Thoughts on training and Individual Limits

I agree with Bruno here. According to his profile Brendan N is flashing 5.13 outdoors and getting V10 in four tries...not surprising he feels "anyone can do it" and his personal selection bias. 

Kevin Stricker wrote:

Please do some research on this John, you are incorrect in your statements.

Climbers across the board are stronger, and climbing higher grades. You can verify this looking at both World Cup comp boulder average grades, as well as just the average grades at any climbing gym that has been in business for over 10 years.

Saying Sharma didn’t train is completely ignorant. He trained/trains on the wall harder than most anyone else. Climbing is not a strength sport. Climbing is a skill sport, and top climbers like Sharma realize the most important training they can do is actual climbing on the routes they are trying to climb.

Please show us this old research. Let’s look at the numbers and then say climbers are not stronger.  I’ll bet the grades listed in any paper over 10 years old are at least two letter grades lower than averages today.  

Climbers are climbing higher grades because of improved knowledge and training, it's not from the human race as a whole having better genetics in a generation or even two.  Evolution simply does not work that quickly.  More climbers climbing what was once considered hard isn't the result of biological evolution, it's from the wisdom of decades of sport science, and a simple numbers game from more people coming into the sport, not just the misfits of previous generations.  What would someone like Hidetaka Suzuki be able to climb if he actually had a coach and ate something other than cat food?

I don't think anyone in this thread is saying people shouldn't try hard or train.  But try as you might, most of us ain't climbing 5.14 or 5.15 in a year or two like Chris even if we won the lottery and had all the time in the world.  And if we started off from childhood, most of us will never swim like Michael Phelps or run like Usain Bolt.  Doesn't mean we shouldn't try.  Doesn't mean we can't do amazing stuff.  But the upper echelon will never be reached unless you have the genetics for it, and humans as a species aren't going to magically evolve to crimp 10 mm edges any better in a few generations.  

Daniel Shively wrote:

So you don’t think that Buhl or Sharma would have progressed to a higher level of genetic potential if they utilized optimized nutrition and training protocols? 

In my opinion, no. Because Buhl did train iirc (or whatever you would call it back then) and Sharma did and does by climbing a ton. Chris simply hates training other than climbing on rock. He simply followed his bliss and, imo, that was more than enough to take him to the limits of human achievement. That mental component is so important (aptitude for training) or determination to climb and climb and climb.

Buhl would have benefited more from ropes, bolts, chisels to dial in the difficulty :) and climbing shoes more than anything else, imo. He climbed in mountain boots with hemp ropes and such stone age tools.

The point is not that training is unimportant to the rest of us schlubs (it is) but that genetics are the most important of all for the highest personal achievement.

i don't agree that climbing is not a strength sport. it is an everything sport. if you want to be really good at it you need everything - strength, skill, confidence, endurance, discipline, supportive partners, etc.  if you look at any climber that is climbing 14a or harder, they are really, really strong.

one of my favorite stories about this is how paige claussen was seen as a skinny girl who wasn't strong and could just stand on her feet. when the first prodigy board was being made she walked in and said "oh wow, look at this cute little crimp!" and proceded to dead hang it and carry on a giggling conversation.

i trained for years on that board and i never could come close to dead hanging that hold, and no matter what voodoo i devoted myself to there is no way i ever would be able to do it. she is strong as fuck. some people just have that. i think we all know somebody who has that. obviously she has a lot of other attributes that are very helpful as well.

it was mentioned that the average grade is 11c. average and median are two different things, and you are trying to overlay this at a sport where the grades are basically exponentially harder in difficulty. obviously the math doesnt math here.  but, interestingly enough i think an average person could climb 11c. that sounds about right.

People are better at climbing in general than they were 20 years ago.  Kids climb harder, more hard routes get put up and more adult climbers achieve personal records into middle age.  Like you said, climbers are not genetically getting stronger, and yet they are climbing harder. I have witnessed the progression as a member of climbing gyms going back to the mid 90's.  More people climb 5.13 than they did in the 90's, 2000's, and 2010's.  Your hypothesis is that so many more people are climbing at these higher grades because there are more climbers and therefor a higher chance genetically that people will climb that grade?  

I believe we have more climbers realizing higher grades through training and prioritizing climbing.  These dedicated climbers are establishing more hard routes.  This group of higher performing climbers teach others their advanced tactics, and as a result new climbers are learning these tactics earlier and applying them.  Kids who are surrounded by these athletes have a much higher chance of becoming better climbers themselves.  When more people climb hard routes, more people believe it is possible.  It's not genetics, its progress.

It's just more climbers. There is nothing wrong with that. It may be a peak or golden age of sorts but my next thread will be about how we are actually "post climbing" as a a traditional shared goal oriented activity.

There are no "last great problems" left. It's all been done and we can only imitate the achievements of the OG past.

And have fun.  

Climbing is dead. Long live climbing.

In my 20s and 30s, I climbed a ton, and I tried really hard. I was never able to climb harder than .12c, but at least when I was in my 20s, mid to high .12 was actually considered somewhat difficult for a recreational climber. I climbed my first .13 in my late 50s. I definitely was not and am not a stronger climber than when I was twenty seven. I can’t hold as small of an edge, I can’t do as many pull-ups and I certainly do not recover as fast. However, the biggest difference is that I saw more and more people around me climbing into the 13s and 14s. Suddenly, 5.12 just didn’t seem that hard anymore and 5.13 felt attainable.  Same thing happened to my wife on the same timeline, who went from mid 5.11 to 5.12+.  This is just a sample of one or two, but I think that this is what happened to the climbing community in general.

Obviously genes are ultimately a limiting factor to how hard someone can climb, but I think the average persons genetic potential for climbing is probably pretty high, I would believe hard thirteen or easy 14 would be achievable by most bodies if they started young and had all the resources at their disposal, especially if they picked appropriate objectives to maximize their particular genetic strengths and minimize their weaknesses. Thin vert, pure endurance jug hauling, 3d kneebar crawling, friction slab, these all have very different demands. 

You can't walk into a gym and look at a population of people most of whom started climbing as adults, don't train, and aren't trying to achieve their absolute human potential in the sport and draw conclusions about maximum genetic potential. 

Genetics isn't just written in stone-epigenetics and gene expression exist. Queen bees start out life genetically identical to all the other female bees in their hive and and the nurse bees manipulate their gene expression to make her a queen. Periods of malnutrition in parents lives affect the way their childrens genes are expressed. Periods of malnutrition or other high stress scenarios effect the way children own genes are expressed. I think its quite likely that exposure to climbing at a young age dramatically increases ones maximum achievable finger strength. climbing is fairly unique in this respect compared to other sport- there are few other activities and sports a child can be exposed to which provide that sort of stimulus compared to the high crossover between various ball sports and running for example.

It's very difficult to draw comparisons from  technical rock climbing which has an incredibly large skill component to something like competitive running which has a relatively much smaller skill component as well as the fact that climbing isn't nearly as mature of a discipline-100ish years versus thousands for competitive running. 

Grades are being pushed not just because more bodies are in the sport. When I started climbing almost thirty years ago I was taught three points of contact, don't fall. now kids are doing paddle dynos. that's not because they genetically know how to move like that or because their shoes are better, it's because techniques have improved drastically over those three decades. 

Yes casting a wider net will uncover more freakish outliers who push the absolute human boundary further, but ALSO improvements in technique, training and coaching will improve the level achievable both by the freaks and the "average joes".

grug g wrote:

I agree with Bruno here. According to his profile Brendan N is flashing 5.13 outdoors and getting V10 in four tries...not surprising he feels "anyone can do it" and his personal selection bias. 

I also wonder if the opposite is true. Folks who feel genetics defines almost every aspect of greater than 13a performance have subconscious regret about not pushing themselves hard enough. 

Daniel Shively wrote:

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. 

I think a lot of the improvement is due to the larger pool of cyclists that have preselected due to improvements in training techniques that are widely known.

Daniel Shively wrote:

I somewhat agree but often the former records are being beaten by the top 10 or more riders in certain stages. Former pros and current riders and teams also speak in great detail how modern high carb load fueling is directly attributed to the overall increased speed and daily intensity within the pro peloton. Modern fueling protocols also result in efficient recovery which likely contributes to higher average speeds over the course of a grand tour. Ultimately improvement is due to the combination of many factors. 

If you watch the TED video the presenter emphasizes that improvement in ultra-endurance sports is an area of untapped human potential as our physiology is uniquely suited to it as compared to other land animals and it has been less popular. I can see how sport science could easily make great strides here (pun alert) :).

None of which effects finger power per se, though super carb loading etc may be useful for super endurance type routes which very few climbers are concerned about. I will concede that this would be an interesting area for those interested in the first 5.16 perhaps ie stack two 5.15s on top of each other. 

But what is 5.15c v. 5.15d...a tiny percentage overall increase likely similar to dropping the 100M record by a fraction of a second? Look at the chart presented in TED on swimming times advancing. The big jumps are always technological, but the overall trend is tiny increments of increased speed easily attributable to mostly just a larger pool (lol) of athletes and some tiny amount to better training.

Todd Berlier wrote:

I also wonder if the opposite is true. Folks who feel genetics defines almost every aspect of greater than 13a performance have subconscious regret about not pushing themselves hard enough. 

@Grug...Old friend!  I think it's great we're on the same page here.  Hopefully we can find more common ground in the future (not being ironic, honest statement). 

@Todd...Even though you said that your dogs are prettier than mine, I like where you're going with this. 

The debate about where the performance ceiling is for an average climber has become less interesting than the question of why different people feel so strongly about this topic.  

Let's start with people, like me, who think the performance ceiling is much lower than some have proposed, maybe 5.10 or something like that.  This group tends to think that this ceiling is defined largely by genetic factors, including both physical characteristics (strength, flexibility, training response) and mental characteristics (motivation, willpower, focus).  Why does this group feel this way?  Are they just trying to justify their own lack of success by saying, 'Well, I'm just not genetically gifted, so there's no point in trying?"  Are they excusing their own lack of dedication and commitment by saying that they don't have control over these things?  That's a valid argument.  Nobody likes to be confronted by their own failures and weaknesses.

Then we have people who think the ceiling much higher, maybe 5.14 or whatever.  This group tends to think that this ceiling is defined by personal choices, work ethic, trying hard, and so on.  They might admit that genetics plays some role, but they seem hesitant to attribute success or failure to genetics.  Why does this group feel this way?   Maybe if they admit that their own success might have a large genetic basis, it somehow takes away from their pride in themselves, from their idea that they are agents in control their own destiny, resonsible for their path in life, ans so on.  That's also a valid argument.  Nobody likes to accept that their success is the result of a lucky roll of the genetic dice.  

Anyway, carry on....it's all very interesting. 

P.S. Technique obviously plays a huge role in climbing.  But strength to weight ration also plays a huge role.  Earlier in the thread there was some discussion of how finger/hand strength correlates to climbing hard....it may not be a perfect correlation but surely it's related.  True?

Bruno Schull wrote:

@Grug...Old friend!  I think it's great we're on the same page here.  Hopefully we can find more common ground in the future (not being ironic, honest statement). 

@Todd...Even though you said that your dogs are prettier than mine, I like where you're going with this. 

The debate about where the performance ceiling is for an average climber has become less interesting than the question of why different people feel so strongly about this topic.  

Let's start with people, like me, who think the performance ceiling is much lower than some have proposed, maybe 5.10 or something like that.  This group tends to think that this ceiling is defined largely by genetic factors, including both physical characteristics (strength, flexibility, training response) and mental characteristics (motivation, willpower, focus).  Why does this group feel this way?  Are they just trying to justify their own lack of success by saying, 'Well, I'm just not genetically gifted, so there's no point in trying?"  Are they excusing their own lack of dedication and commitment by saying that they don't have control over these things?  That's a valid argument.  Nobody likes to be confronted by their own failures and weaknesses.

Then we have people who think the ceiling much higher, maybe 5.14 or whatever.  This group tends to think that this ceiling is defined by personal choices, work ethic, trying hard, and so on.  They might admit that genetics plays some role, but they seem hesitant to attribute success or failure to genetics.  Why does this group feel this way?   Maybe if they admit that their own success might have a large genetic basis, it somehow takes away from their pride in themselves, from their idea that they are agents in control their own destiny, resonsible for their path in life, ans so on.  That's also a valid argument.  Nobody likes to accept that their success is the result of a lucky roll of the genetic dice.  

Anyway, carry on....it's all very interesting. 

P.S. Technique obviously plays a huge role in climbing.  But strength to weight ration also plays a huge role.  Earlier in the thread there was some discussion of how finger/hand strength correlates to climbing hard....it may not be a perfect correlation but surely it's related.  True?

I think this is a very good summary! 

Daniel Shively wrote:

The hardest climbs are the epitome of power/endurance. They are generally described as a series of high level boulder problems separated by often marginal “rests.”

I’m intrigued by your idea about “post climbing.“  When are you going to get that one going? That topic should undoubtedly stir some unique perspectives. 

Power-endurance yes, but not Ultra Power-endurance. Think 100M routes with multiple 5.15 cruxes etc. This is probably the uncharted realm of human climbing ability.

It will be interesting to see if people can understand the idea of "post-climbing" and its parallels to ie the "Post Modern" movement in Art. 

Honnold basically did the last great problem (Free Solo) and this "last great problem" idea drove climbing for 150 years. 

Basically, climbing has been "done" as far as this very modern concept of climbing "the next thing" goes and now we will have climbing art that is all about individual paths and journeys (the experience of the artist rather than the object). The idea of climbing the great Himalaya face or "north wall of terrifying thing" has all been done, including extreme solos. Anything additionally of the sort can only be imitative and not original. Even projecting the next hardest thing is not remotely original. People are just doing what has been done before by the OG.

And we are left with just having our own fun rather than being tied to other's art. Communicating well the ordinary experience can be just as beautiful. :)

It won't sell magazines or videos to the masses though. Climbing magazine will have to follow the next hype.

John Tuttle wrote:

Basically, climbing has been "done" as far as this very modern concept of climbing.

I step in here to disagree with this. I began climbing in the mid 1950s, with very little knowledge of the sport. Not long after it became clear to me what the ultimate form of rock climbing might be. Years later I discovered it had been briefly practiced well over a century before by Paul Preuss and Georg Winkler. I found the concept fascinating and began experimenting with the approach, very very carefully. It would now be called free solo exploration. 

I started with easy projects, including climbs that had been done. Then wandered upon more virgin terrain, culminating with a short climb that tested me in several ways and delineated the level of difficulty that became my boundary. I found my limit in this regard and rarely approached anything of that nature again. But over the years, watching the progress of the sport, I have wondered if others will come forth and go far beyond my early efforts. My suspicion is that Honnold has done so. Perhaps others.

But mostly I just want to emphasize that the modern concept of climbing is far from limited. Looking back over seventy three years of participation and observation makes that clear to me. 

John Gill wrote:

John Tuttle wrote:

Basically, climbing has been "done" as far as this very modern concept of climbing.

I step in here to disagree with this. I began climbing in the mid 1950s, with very little knowledge of the sport. Not long after it became clear to me what the ultimate form of rock climbing might be. Years later I discovered it had been briefly practiced well over a century before by Paul Preuss and Georg Winkler. I found the concept fascinating and began experimenting with the approach, very very carefully. It would now be called free solo exploration. 

I started with easy projects, including climbs that had been done. Then wandered upon more virgin terrain, culminating with a short climb that tested me in several ways and delineated the level of difficulty that became my boundary. I found my limit in this regard and rarely approached anything of that nature again. But over the years, watching the progress of the sport, I have wondered if others will come forth and go far beyond my early efforts. My suspicion is that Honnold has done so. Perhaps others.

But mostly I just want to emphasize that the modern concept of climbing is far from limited. Looking back over seventy three years of participation and observation makes that clear to me. 

I am honored to engage in a discourse with you Ser Gill.   

My point (up for debate!) is that while the personal side of exploration will never cease (nor should it), the idea of the "last great problem" has come and gone for the collective body of climbers. 

While we can (and should) seek our own limits and goals there really is no truly new ground to cover (just tiny increments in the numbers). Climbing, like life itself, has always been an individual journey but we occasionally get sucked into a collective dream ie first FA 8000M peak, FA North Face of the Eiger etc. That has progressed to the great faces like Nanga Parbat or the first Grade Vii on the Trango towers. Then the great free climbs on El Cap and solos of huge alpine faces and finishing off with the free solo of El Cap.

I think anything beyond Alex's solo of El Cap or some solo of an Alpine horror show will only be seen as one upmanship, not really breaking new ground like he and others have done. The "ultimate goals" of climbing have all been done, imo.

I simply cannot think (perhaps my own limitation!) of anything truly significant that hasn't been done in climbing other than now the tiniest of technical gains. The ultimate goals of Climbing were all collectively recognized at one time ie "the last great problem" in the various sub-disciplines was recognized (albeit perhaps fuzzily). I think now we are truly on our own to create our climbing as we see fit. It should all be the individual experience from here on out. Who cares about someone else's numbers?

Again, as this post began, this is not a bad thing! It should be seen as a type of freedom from the past like how Post Modern artists broke from a mold instead of pandering to an establishment marketplace of art/achievements. Climbers should worry about their own limits and their own "art" in a likewise fashion as you have done.

I try knot to think too much. . .

Bruno Schull wrote:

P.S. Technique obviously plays a huge role in climbing.  But strength to weight ration also plays a huge role.  Earlier in the thread there was some discussion of how finger/hand strength correlates to climbing hard....it may not be a perfect correlation but surely it's related.  True?

Early on, Lattice collected a large data set relating finger strength/weight to climbing grades. Then when they started testing American climbers they were seeing much lower finger strength/weight numbers for the same climbing grades. They attribute this to their earlier data set involving mostly British climbers who climbed a lot on their indoor woodies due to the poor weather.

John Gill wrote:

John Tuttle wrote:

Basically, climbing has been "done" as far as this very modern concept of climbing.

I step in here to disagree with this. I began climbing in the mid 1950s, with very little knowledge of the sport. Not long after it became clear to me what the ultimate form of rock climbing might be. Years later I discovered it had been briefly practiced well over a century before by Paul Preuss and Georg Winkler. I found the concept fascinating and began experimenting with the approach, very very carefully. It would now be called free solo exploration. 

I started with easy projects, including climbs that had been done. Then wandered upon more virgin terrain, culminating with a short climb that tested me in several ways and delineated the level of difficulty that became my boundary. I found my limit in this regard and rarely approached anything of that nature again. But over the years, watching the progress of the sport, I have wondered if others will come forth and go far beyond my early efforts. My suspicion is that Honnold has done so. Perhaps others.

But mostly I just want to emphasize that the modern concept of climbing is far from limited. Looking back over seventy three years of participation and observation makes that clear to me. 

Thanks John!

for folks that maybe don’t have the history in hand, John pointed climbing away from the 50s paradigm of big routes, emphasizing summits, aid climbing, and following features. He explored extreme steep face climbing when it was basically not a thing at all. Only the absurd anti-bolting attitude and so-called ethic of “adventure” climbing held back climbers of the 60s from 5.13. Drilled holes and chipping were fine for aid climbing, but not actual climbing, i.e. free climbing.

Not only did John change the terrain for climbing he also changed how climbers prepared for climbing. He was the first to seriously prepare for difficult climbing through physical training based on his gymnastics background. By contrast, I can recall training for climbing being called cheating and bad style. Again, simply ridiculous self-limiting attitudes and at times, actually nasty gatekeeping.

Finally, he pointed out an obvious gap in climbing technology and filled it by using chalk. It’s hard to overemphasize how important this was in transforming the way in which we approached difficulty in climbing. Now climbing could be hand and arm focused, not on slabs and dime edging.

As I have written elsewhere in this thread, based on decades of climbing and coaching experience, we are nowhere near “genetic potential” in climbing, with limits still to some degree defined by attitudes and expectations along with counter-productive practices.

The basic, simple, and in retrospect, obvious innovations of John Gill point to the potential for similar changes in the sport still out there. We need to keep asking what is a rock climb, how should we prepare for climbing, and what technology makes sense in climbing, and never listen to folks complaining about “cheating” or “gym kids”or whatever else naysayers come up with next.

Victor Creazzi wrote:

Early on, Lattice collected a large data set relating finger strength/weight to climbing grades. Then when they started testing American climbers they were seeing much lower finger strength/weight numbers for the same climbing grades. They attribute this to their earlier data set involving mostly British climbers who climbed a lot on their indoor woodies due to the poor weather.

I believe power company (who also has a fairly large data set) found that the strongest correlation with grade achieved was not finger strength but time spent climbing outside.

Finger strength is definitely important, but the idea that it’s the be all end all is in some ways a byproduct of the fact that it is much easier to measure than something like movement skills or flexibility which are also important.