is a thought experiment and not real world, if you took 100 average kids off the street and brainwashed them to be dedicated to climbing with the support of an upper middle class white family, after ten years where would they be? 25% V8 50% V10 25% V12 Is my answer.
Well, well, well...my kid has straight A's taking all AP classes, can run a 5:25 mile and plays the ukulele. Take that! Oh and my two dogs are cuter and better behaved than yours! |
Todd Berlier wrote: I thought of this thread when I was in the gym the other day and the non try out youth team was there. I saw multiple v8 sends from kids who clearly weren't in high school and that seemed to be about the average grade of the group and this was the Not the try out team! Anyone who really cares about the topic and doesn't think the limit is much higher should volunteer with a youth team for 1 year just check your ego... The simple fact is that every younger generation is still get MUCH better than the previous one means that we don't really know anything about climbings genetics limits. Once it plateaus out a little we will understand more. |
Eric8 wrote: The idea that the "next generation is much better" is simply an error. Human beings are not getting any stronger. It would require an evolutional bottleneck selecting the better climbers as "more fit for reproduction" for that to be the case. What we have is a larger and larger base group of climbers and more and more kids being exposed to the sport at an early age. When the base group gets larger the outliers get farther and farther from the mean. But the new generation is not any stronger than those of the past. Add lots of bolts, crash pads and better footwear and that accounts for all of the increase in climbing grades (and the number of people that climb them). |
Brendan N wrote: Not trolling if you admit your error. And once we get into self-reporting of motivational factors we get into psuedo-science (ie Sociology/Psychology). Youth climbers in the USA are also one of the most privileged group of kids in the USA in my neck of the woods (hell, I had Steve Wosniak's son on my team too). That they self-select and have all the resources they typically need make them outliers from the outset. |
|
Climbers definitely seek out other climbers as mates. There is some genetic concentration there. |
John Tuttle wrote: Isn’t it possible that climbers are actually stronger than in the past because focused nutrition and improved training protocols have allowed them to reach a higher level of their genetic potential? Look at world tour cyclists, records are being eclipsed on famous climbs that were previously set during the era when PED‘s were in heavy use. Sure there are improvements in bikes, but the difference is in fueling and training. These factors sure seem to be helping humans reach their potential. |
Daniel Shively wrote: Nope. Herman Buhl was doing one finger pullups in the 1930's per some old report I probably can't find. It was some old analysis of climbers as compared to track athletes of the 1930's that I read years ago. It corrected for improved tracks and shoes and ropes and other gear allowing for harder things to be tried or more consistent surfaces etc and there has been negligible improvements in ability mostly attributed to far larger numbers of runners and climbers etc. Humans are not evolving into better climbers. They may be better at maximizing their individual abilities. This base composition of muscle and brain etc is what I mean by not getting "stronger". It's the same as it has been for thousands of years at least. For finger strength the last time our ancestors were "selected" for that ability we probably were still living in trees. Chris climbed up to 5.15b without a single day of training other than climbing iirc. He did not "evolve" training or gear. He just "was" and is the perfect example of climbing mutant. He loves climbing and is exceptionally gifted. There just are more climbers (and typically there are also more that have the brains for training which is why we see more crushers). Chris absolutely detests training. |
