Thoughts on training and Individual Limits

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.

nowhere wrote:

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.

For equal time spent outside then finger strength carries the day by far, imo, but technique is incredibly important. However, climbing technique is not going to undergo some radical transformation ever again.

What your anecdote demonstrates is that rock is complicated to climb.

Peter Beal wrote:

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.

Ser Gill was a profound pioneer of the sport...60 years ago when no one trained for climbing other than by climbing. Pat Ament's book Master of Stone had a profound impact on many, including myself as to what real strength could produce, let alone the other innovations that Ser Gill brought to the sport. A true legend.

But there simply is no evidence to support magical thinking today that something will transform the power in people's forearms or technique much beyond current athletes or that people are climbing "better and better" though this may be true on an individual basis or from the benefits of tech. There are more climbers that have self-selected to be climbers so that the number if crushers is certainly higher and we do have gyms to elevate the abilities of the average but the gains at the world class level are incredibly tiny. There is no evidence whatsoever that a mature sport like climbing will benefit from some miraculous training insight that has not already been applied to other power-endurance sports. Olympic federations of many countries have been focused on climbing for more than a decade. Very sharp minds have been working on this problem for a long time.

In every single other human athletic endeavor, the gains over the last 50 years are incredibly small other than perhaps ultra-endurance.

People are continually touting the "breaking of records" by more and more people but the gains are literally 1% over previous records. In cycling the combo of better tech and better diet have led to tiny gains in...wait for it...ultra endurance. ie when people try to break Eddy Meckx's 1972 record of distance in one hour with the same bike and all the latest training regimens virtually no one can do it...except like one guy by 1%. And remember, the average person remains terrible at long distance cycling or time trials.

Watch the TED video. I think it is very informative.

John (Tuttle), I have to generally agree with your overall supposition on human potential and gains in sport, but agree with Peter above that we just don't know.  For instance, top marathon runners run at over 90% of their all out max and are still aerobic- due to genes, training, what have you...  As climbers, the equivalent is critical force, what max force you can maintain forever.  Stefano Ghisolfi has tested over 60% (the only star I know this stat for- imagine Ondra and others are up there too).  What if there are aerobic training improvements that allow a climber to approach say 80% critical force or higher?  I don't know what becomes possible under those circumstances.... 120 foot routes with multiple v15 cruxes, continuous v12 climbing, 300 foot routes with the same..... who knows.  Just a thought experiment.  Feel like I had another thought but ... I'm old and at work.

sleepy C wrote:

John (Tuttle), I have to generally agree with your overall supposition on human potential and gains in sport, but agree with Peter above that we just don't know.  For instance, top marathon runners run at over 90% of their all out max and are still aerobic- due to genes, training, what have you...  As climbers, the equivalent is critical force, what max force you can maintain forever.  Stefano Ghisolfi has tested over 60% (the only star I know this stat for- imagine Ondra and others are up there too).  What if there are aerobic training improvements that allow a climber to approach say 80% critical force or higher?  I don't know what becomes possible under those circumstances.... 120 foot routes with multiple v15 cruxes, continuous v12 climbing, 300 foot routes with the same..... who knows.  Just a thought experiment.  Feel like I had another thought but ... I'm old and at work.

Not a problem at all and I agree that this sort of ultra-endurance training is the next level in climbing and does remain mostly untapped. 

But the standard 20-35M sport pitch or bouldering will see very small gains, in all likelihood. We just aren't likely to figure out some magic recipe that lets us crush much harder, imo.

"the standard 20-35M sport pitch or bouldering will see very small gains, in all likelihood. We just aren't likely to figure out some magic recipe that lets us crush much harder, imo."

Gonna disagree here. There's plenty of room for expansion in the grades possible there. Folks are flashing V15 now and V18 is a thing, most likely. Linking a V18 into a V15 with a medium rest is, according to Darth Grader, 10a. Probably will happen in 3-5 years.

The missing factor in your analysis is the technical improvements in mastering climbs, improvements that are much more than sustaining percentage of maximum. Climbing is nowhere near being a mature sport.

I think grade progression and more people climbing at a higher level has a few driving factors.

More people participating is a big one, but not the only reason.

Friction reduction is the term for when perception of a task changes from difficult to easy and progress is made. Basically people see grades being done more frequently, and the perceived difficulty drops and is all the sudden more attainable. This is part of the reason why repeats often go down way faster than first ascents. Beta videos etc are also a driving factor.

Training age is another. There have been studies showing that the earlier you start, the more your body adapts to being able to handle more load, and creates thicker tendons and injury resiliency. Learning ability is greatly increased at a young age as well. The more time you have on the wall, the more skills you will develop and master offsetting the need for strength.

Mix that with all the great training tools and facilities, coaches etc and you will see more people  reaching their genetic potential.

I also think grade creep is a factor. Almost anyone can agree that (for the most part) old school routes tend to be stiffer than modern routes.

All that being said. It’s still the genetic freaks who are pushing the sport, and the rest of us just pushing our own ceilings.

John Tuttle wrote:

For equal time spent outside then finger strength carries the day by far, imo, but technique is incredibly important. However, climbing technique is not going to undergo some radical transformation ever again.

What your anecdote demonstrates is that rock is complicated to climb.

I don’t think referring to a dataset classifies as an anecdote.

Can you explain why you think days spent climbing outside would correlate with higher grades?

I’m sure many savvy high jumpers expressed similar thoughts about high jump technique before Fosbury came along and flopped. Not saying climbing technique is going to be revolutionized similarly but you just can’t be certain you know the limits of technique.

On a micro scale Tomoa and speed climbing is a perfect example-all the top climbers used the same beta, they felt it had been solved, couldn’t be improved. Tomoa started training it because of the stupid ass combined Olympic structure, and despite being a complete noob found an improvement to the beta which everyone now uses. If one short route hundreds of climbers have been banging their heads against for years is not a solved problem I promise you climbing as a whole which is light years more complex than that one route is not a solved problem. 

nowhere wrote:

I don’t think referring to a dataset classifies as an anecdote.

Can you explain why you think days spent climbing outside would correlate with higher grades?

I’m sure many savvy high jumpers expressed similar thoughts about high jump technique before Fosbury came along and flopped. Not saying climbing technique is going to be revolutionized similarly but you just can’t be certain you know the limits of technique.

On a micro scale Tomoa and speed climbing is a perfect example-all the top climbers used the same beta, they felt it had been solved, couldn’t be improved. Tomoa started training it because of the stupid ass combined Olympic structure, and despite being a complete noob found an improvement to the beta which everyone now uses. If one short route hundreds of climbers have been banging their heads against for years is not a solved problem I promise you climbing as a whole which is light years more complex than that one route is not a solved problem. 

The Flop was invented 60  years ago.

New beta in speed climbing has produced minimal gains. Also speed climbing was basically just invented and has nearly nothing to do with technical rock climbing.

13yo just climbed Euro 9a.

I'm sure it's hard work and dedication.   

Articles online from various sources.

John Tuttle wrote:

13yo just climbed Euro 9a.

I'm sure it's hard work and dedication.   

Articles online from various sources.

Well he has been climbing 6 to 7 days a week since he was 7. How many climbers struggling on 5.10 do you know that work that hard and are that dedicated?

Or better said, two can play this silly game! 🤣

Todd Berlier wrote:

Well he has been climbing 6 to 7 days a week since he was 7. How many climbers struggling on 5.10 do you know that work that hard and are that dedicated?

Or better said, two can play this silly game! 🤣

Not really dude. TONS of dirtbags climbed that hard for decades and never got past 5.11...let alone 5.15a...

But ok, dude, you win. Any 13yo can climb 5.15a and athletes don't self-select when they have natural talent (all those chunky kids at the gym everywhere, right?).

It's not pessimism. It's actually intending to be liberating and get people to appreciate their own climbing talents and limitations as being as worthy as anyone else's.