UKC

Following on from the 8a question

What percentage of climbers do climb 7a

In reply to Diggler:

At least half of the ones who claim to get up 8a.

In France, everybody.

In reply to Diggler:

IMHO.

How many do? About 10%
How many could if they really wanted to? About 50%

In reply to maisie:



Strange how living in a different country/region can make such a difference.
I think it was Dave mc that said in a certain area in Spain most people climbed in the eights.
"Because that was the norm."
It can't just be genetics so surly it must be attitude/approach to routes?

In reply to Diggler:

In the UK? 30%?

In reply to Michael Gordon:


Nowhere near. 5% max

In reply to Diggler:

I'd definitely agree it has a lot to do with attitude of those around you. When i started climbing, i started in Ratho, where there were a lot of strong climbers, so i quickly got 'good' leading 7a and bouldering V6/7. Then when i moved to uni, most people only climbed low to mid 6s and V3/4.
So my ability didn't much improve until i was able to find some more 'hard climbers'.
I didn't train anymore, just got on routes that were hard for me more often, and hence ended up climbing harder.

In reply to OP i reckon a fairly good percentage, possibly 15%, maybe higher based on seeing people climbing at the wall.

In reply to Diggler:

of my mates,100%

In reply to Oceanrower:



I'd probably agree


Completely disagree there though, barring actual disability I cannot believe that if they really wanted to 100% couldn't climb 7a. I reckon the vast majority could climb 8a if they really wanted to.

In reply to Diggler:

Sure, or the individual crags - one might think the same of the UK if they were to visit Raven Tor.

Likewise Costa Blanca and El Chorro is chock full of spanish people not climbing 8's.

In reply to @ndyM@rsh@ll:


This theory gets thrown about quite a bit on UKC, and I'm not convinced it holds any water.

There are a lot of different aspects to being able to climb 8a, beyond just wanting to, and beyond physical conditioning.

Technical ability - being able to 'read' moves well, balance, technique, natural strength and stamina, and yes, natural ability.

The top climbers of any generation, irrespective of how much training they've done, or how much coaching they've had, have also had some level of 'natural' ability, or if you like, a natural propensity to be able to develop.

If we work on the principle that the number of people climbing 8a today is probably less than 3%, does that mean that 50% of the climbing world aren't climbing 8a simply because they can't be arsed?

I think not.

In reply to Goucho:

All that you just said might be relevant were climbing 8a all that hard, I'm not by any means saying it's easy but fundamentally it's just not anywhere near the limits of what is humanly possible.

In reply to Diggler:

130%. At least.

In reply to @ndyM@rsh@ll:


I think that, for the vast majority of people, climbing 8a is very hard and for many probably impossible. The fact that there are people who can climb a lot harder is obviously irrelevant; the fact that Usain Bolt can run 100m in well under 10sec does not mean that most people could beak 10 sec if they really applied themselves.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Maybe it is still difficult, but 8a is no where near comparable to running a sub 10s 100m.

I suspect that a lot more people could climb 8a if they were willing to make sufficient sacrifices/changes to their lifestyle. However, in the grand scheme of things, most people aren't that arsed so don't - that doesn't change the fact the potential to do so exists.

In reply to @ndyM@rsh@ll:

Ok, that's clearly such complete bollocks that I think we can discount your opinion on any climbing related matter from new on

In reply to Goucho:



Completely agree. In fact i think it's complete nonsense.

Now the lads saying climbing 8a ain't hard!

In reply to Robert Durran:
Except 8a compared to the top end is more like 12 or 13 seconds for 100m. Look at this, http://www.ukclimbing.com/databases/crags/comptable.html 32 grades from 1 to 9b+ in the sport column and 8a is at 23, barely more than 2/3 of the way up. The grades in black (for heroes only) covers nearly half the table.

To the rest of the doubters, have you tried? How long have you tried for? I can think of lots of people i know who'd like to in an easy going way who never will, but of the ones I know who give enough of a toss to actually put the time and effort in they've either done it and moved beyond it or are well on their way.

In reply to Goucho:

I'd be with @ndyM@rsh@ll on this one mate.
I think most people "could" climb 8a. But most people don't because climbing 8a isn't a priority. If you set your number one priority in life to be "climb 8a" and set family, job, children, friends, socialising, etc. far below this, you will almost certainly succeed. The only serious bars I see to success would be:
- Repeated injuries during training leading to chronic injuries which prevent success.
- Physical or mental disabilities.
- Old age, I don't have an exact handle on this but I think if you are 50 or older it's going to be a lot harder and if you are 60 or older it would be pretty improbably hard.

People don't climb that hard because they have other priorities than climbing.

In reply to @ndyM@rsh@ll:


8a isn't hard if you're a top climber, but to the vast majority of us mere mortals, it is!

In reply to Goucho:

Hard and impossible are pretty different.

In reply to Goucho:


I have to disagree. I know a fair few people who've climbed 8a and none of them are particularly strong, they wouldn't stand out at the wall as being abnormally good. One common thread is that they're all very motivated, I think that's far more important than any natural talent.



Why is that so unreasonable? For someone climbing VS getting to 8a is probably going to mean molding their life around climbing and training for climbing for the next 5+ years, that's certainly not everyone's cup of tea.

In reply to henwardian:

The problem is it's quite insulting for those of us who do try hard and can't get close. For those of you blessed with whatever it is, it clearly seems straightforward. For the rest of us it's black magic.

Now, 7a, I suspect the majority (just) could actually get there with the right attitude, training, starting young, and no injury problems. 8a, no way.

The original question was 7a. I climb twice a week and working towards 7a but I'm scared of falling which limits me.

In reply to @ndyM@rsh@ll:


Thanks for passing on the great wisdom and breadth of your experience.

In reply to Skyfall:


I'd not thought of it like that, and i apologize for the implied insult, but if you don't mind me asking, what form has your trying hard taken?

In reply to remus:

Oh come on, people who can climb 8a on a regular basis are both strong and good - and in reality, they probably make up about 1% of climbers.

Be interesting to hear the opinions of people on here, who actually 'regularly' climb 8a, because all other opinions are completely academic.

In reply to Skyfall:

Why is it insulting to say that most people could do it if they tried hard enough?

At the risk of sounding like a tw*t, what do you mean by saying that you try hard and get close?

Do you train twice a day at a wall or a home board? And that means structured sessions, not just climbing. Would you train indoors on a sunny day rather than go outside? Move closer to a climbing area to get more volume on rock? Stick to a strict diet? Be prepared to do that for 5/10 years to achieve your goal? That's the type of dedication that would allow most people to climb 8a if they made sufficient sacrifices...

In reply to Oli:


I very much doubt that most people could climb 8a, even if they took 5 years off from every other aspect of their lives, and employed Neil Gresham as a full time personal coach.

Those who do get there, have something extra from the norm, irrespective of how dedicated they are, or how hard they work at it.

In reply to Goucho:




This

In reply to Oli:
Having not yet climbed 8a. I do agree with Oli's statement. If people fully committed to training to climb 8a. Most would. Having climbed 6c-ish, putting some effort in, as far as getting over falling fear, climbing maybe once a week and getting vaguely into a fit state. I've climbed 7c.
Granted i'm young (25), but i've not put in all that much effort to make quite a substantial jump.
I think, if i discounted genetic ability etc, and trained 5 days a week, changed diet etc, 8a is not unachievable.

At the moment i climb hard enough to enjoy climbing and get out of it what i want. Should i want to get the 8a tick. I could do the whole training thing, but at the moment, as stated earlier, i can't be arsed. It's just not that important to me.

What people have been saying, is that if people wanted it fully and trained correctly, most people could climb 8a. But for most, they'd just magically like to climb 8a and can't be bothered. Such as myself.

In reply to @ndyM@rsh@ll:

So obviously bollocks that I find it hard to take you seriously. Anyway, I wasn't claiming that that 10sec for 100m is at the same percentile as 8a for sport climbing, but that the existence of outliers does not imply anything about where a particular percentile lies.



A tiny moments thought and it is clear that this fact is entirely irrelevant to the case you are making. In fact it is quite difficult to work out what on earth you think it does imply. That 1/3 of climbers can climb 8a? Do you think that climbing grades follow some well defined linear measurement?


Well at least anecdotal evidence (either way) is some sort of evidence.

In reply to Goucho:

This Skip chap who agrees with you is super handy for me. If his profile's accurate he's barely been climbing any time at all and has only trad climbed. He agrees it takes something special to climb 8a. He's clearly not tried so he's not got this idea on his own he's got it from other people who believe it.
The reason most people won't climb 8a is because they have it drilled into them from the start that they can't because it's too hard, and then they don't try.

Sorry for talking about you like you're not here skip.

In reply to CharlieMack:


I think you have just made an excellent case for genetics playing a very big role. Loads of people take their climbing and training far more seriously than that and never get to 7c.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I'd certainly agree that genetics helped. Though 6c-7c wasn't overnight. Was over 8 years of slight progress up to 7a-ish, then quite a big jump in standard when i got over fear of falling. Was amazed at how much it was holding me back.
Was just a scrawny 5'6 teen, and had to work hard at getting strong, but then got quite fast gains.

Though i've only done 1 outdoor 7c, so certainly wouldn't say i'm a 7c climber.
Which is another thing people aren't taking onboard. If you put loads of effort in to climb 1 8a, vs becoming an 8a climber. The two are very different.

In reply to Diggler:

I would guess at about 5%. I wonder if that accurately reflects the number of 7a's at the average climbing wall.

As somebody else pointed out many more people could if they tried to.

In reply to @ndyM@rsh@ll:

I am here. Two years climbing, exclusively trad, lover of adventurous routes.

Started climbing at the age of 48.Reasonably fit and flexible for a man of my age.

To address the "not tried", no i've not tried a 7a (presume we're talking sport grades), as you noted i've never done a sport route (just has happened yet). Over the winter i spent 3 or 4 evenings a week at my local wall, mostly on my own on auto belay. Currently struggling with (French 6a/6b).

In reply to Skip:

That's great Skip and I'm glad you enjoy what you do, and if you never want to touch a sport route that's fine too though god knows you don't need me to tell you that.

I hope though that you see my point, you clearly agree strongly that 8a is impossible for most mere mortals. If you ever considered trying would this stop you ever bothering?

In reply to @ndyM@rsh@ll:
I think you and Charlie Mack are making the mistake of thinking that everyone is 23 or 24 and have been climbing since there teens.

I lot of climbers about missed that window. I'm 47, I try hard, I haven't given up hope I might get up a soft 7c but knocking out 8a's every weekend would seem very unrealistic.

In reply to JLS:

I agree that not everyone could. If you start late on, then it will be significantly harder to attain. And some people will be genetically hindered. But for most, climbing an 8a is possible. There is a 50+ year old that bags 8b+ at my wall. But only on outdoor routes that he sieges over a period. Obviously he hasn't just started and has clearly been climbing a long time. So age isn't a barrier given that you've been climbing a while to learn your trade.
He is however clearly highly motivated/ determined and has a lifestyle built around climbing. Trains frequently and does long trips to Spain fairly regularly.

I don't think anyone is saying that 8a is easy and most people just need to man up a bit. More that should people really seriously want to achieve it, and made it their number 1 goal. Most could.

7a on the other hand I think is quite achievable, id say quite a few with a realistic amount of effort could climb it. Possibly around the 50% mark.
Training once or twice a week. Minor changes to diet/lifestyle. Probably only 15% do at the moment I'd speculate.

In reply to @ndyM@rsh@ll:


A lot of training and climbing and getting injured, cyclically. I just seem to pick up injuries very easily (mostly fingers in the past) and now have a full thickness tear of a shoulder tendon. I could see that, without injury, I could probably have gotten to 7a let's say but I'd be pretty certain not 8a. I don't have the talent for that. I'm afraid that's your average person. And, yes, it is a little annoying to be told anyone can get to 8a because that is clearly incorrect.

In reply to CharlieMack:

On the one hand you say 50% could climb 7a (which I tend to agree with) but also say anyone could climb 8a.... Make your mind up. You mention genetics and one 50+ year old - well genetics mean 8a is impossible for most but may explain why the one guy can do 8a+.

In reply to Diggler:

Ok, so this is highly subjective, but stick with it.
Back before all the sport climbing malarkey, I always felt that John Allen and Steve Bancroft's new routing around E5 6a in the 70s/early 80s was the defining watershed where a 'punter' who got out regularly and did some stuff during the week at the (very basic) wall/gym could aspire to repeating what were the hardest routes of the day.
Wind forward to '86, and the Al Rouse Wall at Sheffield Poly. Andy Pollitt, Basher, Quentin, Zippy, Ben and Jerry all training and climbing full time and smashing the upper grades, and developing UK Sport. This wasn't just because they trained, it was absolutely morpho, and these guys were the ones left after injury/ability/genes had applied natural selection to the rest. It's not correct to say that the upper grades are available to everyone if they 'try'.
So, to answer the OP. I travel widely with my job, and always go to the local wall when I'm out and about. In Sheffield, it seems like nearly everyone climbs 7a, but I'd say nationally probably less than 10% at walls. Given that the majority of climbers operate at VS and don't go to the wall, the real figure is very very small.
As to how many could if they tried, taking London Wall as definitive 7a+, then 7a is a reasonable objective, attainable with training, reasonable fitness and plenty of outside climbing. After that, it's gene roulette. No matter how hard I've trained, UK 6b, and F7c are hard and fast upper bounds and no amount of application over more than 30 years can budge it.
Might just be me though...

In reply to Diggler:

I think a big issue is where you climb. If you climb at a wall were the normal is 6b+ and people who "try really hard" climb 4 times a week just doing routes then youll think its impossible. If you climb somewhere that every one climbs at least 7a and thats normal and organised training and being totally dedicated is the norm then you wont.
Its not an insult to say that most people could but dont care enough. Its fine that people like to climb but dont make it their lives. The people I know who climb really hard are totally normal other than being totally dedicated to a degree that most people cant comprehend.

In reply to Diggler:

The answer will vary significantly depending how you define 'climbers'.

If you go with something like people that self identify as a climber and climb at least half a dozen times a year then I guess you're looking at very low single digit percentages climbing at 7a upwards.

Pick a keener group, say those that climb 30+ times per year then maybe you get toward 10%. The thing is most people in the uk primarily climb traditionally and it's not a style that leaves you well equipped for sport climbing. Very few of them get to F7a standard on removable gear and their traditional ethos often seems to follow them into the walls and on their sport holidays abroad. I've been part of that group for most of my time as a climber.

I think the majority of the latter group could climb 7a if they were motivated to.

jk

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:


But all it take is one person for whoim 8a is impossible to prove that it is not possible for everyone!

It's an intererstiung discussion, but, given that it's hard to see how a definitive answer could ever be given short of picking a reasonable sample of people at random and getting them to dedicate a few years of their lives 100% to it, all we can actually go on is people's personal and anecdotal evidence and hunches.

In reply to CharlieMack:

And you are the first person on this thread (I think) to point out, even by implication, that the answer to the original question depends on how you define what 'climb 7a' means. To me it means what grade you might tie into on lead, with a reasonable chance of success on red-point (preferably outdoors).
Pre-kids/marriage etc, when I climbed 2-3 times a week, I was a 7a climber by my own definition. Nowadays I'm a fair bit away from that. And I think that's where most climbers are - they can get there if they put in the time, but don't.

In reply to Skip:

I've found my opinion of what's possible has changed as i've climbed with more people with varying abilities and goals. You might find that if you climb with people who are sport-climbing orientated that you'll soon realise that 7a is attainable for most people who can (and want to) climb twice a week or more, and who are prepared to regularly sacrifice a nice session trad climbing for a session training. I'll add the caveat that as you get older (40+) I think this becomes more of a challenge as your body doesn't adapt as quickly, and is more prone to injury.

In reply to Robert Durran:


I remember reading somewhere that most top-end climbers reckon genetics only comes into play, or at least becomes a limiting factor, at about F8b/b+.

To the OP. I'd say 10% climb 7a. IMO, pretty much everyone who really wanted to could climb that grade, they either just don't try or train hard enough.

In reply to @ndyM@rsh@ll:


I think that's reasonable.

Most folk just never really try. They may 'want to climb 8a' like I want to climb 8a, it's a nice idea, a nice round number but like me they'll carry on doing the same old things, climbing once or twice a week with old mates, maybe buying a fingerboard they never use. For me it probably wouldn't actually take *that* much more effort but I just can't be bring myself to get motivated and re-prioritize at the moment.

jk

In reply to jkarran:

I don't buy this "if they really wanted to". The ability to "really want" something to the extent of putting in the hard, boring stretches of training is of itself an ability few people have, even if we could agree there is no potential physical or psychological inhibitor.

In reply to Diggler:

For those who say 'anyone' can climb 8a..... I'd have to agree, I'm fairly lazy, a bit fat and have still hauled myself up 7c. A bit of effort and training and 8a really shouldn't be to hard!

As others have said, it all depends on who you are climbing with etc... if you are in a friendship group where the 'best' climber is pushing 6b/c then 8a will seem impossible, whereas if you spend your time around people who are cranking those grades then instantly it will seem achievable.

It all depends on how much you want it. For those of you who are saying it's all about genetics and it's impossible to do it, you never will.

If you accept that it will be hard work and are willing to put in the time and effort required then ANYONE can climb 8a!

In reply to maybe_si:


ANYONE? I climb with a host of folks with ages that range between 55 and 79 - all capable climbers, but although a few of tickle the odd 'low 7s' none can get near 8a and most are climbing 5+ to low 6s.


Chris

In reply to GrahamD:

You could look at it like that I suppose. My point though is that you don't have to give up your life and spend years in the cellar, it just has to be a serious goal within that life, one that you consistently work towards over a fair period of time. Most people are capable of that whether or not they ever actually apply themselves. I'd say the dedication required to raise a family is far greater and the majority of folk manage that with some degree of success.

jk

In reply to GrahamD:

I agree with that. The motivation/dedication itself is part of the ability, and most people don't have it. Then think about some people's current physique...the argument that everyone 'could' climb 8a is based on totally unrealistic assumptions.

In reply to Chris Craggs:

OK Chris, that's fair enough, I'll alter my statement to include an age -related caveat.... feel free to insert whatever age you like?!

However I'll bet that even your older buddies could improve to a certain extent with a little more effort... granted they are probably well past caring about ticking big numbers!

In reply to Diggler:

The trouble with this sort of question is not so much estimating how many climbers climb grade x as what your low-end cut-off point is for people to be considered climbers at all. If it means people who go through the doors of a wall, then 95% of them never climb outside at all, let alone grade x.

If it means people who go sport climbing at least, say five times a year, then you get a very different percentage.

jcm

In reply to Andy Moles:
To avoid confusion perhaps the question should be refined: "does everyone without relevant disabilities at birth in principle have the potential to climb an 8a".

In reply to Fraser:


It's pretty self evident that genetics is a factor, but elite athletes are notoriously bad judges when it comes to sports science - for a start even asking athletes what they think is introducing a self-selection bias.

Most sports have been developing systematic training plans for decades or more. If I want to run a marathon in 3 hours, something which experience tells me I am capable of, I can go online and download a structured training plan which will allow me to do it provided I have the attitude and commitment to follow it. 2 hours 30 minutes? Again, experience tells me this is unlikely. 2 hours 10 minutes - not a chance. I feel the same about 8a, but then I don't really have the experience yet to know just how impossible it might be.

In reply to planetmarshall:

Even the sub 3 hour marathon runner has a considerable genetic advantage of the average bloke, much higher VO2+, more focus to do the training, more resilient body. Average male VO2+ for a bloke is below 40, mine is around 60 and I am a decent runner, but nothing spectacular, world class distance runners have VO2+ in the 70s and 80s.

In reply to Robert Durran:

>"does everyone without relevant disabilities at birth in principle have the potential to climb an 8a"

Define disabilities. Does that include things like hypermobile joints that after a number of years training lead to cronic injury?

I'd guess if you took every 12 year old in the country and trained them for 10 years or so, then a lot would climb 8a, however I reckon a significant proportion - certainly at least one - would have fallen by the wayside due to injury.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I can just about climb a 7a. It's taken 4 or so years of climbing 3 times a week, consciously training weaknesses, no fears of falling, no freak beneficial or hindrance genetics. I've found 'the 7s' to be an epic plateau.

I think 7a is an extremely achievable goal for a moderately committed climber. I think 8a is for freak athletes and super obsessed.

I think this magical 'worker harder' pill is a myth. I can think of several utterly devote climbers, who boulder 4-5 times a week, who still operate in the v3-v4 range.

I think everyone has the natural limit which is reached quickly and each subsequent grade has to be clawed out. Didn't chris sharma put up an 8c+ at 15 but it's taken him another 15 to push it 3 grades higher?

In reply to @ndyM@rsh@ll:




I think this is fair enough. Physically speaking climbing 7a really isn't as hard as people think. People of all shapes and sizes could climb 7a provided they wanted to enough.

At 8a I think genetics has a bit more of an impact but even taking that into account, in perfect conditions (right route, right training, right motivation etc) most people could climb 8a if they really wanted to. It would however involve significant sacrifices for most. The percentage of people who can, with casual training, hope to climb 8a is much smaller.

In reply to JLS:



I was thinking of obvious things like being born with no arms, but yes, you could include predisposition to injury. Personally, I'm pretty confident that the only thing which would stop me climbing 8a (if I put my mind to it and stopped interrupting my training schedule with silly things like trad climbing and mountaineering) is an increasing need to manage niggling injuries - if I'd put my mind to it just a few years ago, it would have been a foregone conclusion.

Just checked the Horst assessment. He comments as follows:

"Certainly, we all have unique DNA that defines each of us. We all have slightly different genetic potential, which means different starting and ending points in terms of absolute climbing ability. But I believe the end point of the envelope of potential is well beyond 5.12a for most individuals (a European research study hasconcluded that for the typical climber, genetics don’t become a limiting factor until deep into the 5.13 grade)."

Which equates to F8a+, assuming 'deep into the 5.13 grade' means 5.13c or beyond.

Source: http://www.falcon.com/pdf_files/9780762770298.pdf

In reply to Fraser:


What does he mean by "typical".

Really interesting post, I agree many people could climb 7a including those in their 50's & 60's. Attitude, desire and training all have a part to play as does the time to train improve and deal with the failures involved too.

I've often wondered if I could climb 8a and if I could train etc. to do it. I think I could, but doing it is the hard bit.

Its the same with 7a. I ticked the odd soft 7a up to the age of 30. Then stopped partying and drinking so much and focussed on climbing a bit more, since then I have got steadily better.

If you don't climb 7a and want to why not try? If you enjoy the training, get fitter, stronger and have fun what have you got to loose. If you don't try you have nothing to gain.

For me its dealing with the failures that is the hard bit, but that does make the successes more rewarding I guess.

In reply to Diggler:
Frankly I think most people just don't know what it means to try hard (and I'd include myself in that.) There's a big difference between going to the wall 4 times a week and actually going training 4 times a week.

Take overall fitness as an example, plenty of people identify this as a weakness but then how many of those people will put in the hundreds of hours a year, often in shit weather when you're not feeling psyched, required to address that weakness? This gets doubly hard as you get older and have more responsibilities to juggle and have to train more gradually.

I realise there's a large self selection factor at play, but I look at people I know who've climbed 8a and most of them don't stand out as being particularly good. Sure you wouldn't mistake them for a VS punter but equally they're just your average 'strong guy down the wall'.

With regards to injury, while Im sure some are more prone to it than others managing injury is just part of getting better.

In reply to Diggler:

I think it would be difficult to find statistics for this. In the Moors roughly 50% of the climbers are capable of 7a moves. They wouldn't be able to do all 7a moves though and probably not onsight.

In reply to Diggler:
In my "prime" I was a solid E1 leader, with forages into E2's and the odd selected E3. I managed one English 6b.
Sport grades I was doing 6b+ and getting better at 6c's, but I never managed to get up a 7a! Didn't try many, but every time I did, whether TR, lead or whatever style I failed.
I could work out 7a routes, but didn't have the strength or ability at the time to get up them.
I think if I'd have aimed for one as a project and worked it I would have got up it eventually, but thats not how I climbed.

In reply to Diggler:

The problem with this thread is the assumption that everyone is equal. The ability to climb steep routes and pull on tiny holds even at F7a level is nearly always "body size dependent". Having climbed for over 50 years and with some of the UKs best climbers, it was obvious that, even training every day and with a super amount of motivation, my 12 1/2 stone frame (at my lightest despite being careful on what I ate) was never going to enable me to compete with my skinny friends. Being strong, motivated but heavy, gets you to a certain level, for me UK 6a, but it is and always will be nearly impossible (John Dunne excepted) to get past F7a never mind F8a. Strong, thin and light may well do it!

In reply to Removed UserMike Rhodes:


No the whole POINT of this thread is whether all people are equal or not (in their sport climbing potential)!

In reply to Diggler:

This thread, and the dozens of similar ones that have preceded it, can be boiled down to two contrasting positions, held by:

1) Those people who have made considerable sacrifices to get better at climbing, and have reaped the benefits. (The "anybody can climb 8a" brigade)

2) Those people who think that they have made considerable sacrifices to get better at climbing, and are upset that they haven't got any better. (the "you need natural talent to climb 8a" brigade.)

Until recently, I would have aligned myself with (2), because I spent a lot of time 'training' and didn't see very much improvement. However, recently I have come to understand that "making an effort" consist of much more than reading a training book or two. e.g. after 20 years of climbing, I improved my bouldering grade by several notches just by losing a stone in weight - which required an effort which I never countenanced before.

I still don't believe that "anybody can climb 8a", and it is quite obvious that some people have more natural talent than others. But I do believe that most people have little concept of "trying hard". As Dave Macleod says (and I paraphrase):

if you listen closely, you can always hear the excuses

In reply to Robert Durran:


Well, I just gave him a quick buzz and he told me he meant guys like Robert & Fraser on UKC.

In reply to Diggler:

interesting thread, all very subjective of course, but still interesting so i'll add my tuppenth.

I think most of the people could climb 7a most of the time BUT to do this requires some commitment in terms of balancing the rest of their life with climbing. Most dont / cant dedicate enought time to achieve it.

Getting beyond 7a the numbers drop as I think many could get higher but here the level of commitment to the sport isnt achievable for most.

8 plus grades seem to be naturally gifted or very long term commited to the sport. add together natural gift and commitment and you get sharma et al.

The interesting part of the equation isnt for me the climbing side, its the sacrifice to the rest of your life to achieve 7a and beyond. age will undoubtedly effect this side of the equation... younger folks wont have the responsibilities of spouses, kids and mortgages etc I'm sure it would make an interesting equation to try and write out. anyone going to have a go?

7a = relationships + work + finances + proximity to climbs etc etc etc

In reply to Fraser:


No excuses then - we better both get stuck into that black 8a at Ratho.....

In reply to ti_pin_man:


I'm not even sure about that, actually. Most climbers in the UK (including me) are fairly inefficient with our training - witness the number of posters on here who'll make fingers-down-the-throat sort of noises if you even mention the word! I know loads of people (again, including me) who head down to the wall or the crag two or three times a week and then spend most of the time messing around trying routes in no particular order, having a go at what our mates are doing, trying to figure out the trick to a novelty route or whatever.

One question (and I don't know the answer) is how much better we could get without re-arranging our whole lives if we could accept that it meant doing a power endurance workout on boring 5+'s while our mates were working a cool boulder problem, and camping under the circuit board with a stopwatch while our mates were playing add-one or whatever. And I think a lot of what Dave Mac means about everyone in Spain climbing in the 8's is that if your mates are all working to rigorous training regimes and encouraging each other to keep going and push harder then you'll probably get into the same habit more or less by default, whereas if your mates all think training is a dirty word then it'll take a lot more determination on your part.

Although I think Graham also has a point that when we say "you could do X if you stuck to a boring repetitive training regime and a strictly controlled diet" it sort of misses the point that being able to do that is kind of an aptitude in itself...

In reply to Robert Durran:

I blame Fraser for holding my climbing back. I expect if Fraser pulled his finger out and climbed F8b then the "you are who you climb with" effect would effortlessly drag me up to F8a. As it is, his lack of effort has me stuck on a F7b+ high tide mark.

In reply to Ramblin dave:
>"if we could accept that it meant doing a power endurance workout on boring 5+'s"

Tell me more about power endurance from a boring F5+.

I'd be willing to spend a considerable amount of time on F5+'s if I thought it would get me up F8a.

In reply to ti_pin_man:

Yeah, I'd have to agree with you. Read the whole thread before adding my twopenceworth.

I think a lot of people could climb 7a (not all by any means and I'm thinking of a few of my friends who I've watched climb: no natural ability). I have and that's starting at 40 and doing it for 3 years: moderately skinny, fairly fit, no kids & I live close to the wall, however work leaves me tired and I rarely refreshed). Above 7a the gap between each increment in grade is wider than in the lower grades.

For me to progress, I'd need to become someone I don't really want to be but even then I thinking I'd only climb a few notches better. At around 40, muscle mass starts to decline, so often you're training to keep still. Injuries occur more often (body less forgiving, less elastic) and recovery takes longer and your metabolism slows.

If, like a lot of the posters on here, I was in my 20s/30s and had been climbing since 8-14, I'd expect I could have reached fairly close to an 8a.

In reply to JLS:


Yes. I watch Fraser flailing around on 7b's and my subconscious tells me there's no point in even trying.

Bur seriously, it's really all Robbie Phillips' fault we're all so weak and crap. We need a better role model.

In reply to Flinticus:



"if you listen closely, you can always hear the excuses"
Actually they're deafening.....

In reply to JLS:



I told you I didn't train very efficiently!

But I'm thinking of the "I go climbing three times a week and I can still only manage 6a+ and that's on a good day" crowd here. Your mileage may vary...

In reply to @ndyM@rsh@ll:

Slightly off topic but:
I dont think the graded comparison table in your post is correct. It gives 8a as comparable to E8. If we talk in terms of on-sight I expect maybe 10% of climbers given the right long-term environment are theoretically capable of attaining the level of on-sighting 8a but probably only 0.5% will actually achieve it. I expect 10% of climbers are capable of on-sighting E8 but probably only 0.05% will achieve it.
Why? because E8 is more difficult than 8a.
Logbooks show 230 ticks at E8, there are 3123 8a ticks.

In reply to Removed UserMike Rhodes:

What we are talking about relates to so many aspects. At my local wall two women have asked me in the last week how to address thge same bouldering problem. They both came unstuck on a move out from a hand match which was best served by crossing over. Lady A had been climbing a couple of years and lady B 3 months. Lady A didn't get the solution, but lady B did and got up the problem 2nd attempt with the new beta. My point being, how able is the individual to absorb and utilise information? I think many could achieve much higher numbers if they desired, but some don't get it (the questions climbing asks of us) for a number of reasons. This is not just a physical issue IMHO.

In reply to Diggler:

I think anyone is reasonable shape who isn't physical handicapped could if they wanted to climb 7a if they find the right route.

For 8a, I don't know. Personally I used to train quite a bit but nothing intensive or structured, just climbing and bouldering quite a bit and trying hard when I did. As a result I went to Spain for 2 weeks and after a few days of work bagged my first 8a so its defiantly possible without some impractically intensive system.

Body shape has little to do with it, you can be tall or short, bulked up or skinny. You just need to find a route that matches you're style and abilities. 10m power problem out of a cave or a 40m steep stamina jug fest or a super crimpy bit of technical wizardy on the vertical.

It all comes down to how much you want it and how much you're willing to try. Going to the wall 4 times a week is no use you just spend half your time chatting to friends and eating cakes. You need to be on the wall building up the grades and pushing your self every session. You need to be bouldering for power too, not messing about on the mats.

And most impotently you need dedication, it's not just trying hard for a few weeks or a season you need to try and try and try, often for years, never letting weakness catch up with you by taking to long off or getting distracted.

In reply to Flinticus:





Disagree with your highly generalised statement. I have just turned 46 and will be doing Power endurance training tonight which is tough at any age. I have no noticeable decline in anything and I only started climbing 3 years ago. Injuries only occur if you don't follow the rules. Recovery takes forever if you don't follow the rules. Metabolism is personal and genetic but most scientific studies suggest that the average person can go hard until they are at least 60. You just have to want to. I am not saying you can do 8a etc, but there is no excuse apart from yourself.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I foresaw such a response. However, regardless of positive thinking and commitment, there are certain facts such as simply getting older that affect you physically, clearly to different degrees. Thats a fact (like climate change). Personally, for me they are not excuses as I'm not trying to get to 8a, I'm not going to train for tha and I don't attach kudos to those who commit to climbing in a big way. I really like the balance I have in my life now. I'd rather sit with my old dog than have another session on the campus board.

In reply to Fishmate:

Enjoy your power endurance training but that's not for me. I'll be going to a comedy club tonight.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I also blame Robbie Phillips for everything.

In reply to Flinticus:

Yes yes yes, but Rab Carrington first redpointed 8a when he was 59!


There's absolutely nothing wrong with that and its great that you acknowledge it. Many people don't, and say "I'm not talented enough".

And then other people, who have made the sacrifices to improve their climbing, get rather miffed when that work is dismissed as merely being "talent".

In reply to Flinticus:


Fair do's Flinticus. Sounds like a good alternative. Like yourself, I am not attching kudos to my choice. It's about making the right choice for ourselves, so the only winners are the ones who do that. Sounds like we are both winners

My point was that if most people desired they could try harder. We all could in most things we do, if we are honest. Whether you choose to or not explains that particular desire, but there is no right or wrong in that choice.

In reply to jkarran:



I think you're right. When I was a steady E1/2 uk trad leader, I onsighted a couple of 6c's on bolts, and once spent an afternoon doing all the moves on a 7a. Could definitely have redpointed it in another session or two if I had bothered to go back, but wasn't interested in doing so at the time.

In reply to Alun:

Didn't Novato Marin redpoint gemenis at Rodellar in his mid 60s? And that's, what, 8b+.

In reply to Kemics:


Worker cleverer is probably more relevant for most people (and certainly in the case you mention that sounds most likely) - there's an awful lot of "training time" put in by the uk climbing population that has no discernible training benefit whatsoever.

In reply to Diggler:

I would say 7a is achievable for most people with varying degrees of dedication, but 8a is really into elite territory where genetics has to play a part - strength, weight, mental attitude, resistance to injury (all of which people have some degree of control over I know).

That's not to say that people who climb 8a don't have to work hard, I just think they need to be born blessed and work hard.

In reply to AJM:


I agree. To Kemics, are you saying these climbers who boulder 4-5 times a week are doing so in a structured, progressive and measureable manner or are they just doing the same thing every day, i.e. bouldering, working problems at their limit? I'm just trying to understand what you mean.

In reply to JLS:


I do climb 8a...just not when I'm climbing with you! ;P

PS Ignore yesterday's performance, it was a notably high gravity day!

In reply to Fishmate:

To be honest I've no idea how structured their training is, not very at a guess. But they are generally bouldering at their limit frequently. I was told that bouldering is the best form of power training, yet they don't seem particularly powerful

A staggeringly huge sample of climbers I've climbed with who've jumped to the 'big boy grades' have done so by losing weight. A particular friend went from 6c redpoint to 7a+ onsight in around 6 months with very little climbing training and a lot of cardio!

My question: what do I do if I'm already thin?

I would cling to this excuse if I wasn't regularly out climbed by people heavier than me

In reply to Oli:




I've not climbed 8a yet, but I've been relatively close before and know a few people who have climbed in the eighth grade. The regime you describe is way beyond what I would think is necessary.

In reply to Monk:

That wasn't example of how to climb 8a! Just trying to show that there is always more you can do if you really want to achieve a goal...

In reply to jkarran:



I find these figures amazing, that you consider 30+ climbing days a year as keen! Back in my prime we would climb three to five days a week, plus virtually everyday on the school holidays (teachers!) - so in excess of 200+ days a year - THATS' keen!

Chris

In reply to Chris Craggs:


How true Chris - and we were actually climbing routes, not on an indoor wall - well apart from Leeds and Abraham Moss midweek.

And then there was the annual 2-3 month summer trips to the Alps & Yosemite.

And despite all that intensity of climbing, over several years, I reckon I still could not have climbed 8a, and now I never will.

In reply to Goucho:


I'd be genuinely interested to hear how intense your climbing was (say, compared to your absolute limit) and what proportion of your annual climbing was done at that intensity.

In reply to Goucho:

Aren't there different muscle types and all that sort of stuff that might mitigate against us all having the same potential?

I remember taking my eldest son - who to this day, at 34 is a pretty fit guy - with a friend of his climbing, when they were both 8, well before any serious training was kicking in. David was totally cr*p on the monkey bars, but his mate could hang there indefinitely without noticeable stress at all.

That was genetic difference pure and simple, and if that doesn't translate to climbing potential I don't know what would.

In reply to Goucho:

I remember talking to Dougie Hall after his long (10 week?) trip to the States, when he was at his impressive peak. I asked if he had climbed everyday, to which he replied - "No - I was a bit ill one day"!!


Chris

In reply to Alun:


My theory is that hard work is more attractive if you have a certain level of talent which allows you to better reap the benefits of that hard work.

In reply to @ndyM@rsh@ll:
No way can everyone realistically do 7a, never mind 8a. If we look at 'regular' climbers who are out on rock at least 4 times a month in the warmer half of the year and going to the wall twice a week all year round; who want to push the grade rather than just enjoying VDiffs or VSs (nothing wrong with that of course); who have the right body type (very important I think); who have been climbing a few years so have some experience and technique - if we look at these people, which would be perhaps 10% - 20% of the outdoors climbing population, then I agree that in theory they should all be able to work up to 7a if they really focused on it. For the other 80-90% it's not realistic (and many won't even aspire to it and there's nothing wrk with that). That is the reality if you look at people who actually go climbing. I suppose your point is that hypothetically everyone should be able to do it. I'm not convinced - 7a is not that easy and some people who happily go climbing at lower grades simply won't have and won't be able to develop the technical or physical ability for it. I do agree that a lot more people should be able to do it if they tried but far from everyone. As for 8a, that's a different level altogether...

In reply to Diggler:

Let's add some data points.

Age 50; Climb 2x/week indoors; Onsight 6a+ routinely; 6b often; Redpoint 6b+
Outdoors take a grade off that. No particular dietary control and not a heap of other exercise but generally active.

In reply to Diggler:
Interesting that we're talking about sport grades, which are based on physical and technical ability and determination to succeed. How about trad? Say E5 6a, which will be somewhere on the 6c to 7a+ range depending on gear so broadly comparable to 7a in my book. Even a well protected E5 6a, say London Wall, will require a decent head, never mind Right Wall. It's something that can be trained to some extent but not as readily as physical aspects and for many (most?) people is the biggest limitation of them all when it comes to trad. So, can every climber onsight E5 6a? Even hypothetically, if they really put their effort into it? No chance. What about the equivalent of 8a, which must be about E8 6c (happy to be corrected, not my grade range!), anyone want to seriously suggest that's feasible for everyone?

In reply to Fraser:


I've never really been a grade chaser.

I went after routes which I wanted to do, and a lot of them meant climbing harder in order to be good enough to have a go at them.

I've never been into 'working' routes - I get bored too easily with that kind of repetition, so I've always treated the grade I can climb, as the grade I can onsight.

Also, the kind of intensive training regimes which are prevalent nowadays, weren't around when I was in my prime.

Besides, I was too busy having a great time, climbing great routes, in great places, with great people - and that is just so much more important to me, than chasing grades for the sake of chasing grades!

In reply to JJL:



If you're climbing twice a week and only redpointing 6b+ you are definitely not trying hard enough, unless:

- you're vastly overweight
- you're totally unfit / inflexible
- you have a limb missing
- you first started climbing within the past 4-6 months

Seriously.

In reply to Goucho:

I don't doubt all you say or necessarily disagree, but in terms of answering those two questions I asked, could you give any approximate figures?

In reply to Fraser:







Pardon my French, but you are talking theoretical rubbish!

In reply to Fraser:


I'm climber, not a data analyst.

My diaries contain climbing adventures, not lists of training regimes, and grade pie charts.

In reply to Goucho:

I don't keep a climbing 'diary' as such, but I was just trying to figure out what you meant by 'intense', that's all. You used the adjective, whihc is fairly subjective, so I wanted to get a better understanding of what you meant.


Re the 6b+ thing: I'm deadly serious.

In reply to Chris Craggs:



But Dougie was a bit of a machine Chris

In reply to Misha:

Personally I think your head is one of the easier things to train. Certainly responds a lot quicker than physical training, though it does require a bit more initial effort.

In reply to Fraser:


Intense, as in climbing regularly, sometimes hard (for me), sometimes easier - it was all down to which routes I wanted to have a go at on the day.


Well, there is an awful lot of real world data, which puts a very big question mark over your theory.

Remember, climbing coaches have a vested interest in telling everyone they can climb harder - it's how they make their living.

In reply to remus:


I actually think it is probably the single biggest barrier to climbing harder - well certainly on trad.

In reply to Oli:

>


If I did that I'd expect to climb 8C - if I applied that to cycling I'd have a pro contract.

E

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:




Completely agree Mick.

In reply to Goucho:


This is the big mistake people seem to make, where they think this is serious/ intense effort. This is just having a little play around at the wall sometimes.
Granted this is what i do most times at the wall, but i am under no illusions that it is intense.

Intense is a structured session, where you get on set climbs, in maybe a 3x3 format. And you get on them, even if you're pumped and know you're going to fall off. Or get on routes you don't want to do.
That is training, and an intense session.
If people did this 2 or 3 times a week, and structured it over a few months, most people would at the very least get into the high 6s. If not bag a 7a.

I'm the first to admit i don't train, and i'm very lazy. I certainly don't think i adhere to a structured training programme, and do pretty much what you describe that you do. So not at all saying it's a bad thing. I enjoy my sessions.

Just trying to point out that that is a fun session, not a serious directed climbing session with a goal of say climbing 7a or whatever you're after.

In reply to remus:


I agree with Groucho, I think a head for climbing is something you have or (as in most cases) haven't. Being able to crank out pull-ups by the hundred is no use if you can't hack big run-outs on unknown territory - which is why sport climbing (and more specifically 'working' routes) has become so common and popular.
In fact for many people working projects appears to have taken over from actually going climbing - I have met people on Kalymnos spending a holiday "looking for a good 7a to work" which just seems so odd. (They enjoy it so that's fine with me btw)

Chris

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Exactly. There's a lot of pub dreaming going on in this thread. All the 8a climbers I've known have been gifted technical climbers with a superb power-weight ratio. OK they generally also had the willingness to work hard but the physical gifts came first.

In reply to Goucho:


That's fine, if you don't want to answer my genuine questions it's your prerogative. But if you are 55 and you climbed 7c two years ago, you obviously climb pretty hard.



Can you post a link to one such test which states something significantly or even remotely differently and I'll gladly withdraw my claim.



I agree 100%. But that doesn't mean they can't!

In reply to Fraser:

I've been fortunate to know, and climb with some seriously good climbers, and I can't think of any of them that didn't have a natural ability in one way or another.

Sure, a lot of them worked hard at it, and increased their standards by application, but the one thing they all have (had) in common, was a level of ability (call it genetics) which made the difference over the rest of us.

In reply to Fraser:


Simply look at the percentage of the climbing population who climb 8a.

And by that, I don't mean people with one 8a to their name which took weeks to work - as we know, one swallow does not a summer make!

I've often thought about this, and interesting to read a vast amount of conjecture. So to add to the pile...

I'd put a greater emphasis on 'mind' over 'matter' when it comes to achieving any reasonable grade, and I think I include indoors 7a in this. (I've got no idea what it would take to climb 8a, and haven't (yet) got the desire to do so either, so can't comment!).

I'd wager that for many people, it isn't their physical capacity that is the biggest barrier in stopping them from achieving any given (reasonable!) grade, but their psychological approach*. If you believe you can do something (even if you currently can't), take positive-feedback from your inability to currently do it, focus on the small improvements as success in itself, learn how to think through a route and remember sequences, learn to concentrate on doing the move rather than what happens if you don’t… then you stand a good chance of achieving your goal.

Putting my neck on the block - for most who can't climb 7a but want to - there would probably be a greater benefit in addressing their psychological approach, rather than worrying about training on a campus board etc. Sort out your psychological approach and you’ll get all the training you need just working the routes.

*For transparency - I'm 28, male, 12.5stone, 6ft - I've been climbing for 4? years, started indoors, have never physically 'trained', and evaluate my climbing based on it's contribution to improving my trad leading (and how much fun it brings me). I also therefore care more about having a reliable onsight grade (6b+?) than my 'max' lead grade. Indoors, I'm climbing V7, on-sighting 6c, red-pointing 7a, top-roping 7b - I hope this will contribute to me consolidating E1/2.

*Of course, there are other factors that are a priori - if you’re overweight, particularly short (or tall!), suffer from a physical impediment etc.

In reply to Bertbee:


I would say you're massively, massively underperforming on trad. Indoors I can't do any of those things and I'm pretty solid at E3.

In reply to Pagan:

Good to hear

But obviously there is a lot more to it with trad that can only be learned 'on the job' - no amount of indoors training can prepare you for keeping your cool when a runner drags out :s (or learning to place better runners)!

In reply to Goucho:



This is an important point. I think *most* people who single-mindedly pursued ticking just 1 8a could do so, it's a case of having sufficient time and motivation. To be ticking 8a regularly requires something extra.

As for ticking 7a, 10 years ago I thought I'd never do that, but it seemed tenuously possible, but 8a was a total pipe dream. I didn't have the motivation, and I had no idea of the gains I could make by training. I'd even onsighted 6c at this point! I genuinely thought English 6b was too hard for me, so 7a would be too. I proved myself wrong one summer when I got stuck into working a 7a, it took a few weeks, but I ticked it and a couple of months later was onsighting them and redpointed a couple of 7bs. I discovered that a) I'd never really tried that hard before and b) Working the route got me a lot stronger in the process, so provided the extra training hit I needed.

I'm nudging on the door of 8a now, if you'd told me that 10 years ago I'd have laughed my head off!

I remember that mindset, but it still surprises me how many people think redpointing a 7a is the living end and an elite grade which requires the "right genes". Even climbing 7a consistently doesn't require that, it just requires a genuine desire to do it, and a lot of climbers have plenty of other things in climbing they're more motivated by, not to mention in the real world.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Btw, Robbie Phillips says there's no way that black is 8a ;P

In reply to Diggler:

Gonna add my personal experiance for whatever it's worth:

Got into climbing 3-4 years ago with a trad focused group, indoor climbing was seen by my partner as a necessary evil to be done in the winter when it was too dark to climb outdoors in the evenings. Climbing 2x a week I plateaued at 6a/+, outdoors I got to VS and started doing some easier HVS. What I found limiting, especially indoors was forearm pump.

I had a period 8-6 months ago where I had a bit of a dip. I fell going for the second to last hold indoors and ended up at the third clip which ruined my leading head, also I had a few busy evenings and was climbing once a week for a while. This completely ruined what little stamina I had, and I started to hate climbing. Though I could do a 6a or two at the start of the session, my forearms would get completely pumped and stay that way, I would have to drop to 5's with huge jugs which I didn't find interesting to climb. And I found lead climbing at my limit terrifying and hated it.

About 4ish months ago I had more spare time again, and set a goal of trying to consolidate 6b indoors because I was sick of climbing jug ladders and being scared. I added 2 solo bouldering sessions a week and made sure that at least every other session I either fell above a clip while leading or had a practise fall. I'm now fairly confident at 6b, and have climbed a few soft 6b+ after working them. Unfortunately, I have 2 weeks ago had my first climbing injury with a tweaked finger :/

I always feel a bit jealous, pretty much any time a beginner climber talks about progression they have been climbing less and harder than me. At least i'm making decent progress now i'm climbing 4x a week, I think 7a would be possible but 8a i'm not so sure. I'm short and stocky, built like a sprinter/rugby player. I weigh 80kg/12.5 stone, I certainly don't have the genetics of a thin climber but then again there are many powerfully built climbers who climb hard so that probably shouldn't be any excuse.

In reply to GrahamD:


Very true!

In reply to Kemics:


I agree with what you're saying generally... but it sounds like these particular guys/girls have pretty poor technique!

In reply to Enty:
Yeah, I was going to say that it sounds a bit OTT for 8a, at least I hope so! I don't know of course but I have a vague ambition to do 8a one day which would certainly require more training and more structured training but twice a day several times a day is generally pro level in most sports from what I gather and so does sound more like 8c and above. But if anyone who has actually climbed 8a wants to shatter my illusions, be my guest and tell me I need to quit my job to get there...

In reply to Misha:


The argument doesn't extend to trad, because you can make up for physical weakness with a certain amount of experience and boldness (or vice versa q.v. the chap above who's bouldering V7 but worried about consolidating E1/2 - when he's clearly strong enough to tick E3/4)

And incidently 7a redpoint (which I presume is the point of the discussion here) is vastly easier than E5, or even E4!

As a more general point, I think many people misunderstand the concept of redpointing, and just how much difference pre-practicing a route can make. While I think Fraser is rather combative in his arguments, in 20 years climbing I've met very few dedicated climbers (i.e. who go more than three times a month) who wouldn't be able to redpoint 6b/+ if they bothered to try, and if it was their preferred style.

But the key point in that sentence is the phrase if they bothered to try, and many people don't (if only because hanging around on a bolt working the same move is not the reason why many people started climbing!)

In reply to Misha:


I don't know, don't a lot of V4s have british tech 6a/b moves on them?

In reply to Bertbee:

Nevermind underperforming on trad which is obvious, you seem to be underperforming on sport? I've onsighted plenty 6c routes (INDOORS) and never done harder than V4.

In reply to Misha:

No one can know that. Depends how good you are to start with I'd have thought...

In reply to Misha:


I concur with that. I think that 8a is already pretty darn hard. Of course there are some gifted athletes to whom 8a seems as not a very big effort. But most of the climbing folk I know never really got and will ever get anywhere near this. Most of the dedicated people can make it to 7a redpoint, at least indoors. Outdoors is already a bit of a different story, however the ones who are dedicated and take the time to actually climb outdoors and have the motivation to work a route also tend to do it.

Personally, I managed to redpoint around 10 8a's so far. But this is after 25 years that were dedicated to climbing. Ok, not only sport climbing (lots of alpine, ice, bolting etc.) and I never did any structured training, but I tried hard. However, addressing the "trying hard" thing. I'm close to 40 now, and usually I cannot cope with 3 hard sessions per week - it is already pretty good if I can well recover when I do 2 sessions. There are no further shortcuts (weight loss, tactical improvements, etc.) that I could undertake to reach my ultimate goal of an 8b redpoint. For the armchair analyst 8b seems so close to 8a and he/she could say "just go there, work the route and try hard". That's what I do, but first I need to get the power to do the single moves. If I focus on that, then I lack the endurance to link it. And when I focus on the endurance to link it, then my power declines rapidly and soon I'm running into problems on doing the hardest moves. That's how it is if some natural limit is achieved... and I don't see any solution to overcome it.

I think most people would hit that bareer sooner or later when they actually tried to exploit their limit, and that well below a level of 8a.

In reply to Goucho:




I think we're talking at cross-purposes. My request for the link to the 'real world data' you referred to was in relation to your comment saying about a 50yo climber and me saying if they were only redpointing 6b+ while climbing twice a week, then they weren't trying hard enough.

Are you now agreeing with me or do you have a link to data showing otherwise?

In reply to Alun:


Absolutely. Given that a sustained and protectable E5 would often be 7a/+ if bolted, onsighting E5 would be the equivalent of at least 7b/+ onsight and therefore requiring the potential to redpoint at least 7c/+. I know comparisons between trad and sport are always dodgy, but this certainly makes personal sense to me.

In reply to Sonya Mc:


8b? he told me the orange 7c on the same line would be phsically solid 8a outdoors and the black is clearly miles harder. But then again, what does Robbie Phillips know about anything?

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Or you sould say he is massively overperforming on bouldering! I've virtually never managed a V7 and then only after prolonged working of one which suits me (my natural lack of strength has always been my climbing weakness), but 6c or E1/2 (which I would put at roughly equivalent grades to onsight) is a warm up.

In reply to Michael Gordon:
I'd spent 18months focused mainly on bouldering indoors, with the intention of improving finger strength and technique, but trad leading outdoors. I've recently (since Dec?) tried to focus a bit more on leading indoors, as it was starting to be stamina that was psychologically and physically holding back my trad (and indeed, sports climbing outside, which I've never committed to due to mostly living near grit). I don't think it's a case of under-perfoming, more that they are different disciplines, and it takes some time to convert any 'gains' made in one part of the sport into the other.

Anyway - my point was to emphasize the psychological approach to climbing is undervalued, and at the more humble grades, can play a bigger role in determining whether one will reach their goals than physical training.

In reply to Chris Craggs:


I said 'keener' not obsessive

I picked a figure I'm familiar with, I guess I manage about 30-40 sessions a year and I still consider myself a keen climber, just with more going on and less single minded than I once was. I'll probably not get up an 8 without changing something significantly but this level of commitment seems to be plenty to keep me ticking along in the 7s.

jk

In reply to Diggler:
To those who say that 7a/8a is wildly out of reach for most/many, even if they try REALLY hard to get there, I have the following question.

Where are all the people plugging away training hard on the bouldering wall night after night, smashing their arms into oblivion foot-on-campusing, picking their weekend objectives based around what will get them better rather than simply what they fancy, making job/relationship choices that move them closer to climbing, having their indoor sessions ruled by a stopwatch, dieting, planning their training, spending all their money and time on trying to get better at hard sport climbing... year after year... and plateauing in the 7s? Because I don't see them. I see and know a bunch of people doing some/most/all of those things, and generally they seem to plateau somewhere in the 8a-9a range.

I'm not saying people should do those things -this is where the question about whether to include the desire to be good as a 'talent' comes in. Those without that desire might physically be able to achieve 7a/8a/whatever, but without the desire they wont be able to, so if they'll never have that drive then talking about what they 'could' achieve with it is almost as fruitless as talking about what the average person 'could' achieve if they'd been blessed with naturally stronger fingers.

Anyway, on the basis of the above observational experience, I would hypothesise that if you injected every climber with said motivation, the notable majority would get to somewhere in the 8s.

In reply to Diggler:

I can understand how people can view 8a as unattainable as it would take most people full commitment etc over years with correct training etc to reach.

But people saying 7a is for the elite and genetically gifted is crazy. If you go to France or Spain etc. 7a is so common if a climber isnt climbing at or at least near it. Its because they either climb less then once a month, or are new to the sport.
That is inclusive of old and the average sized (not skinny guys/girls). There's no way whole countries are that genetically different from us. Its because the mentally out there is that 7a isnt that hard. So people just get on with it.
Since over here we mainly trad, so VS is the standard that most build to and are then content as they feel this is a good level to attain (which it is). But if you transfer that to sport its probably 6a+ ish. Indoors anyway.

If we as brits all did more sport, standards would jump, and 7a would become not that hard in people's opinions.

For the record, im saying that for us brits, 7a is hard. Just baffled by statements that it's unattainable and you need genetics to climb it?!

In reply to abarro81:



This, and a lot of other comments above, seem to miss the potentially significant impact of self selection when examing effort vs results. If you train a bit and see results you're encouraged to train more and likely to see more results. If people exist who could train as hard as you do and make similar lifestyle commitments but would 'only' get to 7b rather than 8c+ do you really think that they are likely to do it? Assuming that it is unlikely that they would there absence doesn't prove that such people don't exist.

In reply to CharlieMack:

This isn't really true, at least not here in Spain. The majority of "hobbyist" climbers operate in the 6s. It probably *is* true to say that 7a is more common than it is in Britain, but it's nowhere near as common as you make out. If you go to famous crags such Siurana or Margalef, I would even say that the majority of people climbing the harder stuff are foreigners.

But other than that, I agree with the gist of what you are saying. Higher grades are more common here mostly because the Spanish learn climbing through redpointing i.e. you will start up a route fully expecting to fall/rest. The ultimate goal is to 'link' it in one go at some point in the future, and the onsight is given less respect.

In reply to Alun:
But this is my point, it gets more complicated when you look at trad as there are more factors involved but fundamentally I don't believe that everyone can do E5 6a, in the same way that I don't think everyone can do 7a either. As to whether 7a is easier, that's a whole different debate and I agree that red pointing makes a massive difference. You'd need to look at onsighting difficulty to compare like with like. With onsighting the gap will be much smaller and there will be some overlap between E5 6a and 7a in terms of technical and physical difficulty. But I digress. The point is that not everyone can do either/both.

In reply to abarro81:
I see your point but I think there is some self selection bias involved here. The kind of people who do this are largely going to be the kind of people that have a realistic chance of achieving it. They try hard (for sure) and they achieve it - QED. They aren't going to be 'the average climber', the kind of person that gets out reasonably regularly and leads VS or 6a, who if they tried hard would may be get to 7a but 8a - no chance, because it's just too hard for their level of technical ability, what their fingers can cope with, what strength to weight ratio they could reasonably achieve, etc...

In reply to Misha:


Technical ability and strength can be developed and lets be honest, the physical prerequisites 7a are quite modest.

Unless something very strange and dramatic happens between 7c (where my experience ends) and 8a it doesn't seem to me that you need extraordinary amounts of either to climb around this level, I certainly haven't got either in any great measure nor am I a dedicated training machine, I just get on stuff, try, fail, sulk, try again and again and again until I get up it. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe there is a huge leap in difficulty beyond the upper 7s but it seems somehow unlikely especially considering this was the very same silly idea that was stopping me from trying hard on 7s back when mid-high 6s were my 'limit'. I'm not in great shape, climb once a week and spent most of my climbing career pottering up VSs rather than honing my skills bouldering hard. My goals for this summer (which I think realistic if I apply myself) are around the 7c mark, redpoint of course.

The average climber that potters up VS all weekend is not average because they're physically limited or mentally incapable of training, they're average because they choose what they do and more importantly don't do with their climbing time, they like pottering up VSs or at least I know I did and still do.

jk

In reply to Ian Patterson:


Exactly, and one might suggest that the more talented are more likely than the 'average climber' to see encouraging results when they do train.

In reply to Diggler:
People are limited by the limits they set themselves and/or by their choice of climbing friends. Open up your limits and climb with people who have non and then the next thing that will hold you back is plain laziness. Foot on campusing is just boring, it's easy to give up after a set or two and watching what you eat is even worse. I'm rubbish because I don't apply myself every day, every month. I don't have natural climbing talent, even as a little kid I had no interest in climbing trees or lampposts but I've no doubt that if I applied myself like Barros mentioned above - I could climb an 8a, even at my age and with the injuries I've got. It just takes effort and a lot of it for a long time.

Personally speaking, I got psyched to run an ultra. 69 miles in one hit. I knuckled down for six months and I finished. For once in my life I applied myself. I can't run, I'm overweight, have no talent and the knees are crocked but application and effort got me to the finishing line. I was told by a group of wads who all climb in the high 8s, to climb and train like I'd gone about the running - they'd belayed me that day and watched me falling off a 6b constantly but said the only thing holding me back was me. They're right and like Barros, they're at those grades and know what it takes to get there. Effort. Lot's of it.

In reply to Ian Patterson:


But you wouldn't expect everyone who trains mega hard and sees no results to just give up. There should be at least a few stubborn bastards who train just as hard and as smart as the people getting up 8as but spend their rime languishing in the low 7s. I dont know of any examples, and no one else has presented any, which leads me to believe that if you put the work in you generally see results.

In reply to Diggler:

I've quickly read through this thread as I'm interested in the topic so apologies if I'm rehashing someone else's comments.

I think an important point is what do you mean by climb 7A ?

As someone whose top end is 7A I mostly find that I'm hardly ever able to onsight a 7A. However, once having got the rope up I can usually do it in one go after a couple of tries, working out the moves etc and then I have a reasonable chance of leading it with the clips in or out.

Does that make me a 7A climber ? My british climbing background with its onsight ethic makes me say no - not really. However, from a continental perspective then I am, since the sport grade is not an onsight grade but given for being able to climb it after practice, clips in etc...

In reply to Dave Reeve:

As I understand it, the sport grade isn't given for any particular type of ascent. You can redpoint 7a or you can onsight it. Which one makes you a '7a climber' is a matter of opinion, though I'd share your view that for that it should really be regular onsights.

In reply to remus:


I'm not sure there would be - this isn't just about training hard it's also about lifestyle changes to put in the time on rock to build the motor skills/enagrams. Turning it around who is the climber with the least natural aptitude who has trained as hard and smart as anyone else and what grade did they get to?

In the end I don't really know the answer - for me personally I'm pretty sure I could have climbed up to around 8a+/8b if I put in the commitment / climbing time you're talking about, no idea about harder. But I've always been pretty good at sports (school teams / at or close to county level) without ever being near to elite and have a natural competitive tendacy so I don't think I fit the lower end of the 'anyone can climb 8a' sample.

In reply to jkarran:
I agree effort is key and many more people could do 7a if they really focused on it as it isn't that hard after all. But there is no way all or even most reasonably regular outdoor climbers could is it. By reasonably regular in his day and age I mean out 20-30 days a year, not 5 but not 50+ either. To suggest that is to ignore the reality that not all regular climbers are or could get reasonably fit and reasonably technically able. As for 8a, most people won't get there even with vast amounts of motivation. But perhaps I'm just sceptical of people's potential...

In reply to Robert Durran:


Robbie was involved in a massive UKCesq rantathon on my fb page a week ago, but my mistake, it was someone else who said it was no way 8a. Robbie said the black was def 7c+ and soft 8a at a push, then followed by saying that the extra "+" grade would only be to satisfy egos. Buz kindly changed it to 8a along with changing a few other routes, including upgrading the yellow 6c+ to 7a (which definitely satisfied my ego as it then became my first 7a redpoint by default)

In reply to Ian Patterson:
Yeah, no doubt there's some self-selection involved. But presumably you would then expect to see people training hard at the lower grades, but not sticking with it? The dropout rate being compensated for by the comparatively larger number of people operating at that level perhaps? This is still something I think you don't see much of. It would be very easy to climb a lot for a year or two, see slow progress, and sack it off, but that doesn't count as trying hard in my book and doesn't mean that person wouldn't get into the 8s if they stuck with it.



The issue with that question is you can never define the starting point. I would say I'm pretty crap as far as natural talent goes - I was never particularly good at other sports, though I was ok but not amazing at longish distance running. It took me about 18 months of climbing to get to VS (climbing 2-4 times per week), I don't think I adapt particularly well to strength training nor am naturally strong (e.g. have never been able to 1 armer an edge), I'm not good at Dawes-esque movement stuff etc. Clearly some others on this thread would tell me I'm one talented mofo. I can very distinctly remember getting to a stage of wanting to climb E5s like right wall and thinking 'that would be cool, if I could do that it would show that anyone could do that' (perhaps with the prerequisite of starting whilst not too old - I started at 17). I still have the same thoughts now, but they're about 9a instead of E5.

Misha - think there's some crossed wires here. I think most people in the 'the average person could do grade x' camp mean "focus on it" to be climbing 5 times per week (inside/outside)etc not "focus on it" without adjusting things like climbing frequency. At least that's where I'm coming from.


Anyway, it's one of those usual ukc things that comes up repeatedly and will never be agreed upon.

In reply to Lots of people.

Sorry i should have made my position clearer, i doubt anyone who's not already climbed 7a/8a by the time they're 60 ever will, nor will anyone who's been dead already for a hundred years or people who never try climbing or don't want to put the effort in.

I think most people starting at an early enough age (when that is will depend on the person, I'm certainly not saying there isn't variation between people) who is motivated and goes about it the right way will be able to climb up to and maybe beyond 8a.

Different people have different strengths, but there's lots of different styles of route to go with that, raindogs at malham is pretty famous for having no section of climbing any harder than V4, and it's not even long.

Peoples susceptibility to injury is certainly variable but I believe very few people are so injury prone that without proper management it would definitely stop them. I myself have had many more finger injuries than fingers over the years, a torn bicep, dislocated shoulder from locking too deep in an awkward position and levering it out and elbow tendonitis in both elbows, as well as various pulled muscles too numerous to list. I have more than one friend who through bad luck managed to remove a finger and have climbed a lot harder than 8a without the usual complement. I know someone who managed to rupture his bicep, elected not to have it reattached on the advice that if he kept climbing it would just happen again and has since bouldered 8A+ without it (around 8b/+ in sport money).

I agree that anyone who doesn't want to climb any given grade enough to do the work required, whatever this may be, won't be able to do it but this can apply anywhere and i think broadening the definition of unable to this degree turns the debate into even more of a farce than it is already, anyone who doesn't want to climb 8a isn't worth considering when asking who could and couldn't.

Finally what does hard work look like, well i certainly wouldn't say I'm the most motivated, I've not yet been bothered to structure my training properly so I'm still nowhere near some of the regimes described above, but as so far i see reasonable progress with what i do that's fine.

What i am very very good at however is sieging the absolute s*** out of something, and this is where most of my gains have come from. If that's not for you then fine but it doesn't mean you wouldn't see the results if you tried. I'd just climbed my first 2 V8 boulder problems (hardly solid at the grade) when i had a summer ahead of me with very little to do, so i decided to try a long term project. I picked Lou Ferrino in Parisellas cave because handily I couldn't do a single move so it seemed long term enough. I went there on a bus by myself for 3 or 4 or 5, 2 to 4 hour sessions a week and it took me about a month to have all the moves down and linking 2 or 3 moves (out of 14) together at a time. Another month later and i had it in 2 halves, then started to push the lower half up towards the top. Probably luckily as i was starting to get some warning feelings from my inner elbows it subsequently rained heavily for weeks and the cave seeped and everything was unclimbable. This lead to 2 months of enforced layoff from that problem but a good chance to consolidate those strength gains elsewhere. When the cave dried out again it took me another month to push all the way to the top and do the problem, falling off 1 move before the end 3 or 4 times a session for about 3 weeks.
It was totally worth it.

Fundamentally I never feel like something's really been an achievement unless I've failed a decent amount at it first, the longer it takes the greater the achievement grade regardless (the edge problem which is V5 happened a long time after Lou Ferrino and felt like quite a big deal to me). I've climbed a couple more V10s now (though much more quickly) and my best bouldering flash is still a relatively meager V6, for those of you who've not done much redpointing it makes an enourmous difference.

I still think a lot of the "only special people can climb 8a" brigade have a massively over inflated view of how hard it actually is, and massively under-appreciate what redpointing really hard can achieve. The variation in age (16 up 40s who I've met, much broader that I've heard of) body type (girl/boy, short/tall, muscly/skinny as all hell/quite podgy) and personalities I know who climb that hard or harder is huge.

In summary to my essay, not wanting to doesn't count, and most people who might like to but don't either don't want it enough to do what it will require of them or have been surrounded by too negative an attitude from their formative climbing years to ever believe they could.

In reply to Diggler:

Having been slated by Robert I have just re-read the question which was "what percentage of climber DO climb 7a" not what percentage are "capable" of climbing F7a and I suspect that currently the answer in the UK is 30% indoors and less than that % outdoors. On my local crag her in France the only person I have ever seen climb F7a was from the UK with most locals climbing in the 5b/6a-c range. On the "capable" front, I look at the people I see climbing indoors and out, and try and imagine if they could ever climb as well as, say Pete Livesey, even with more modern ideas and gear and I struggle to convince myself that, as many are arguing, that every person now climbing has the potential to climb at his level. Ready to be shot down!

In reply to @ndyM@rsh@ll:

Interesting thing about the injuries. I was speaking with a therapist who deals with a lot of climbing injuries (he was treating one of my daughter's many finger injuries). He's treated a lot of top end climbers and top end running athletes and he reckoned that it wouldn't be uncommon in those who are pushing themselves at the top end, to spend around 25% of their time in some form of injury or another. But the difference is, those folk will run/compete/train with their injury, adapting where necessary.

In reply to Diggler:

Do people really climb now more because they're interested in quantifying their 'achievements' in pseudoscientific terms rather than in abandoning themselves in the purely qualitative aesthetic/physical experience of the climb? Just wondering.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Some must do - some of us still just enjoy the physical/mental action of actually climbing (irrespective of grade), being off the ground, being out with good mates, visiting beautiful places - especially new ones. The same as it ever was I guess - did I mention only at a lower grade?


Chris

In reply to @ndyM@rsh@ll:

I think after reading your opus, the question should be rephrased - "How many people could eventually (after many weeks/months of constant effort) 'work' an 8a, and eventually on the 150th attempt, just about get up it?"

I would imagine there would be a reasonable increase in percentage terms - hell, I might even add myself to the list to have a go, if I had that kind of boredom threshold.

However, even if people succeed with this 'siege tactic' approach, I don't think it qualifies them to be able to say they 'climb' 8a - IMHO.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


Remember how crap the views are on an indoor wall Gordon?

It's just vertical gymnastics, so they obviously have to have a point scoring system!

In reply to Diggler:

Just come back from my local wall. There's a new 7a route, i watched several of the better, more dedicated regulars take turns. Only one managed it.

As for training, i have had around a month away from the wall before tonight, i had my closest ever on sight attempt at a 6b.

In reply to Goucho:

The funny thing is, after the first the 2nd comes a lot quicker.

In reply to Diggler:
A while back there was a thread on how many Scottish women had climbed 8a
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=566697

The final list had three people climbing 8a or better. My guess is there are a few thousand female climbers in Scotland. So for women it looks like somewhere around 0.1% climb 8a.

I'd be surprised if the figure for male climbers was more than 2x that for females.

In reply to Diggler:

I'm more interested in what % of people on here responding to this thread think that a debate about guesstimated %s of people who may or may not be able to climb 7a or 8a is in any way useful, interesting or informative?

Get a grip!

For the avoidance of doubt 100% of proper climbers could get up a 7a without too much commitment. 8a is anyone's guess but clearly depends on genetics, style of route, relative strengths of climber etc etc! Jeez....

In reply to Wilbur:



Proper climbers????

In reply to abarro81:
I think the reality is that even if people 'focus on' it (whatever that means - climbing 5 times a week, specific training, mental attitude, etc), not everyone will do 7a and only a tiny proportion will do 8a. But for sure a lot of people (myself included) would climb harder if they really put the effort in.

I mentioned this at the pub after the wall tonight. A very valid point was raised - it depends at what age you start. If you are a VS climber and decide to 'go for it' and get to 7a or above, that's a lot more feasible in your 20s or 30s than starting from the same baseline in your 40s, by when injury will be much more of an issue. No one thought they could do 8a but I reckon most of the people round the table could do 7a (one was already very close), even if they didn't think so themselves (people need self belief!). These were the better climbers in my local club though. For many others 7a would not be feasible.

In reply to @ndyM@rsh@ll:

I think the original question was could anyone climb 7a or indeed 8a. Clearly you've got to want it to be able to do it in the first place. It's fine to only look at people who really want it but then it becomes a completely different question because you're looking at a small proportion of the overall climbing population. Even then not everyone who really wants it might get it but many will, because the people who really want it are typically the people who have a decent chance of getting it in the first place. A self-selection bias going on here.

In reply to @ndyM@rsh@ll:

This man's honesty should not go unrewarded. Very few of us are structured to make mono-digit pull-ups and this history of muscular-skeletal problems should be enough to caution all. It's entirely reasonable to wish to improve, but there's more to life than climbing desperate and impressive rock.

The question is To Have or To Be. When you're climbing at your limits - (which only you in all honesty know) this brings personal reward and satisfaction - in The Now. Then you turn around and notice that a.n.other has just climbed an impressive line 2 grades harder and you cuss yourself for lack of talent or effort. Which lasts longer - Being or Having? The 1st puts you in the Eternal Now. Having is always transient - giving fleeting satisfaction quickly to be replaced by the need for more.

The issue is all fed by News which presents worthwhile achievements starting at 8a - and that at the age of 14. The heroes are rewarded with sponsorhip and money which further qualifies the inherent value.

The reason this thread has popular interest is that we all like to think we're 'better than average', hence a need to determine what this average is. It matters. Ego matters. Money matters. Its a fine thing to reflect about the issue but don't lose sight of Reality and the reasonability of effecting Progress, even if it doesn't entrain a history of injuries. What is it worth to change a whole set of (human) friends and spend all your time on the training treadmill?

However the statistics shake out, a very few will be at the top, and the majority will be lower down. Most of us will have to look for satisfaction in Something Greater and More Meaningful than simply grades.

In reply to Skip:


People who go climbing consistently over a long period of time!

In reply to LeeWood:



No it's not. It's because there is a genuinely interesting discussion to be had about the potential individuals have to climb hard sport routes and the extent to which this comes from talent and from training.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Agreed. For me, what other people achieve is often interesting, sometimes fascinating. But the real competition is with myself - a ceaseless struggle with my weaknesses. Successes are transient (but to be savoured). Conversely 'the joy of struggle' will probably always be with me, in one form or another.

Mick

In reply to Diggler: The number who climb 7a is far less than those who could, possibly due to the 'trad' attitude i.e. go out and struggle up VS/HVS and see the 'extremes' as aspirational rather than an easily achievable target with a smidgen of,effort and training.

7a sport isn't hard and most reasonably fit and motivated climbers should see it as a very accessible grade.

Andy F

In reply to andy farnell:

Second the 2 Andys - 7a sport is not that hard to achieve. HOWEVER, that's from the perspective of living in a sport climbing area. From a trad oriented UK view it probably seems harder, if you are doing 5-6a+ regularly on sport, it's less of a jump to have a go at a 6c or 7a to dispel the mystique, try the moves, whereas if you're typically on VS to E1, jumping on an E3 or E4 could get you hurt and will probably seem desperate. Also for me indoor routes often feel hard for the grade as they are unrelenting - I'm stronger than I am fit and good at finding rests, so can get up a 7a outdoors if I can get a rest or two, but would probably get spat off a 6b at your local wall!

As for grade chasing, I totally agree that for the most pleasing climbing experience a route that's just hard enough to be interesting without being frightening or making you doubt the outcome, with good mates in a beautiful place is ideal. And sometimes I think maybe it would be better just to do that rather than train and try hard and pull on painful small holds. However for me the urge to be the best climber I'm capable of being is there too, and grades work as milestones to prove that I am getting better.

And to provoke - I reckon anyone who is regularly on sighting 6a COULD push on to redpoint at least one 7a in 6-12 months here, and that's in the Ariege where the grades are severe! I

In reply to LeeWood:
You are assuming that getting better is about competition and being better then the next person. It isn't for me and it isn't for many others. Unless you're an Adam Ondra, there will always be someone better. A bit of friendly competition can be a motivator but at the end of the day most people climb for themselves and for the experience. If they want to get better (not everyone does), it's so they can expand their horizons, get a chance to do amazing routes which happens to be of a higher grade, discover their own limits or just feel good about getting better. All this can bring happiness but the higher you go, the more you have to give up and at some stage the equation will stop working for most people. Of course there are other ways to enjoy climbing, like doing easy routes with good friends on a nice day, and there are of course many things outside climbing that can make you happy. Still, I wouldn't dismiss the happiness derived from getting better because it's not just the fact that you've hit the next grade - there are many other aspects involved that will make you feel good about it.

In reply to Mick Ward:
Precisely.

In reply to Diggler:

I climb 7a, I have onsighted 7a and I have fallen off 7a.

In reply to Diggler:

In my partner list on UKC, 17 out of 30 have climbed 7a, and of that 17, 6 have also climbed 8a. Only two have climbed harder than 8a though.

I'd describe 21 of my climbing partner list on UKC as 'keen' climbers (or who at one point had been keen) who climbed regularly at the climbing wall and at weekends outside.

So that's 56.67% of climbers I've climbed with have climbed F7a, 20% have climbed 8a, and 6.67% have climbed harder than 8a.
Of the 6 who've climbed 8a or more, all had either been professionally employed in climbing-related jobs or had had long breaks from work that were principally focused on climbing.

One or two people I know look likely to achieve 8a without this kind of focus, but there's a clear difference of commitment required between climbing 7a and climbing 8a to my mind.

Probably only two of those I know who've climbed 8a or harder I'd say were very naturally 'talented' at climbing. The others just worked at it.

In reply to Murcantile:


Have you had fun on a 7a though?

In reply to Diggler:
I guess the really interesting thing to find would be people who started climbing and settled into the average talentless punter routine of climbing a couple of times a week and leading in the low sixes, but then either a) rationalized their training a bit, cut down on the pies, bought a fingerboard and ended up climbing 7a with a bit of work or b) went all out and managed to get to redpointing 8a.

Ie "average" climbers who did get motivated one way or another (change of climbing scene, road to Damascus moment, read a book, whatever), and did get results from it.

In reply to Ramblin dave:


Objection! Climbing at 6a requires talent. There are a large number of folk cllimbing at this grade (ref John Arran's extrapolation) and the talent they have is to like/tolerate exposure to heights, have low boredom threshhold and to have developed significant finger/forearm strength along with reasonable stamina.

You may refer to Jo Bloggs - not-a-climber as being talentless; but perhaps only if he has had the chance to demonstrate this.

In reply to LeeWood:

Climbing 6a obviously does not require talent. Unless you regard practically every climber as being talented, in which case the word more or less loses all meaning.

In reply to Ramblin dave:


I reckon most people who climb in the 7s and 8s probably started out like that, at least for a bit. I know I did and it sounds like abarro did too.

In reply to LeeWood:


I'm counting myself as a talentless punter here, fwiw. I'll give you "not exceptionally talented" if you really want.

In reply to Ramblin dave:


Don't think of it as a punter routine, consider it embedding vital movement skills.

In reply to Ramblin dave:


Exactly what I did over the first 6 months of last year. Although "only" Red pointed 7a so far, so not sure if that counts according to some of the slightly odd ethics in this thread.

I kind of backed myself into a corner with my climbing where I found I got less and less from short grit outcrop trad, hurt my knee quite badly bouldering, and had done most easy limestone, and basically wasn't willing to accept the risk to push into higher trad grades. Up to this point I struggled to climb 6b.

The road to Damascus moment form was simply going to Malham and trying a 7a. Having a climbing partner who was already well into red-pointing helped too. Apart from that is having the persistence to try stuff again and again on a rope. I found that having projects made me think a bit more about the mid-week wall session, but only at very basic level i.e: have some try hard problems sessions, and some circuit board sessions, something I hadn't done before the trip to Malham.

Pretty sure anyone who has put in a reasonable bit of mileage could do the same, but totally understand why people choose not too, if I had continued to enjoy short trad routes and was prepared too push it a bit more on gear I dear say I would never have touched a gri-gri! Sport has also massively reduced the faff in my climbing days too, far fewer days spoilt by light rain, or lack of bottle/"feeling it" which I guess has a knock on effect too.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Take at random 10 people off the street and give them the chance to demonstrate climbing ability.

Take another 10 from UKC contributors and give them the same chance.

Which group is likely to exhibit a talent for climbing?

In reply to Sankey:

Well done! I think I can shorten that sentence for you though:

The road to Damascus moment for me was simply... trying...

In reply to Bulls Crack:

I did once!

In reply to Misha:

Thread content does not match thread title, which references statistics purely. Staistics invite comparison and we are all competitive by nature. Your attitude sounds very reasonable and I make no objection to folk wishing to better themselves.

What I object to are the many contributors who suggest carte blanche that any climber on UKC can get to 7a, without consideration for spread of abilities - this will vary progressively through a group sample.

It cannot be true to say that all 6a climbers could move up to 7a. Consider a discussion of abilities to play the piano. If you have accomplished grade 3 is it correct to say you can also get to grade 8 if you put in enough work?

Piano playing and climbing both require talent, which comprises physical and mental abilities. Pause to observe climbers who climb below your own standard; what limits them? Its too easy to reckon on physical form; mental limits are just as real as physical. But for starters lets name the components of physical ability as power, stamina, and flexibility, each of these will be present with a spread of ablity.

Moving on consider sense of balance which depends on physical sensing in the inner ear. Ability here is an element of overall talent. Extreme lack of such talent is called vertigo. In between vertigo and perfect balance there will be a diversity of sensitivity and interpretation of signals.

These signals of balance are processed by the brain and contribute to an individual risk assessment. I have elsewhere referred to boredom threshhold, which otherwise references acceptability of adventure. The computed result of balance signals and perception of danger will vary infinitely with individuals and there will be a spread of limitations at all levels.

Given the spread of mental and physical talent, the result is a spread of abilities demonstrated in grades climbed. Is this too simple? Given ideal circumstances and conditions, sure we can all do better and that itself is a compelleing adventure to take part in, but it is not realistic to predict the outcome either for ouselves or anybody else.

There is no step change in any element of component-abilities simply because we choose to climb - or even because we contribute to UKC

In reply to LeeWood:
Though that depends on how much stock you put in the 10,000 hours theory. Look up a book called 'Outliers' if you're not familiar with it.

So the original theory looked at violin players I think it was, but the book examines real world success stories, such as The Beatles and their 10,000 hours of practice in Hamburg:

The Beatles performed live in Hamburg, Germany over 1,200 times from 1960 to 1964, amassing more than 10,000 hours of playing time, therefore meeting the 10,000-Hour Rule, and quotes Beatles' biographer Philip Norman as saying, "So by the time they returned to England from Hamburg, Germany, 'they sounded like no one else. It was the making of them.'

It will be interesting to see if this golfer makes it too:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26384712

Personally I'd say it's a mix of practice and talent. Lower to mid 8's would be achievable with that amount of practice. High 8's and 9's would need that amount of practice and some favorable genetics.

In reply to Diggler:

Inevitably I missed a few things in my component ability set. Cues also come from sight and touch.

Mental ability includes appreciation of mechanics.

Then there is another whole domain of ability to discuss in trust of people and equipment; this is deeply rooted in personal security and may be one of the toughest elements of psychology for some to train through.

In reply to Diggler:

This has been covered in a lot of the previous posts, but it mostly comes down to how much you want it. As a post 50 year old with middle age spread, I gave up alcohol to control my weight, and my grades returned to normal. I wanted to climb the routes more than I wanted beer, so entirely motivation.

In reply to Creedence:

I like what you say - but you've done it again - a carte blanche


I play piano at grade 3 so if I put in 10,000 hrs can I play Rachmaninov ? (I have severe limitations of eye-hand co-ordination at speed

In reply to LeeWood:

Sigh. The point being made is that 7a is not like Grade 8 piano - it is more like Grade 5 i.e. both are achievable by most people if you put a reasonable amount of dedicated hours in.

8a is probably more like Grade 8 i.e. very far from the cutting edge of difficulty, but achievable by many; in greater or fewer hours, depending on talent.

Your point in a later post about your personal difficulty with hand-eye coordination is interesting - it may indeed suggest that you aren't capable of playing Rachmaninoff, I don't know.

But I would imagine that after 10,000 of practice, the majority of Grade 3 pianists would be able to raise their level to play some Rachmaninoff - just maybe not his Piano concerto no.3 (regarded as his most difficult, so Wikipedia tells me!)

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


Hi Gordon, as a relative youngster in climbing (climbing 3 years) I would say it is a culmination of everything. I have never found a discipline that demands so much of me in every way. As a result, yes I do enjoy climbing for the purely qualitative aspect (I'm a southern sandstone local, who wouldn't?) but I realised at the start of this winter that I want to know exactly what I can achieve. This was based on the realisation that the better I get, the better it gets. How good can it get? Currently training 4-6 times a week and getting out at every opportunity (limited in the south of late!). At 46, I hope answering the question allows me an 8a experience in the next 3 years. If it doesn't, I'm confident the journey will be amazing.

In reply to LeeWood:
I agree not everyone can get to 7a, never mind 8a. Good point no sense of balance as well. There is also the ability to read and learn moves and get your body and feet into the right position. Sure, it's something that can be trained and is an important part of getting better but some people who climb really struggle with these things and so 7a will be much more of a challenge for them.

Have been enjoying reading this particular thread even though it's clearly not possible to have a definitive answer.

What is relatively clear from reading is how far apart some people's ideas are from one another. It seems to me from the thread that those who believe 8a (and also 7a) are achievable tend to be those who have done a significant amount of training and seen results/improvement. Then there are those who believe it is extremely difficult and is beyond the reach of most people even with a large amount of training - it seems to me that these people tend to be those who have never actually trained significantly at climbing themselves.

As someone else earlier said I would like to hear from someone who has trained extensively and put a lot of hard work into climbing and not managed to achieve at least 7a. By trained I don't mean just went to the climbing wall 5 days a week, I mean actually had some structure to what they were trying to improve every time they went to the wall and worked out what they needed to get better at in order to succeed on their chosen project.

Personally I am in the first group of people. I have done multiple 8as and don't believe I have any real significant genetic ability. I am not a natural athlete, have never been great at sports. To be fair I have climbed for a long time but I have only really trained properly over the last 6 to 7 years, by that I mean being much more systematic and isolating what I need to improve at on the things I wanted to do.

I do see lots of people down the wall who seem to climb lots but never get any better, none of these people however actually train, they just go down have a chat trundle up a few routes or boulder problems and go home usually long after I have left. This is not to have a dig at them, they are doing what they enjoy which is great but I personally believe that given a structured approach they would almost certainly get large gains in their strength.

Another thing that often strikes me (while I am on my soapbox!) is that many people who have climbed for a long time and climb in the low to mid French sixes on sport often have very poor footwork/technique and large gains could be made simply by learning better body positioning. Certainly I would suspect that anyone climbing less than 7a sports has large technical deficits in their climbing. This is not to say that I am technical genius and in fact anyone that knows me would say the opposite but that by some simple techniques and possibly better route reading skills they could quickly improve.

Personally I think that with a bit of structured training, technique improvement , weight loss and possibly coaching 7a sport is within the grasp of most people I meet at a climbing wall. Could they all do 8a? Well am not sure about that but I reckon a lot of people could get fairly close

Anyway have enjoyed reading the thread

Cheers

Dave

In reply to Diggler:

Less than 2% can lead 7a outdoors, or indoors for that matter...some people say 10%, so, 1 in 10 climbers is climbing 7a? No way...

In reply to Alun:


Well, to give one a data point, 7a took me about as much time and effort as grade 8 piano and I am more talented at climbing than playing the piano.

In reply to ellis:

Never really emotionally been a sport climber although I have done hundreds, my top trad leads are E5 (few) and my sport grade 7a, though this is at Portland, and not worked, so probably soft.
My question is how many people repeat their 7a etc leads. Even after working a route for maybe months does the redpoint just finish your aquaintance with that route, or will you go back another time and do it again, and would it be first go, or would it require another redpoint session?

In reply to ellis:


I'm not a piano player but I understand it's pretty common to have a teacher when you learn the piano. Maybe therein lies the difference?

In reply to seankenny:

I don't think they're very comparable, piano is all technique and dexterity, and climbing mostly physical (technique important but not too difficult to learn).

In reply to seankenny:

The other difference is that most of the decent piano repertoire require Grade 8 skills (or better). At Grade 5 your choices are quite limied. In climbing there's no lack of routes in the 6s (call it VS for trad), so unless you are specifically into grade chasing or self-improvement (may /most people just like climbing for its own sake), there's relatively little motivation to 'get better'. You're never going to run out of stuff to do just because you haven't broken into the 7s.

In reply to ellis:


Erm, not to sound like an arse but you were the one who made the comparison! I'd agree that they are not so comparable, tho I'm not convinced technique is all that easy to learn, going by the numbers of climbers I see with poor technique.

Anyhow, my broader point was that being taught (formally) is not that common in climbing, beyond the learning how to place runners, make a belay, etc. So perhaps that would explain the extra effort you found in climbing - you were having to teach yourself, which is always harder work.

In reply to ellis:

Interesting. Grade 8 piano took me about 9 years of 'training'. Scales, arpeggios, breaking pieces down into sections and working weaknesses etc. Dedicated work that felt like work, albeit enjoyable work.

On the other hand 7a took longer and (/because) I haven't 'trained' a day in my life. I don't do much sport climbing but saw one I fancied in Finale, top-roped it clean first go, then led it. Felt pleased for the tick of a 'magic number' and made me wonder what I could do if I really tried. The truth is I don't know anybody I'd expect to hold my ropes while I sieged or 'worked' a sport route though. Too boring for them.

I'm not saying it's easy though. I'm as obsessed with climbing as the next man. I diet, I keep up my aerobic fitness, I work my antagonist muscles in the gym, I do yoga most days, all in support of my climbing. I just don't structure my climbing sessions, work a finger board, or anything like that. I'm not in a peer group that does. I think that's one of the most important things, as someone stated up -thread. I'm a mid-grade punter with occasional flourishes up to E4 on routes that I'm psyched for. Seconding a friend on E5 and E6 really helped open my mind to the possibilities though - they're not much harder, you just have to try a bit more, pull a bit harder, accept a bit more risk. I can imagine similar effects in the sport world. I can well imagine if your peer group 'trains' at the wall instead of just climbing some routes/problems like most of us do, you'd find, like magic, that you climb smarter too and end up pulling harder.

I'm off to Kalymnos for a week over Easter so might come back from that psyched to structure my training a bit more and get up some harder routes.

In reply to Diggler:

Not as many as guidebooks think!

In reply to davo:


A relevant observation; who is going to be more fitted to make a sound judgement ...

a climber who reaches 7a with ease (and carries on into higher grades)

or

a climber who trains hard and spends a lot of time attaining 7a - (but never gets further) ??

I don't spend a lot of time with grade-peers, but rather with beginners and moderate graders. I observe that the average climbing grade out there is 5c/6a (talking numbers of climbers here) and I watch these people operating at that level a lot. Given that they represent average, I refute the assertions that 'most climbers can attain 7a'. Real limitations in talent are evident, physically and mentally, and are such that many are simply not willing to put a toe on the training starting block (willingness must also be judged to be a sub component of talent).

For starters there are numerous folk out there (and climbing harder than 6a too) who simply will not accept falling as part of the game and so never push close to their limits.

In reply to Al Evans:

Given the choice I rarely repeat my harder routes (which currently hover 6c/7a) because I prefer to get onto new stuff. I have little patience for redpointing (patience being another sub-component of talent!) and usually aim to redpoint on the 2nd go. Quite often circumstances relieve me of this choice and this ensures motivation to return and settle the score.

When one day (??) I've done all the hardest routes on my current circuits I will be pleased to return to old favorites at any grade.

I can think of 2 7a+ classics which I've worked on more than 3x - which I think of as near-miss failures ie. I've got a chance if I get into shape.

As for working a single route for months ...

In reply to LeeWood:

On this last point I agree with you. My wife, for example, has never progressed much beyond 6aish, mostly because she a) hates pain, and b) hates falling. To progress you kind of have to accept, or even better like, one/both of these things.

But I would categorise this as "not willing", rather than "not able"...!

In reply to Diggler: Do you mean on sighting 7a or red pointing seven? Most 6a climbers could rp 7a.In reality to climb 7a on sight most people would have to train a lot! For instance how many people climb e5 on sight.

In reply to Alun: I don't like falling, I'm still scared of it actually, and I don't like and don't endure pain, but I do feel like I'm progressing.

In reply to LeeWood:


You're making a connection there between climbing at a given grade range and being able to attain a given grade. That connection is false because you're excluding the 'trying hard' component, which is the whole point that many on this thread have been trying to make.

In reply to ellis:
I disagree completely. Technique is vital for climbing at all levels (at least in my experience, which is up to the low 7s) and most people could benefit from technique coaching or just learning off better climbers.

In reply to Fraser:

Yes but some folk don't have the necessary talent for 'trying hard' !

& I reply to Alun:


The problem with asessing someones state of mind is that you can't measure it with scales or a ruler. All you can do is observe the results, but the degree to which someone is trying or willing is really only known to them - a question of self honesty.

I have a friend who is capable of climbing 6c or even 7a redpoint very competently. They have the necessary power, stamina, flexibility, balance and whatever-else-it-takes to do that, *once the route is known*.

Onsight however its a different story - and this continually amazes me *just because I don't feel it that way* - my rationale calls it contradiction. Onsight this person climbs little more than 6a. I've seen the scenario so many times now that I'm forced to quantify the invisible and its actually very simple. They have a lower Adventure Index than me.

We would all expect to feel a bit braver on redpoint but not by so many grades. This is initially incomprehensible because the physical capability is apparent, and we match up the evidence with words used to describe conditions from our own mindsets - trying or willing.

I cannot judge the truth for any individual story, but as an observer in real life I can see the evidence and I believe that lack of component-talent is as real a limit for some as 'the final pump' is for you and me.

In reply to LeeWood:

The grade people can onsight, will in most cases always be lower than the grade they can redpoint (headpoint, work, seige, frig, whatever you want to call it) and the reasons why are somewhat obvious.

This is also the reason why peoples sport grades are usually higher than their trad grades.

At 55, after a lengthy sabbatical of many years, I started getting out again reasonably regularly a couple of years ago, and even though I don't do any real training (bit of gym work a couple of times a week) I can onsight 7a, and the odd 'soft' 7b.

I haven't got the inclination to 'work' routes (never have), but based on personal historical data of the difference between what I can lead, and what I can second, the difference is about 1 grade for me.

I put that down to all the years of trad climbing (only got into sport a couple of years ago - and I'm still not really into it that much) and a personal preference to onsighting, which really does develops the 'head' aspect of climbing.

Climbers reared on indoor walls, sport routes and redpointing, possibly don't develop this 'head' aspect of climbing, which could possibly be a contributing factor in restricting overall development.

In reply to LeeWood:

If your friend red points in a session or couple of sessions 6c then 6a onsight is not too far from where you might expect them to be. Possibly 6a+ or 6b might be more normal but they really aren't that far away. If they regularly red point 7a then yes they would be underperforming as you might expect them to onsight about 6bplus or6c.

Certainly some people are naturally bolder than others but mostly on sports routes I think that poor on sighting is a lack of practice at onsighting and poor technique in route reading. These to me are learnable skills. Certainly I find that if I haven't done much onsighting recently then it takes a while for me to build up the willingness to push on into the unknown whilst pumped out of my nads! Early season my willingness to take a fall is lower than it is at the end of the season and this is simply down to practice. I have known extremely experienced and very competent climbers do fall practice indoors before going on sport climbing hols just to buildup this willingness to fall and therefore enable that ability to aggressively push on into the unknown and risk a sizeable fall.

Again boldness on the trad has always seemed a relatively learnable skill to me. Years ago when I did trad I was weak and unfit. For example I did Right Wall approximately 20 years ago when my hardest sport flash was 7a and I certainly wasn't regular at the grade. However in those days my head was strong and compensated for physical weakness. Nowadays I am much fitter and stronger but my head is weak and the thought of running it out on the cromlech fills me with terror! I am sure though that if I worked at it and built up again on the trad that I could again train my head and make it strong (possibly not as much as when I was younger).

Cheers

Dave

In reply to Diggler:

All of the ones that climb for years, stay fit and prioritise it above most other stuff .
I Climbed for 20 years and didn't . Followed the usual pAth for 12 months train yawn yawn and did, now back to chocolate and wine and can't again!
I will do it again if I can be arsed but I do like chocolate, wine and Bold slabby trad routes so I am unlikely (and too lazy ) to make it a ' lifestyle choice'!

In reply to Al Evans:

I guess if lived in Spain I might never need to repeat a sport route!
Everyone will be different but if something is at the top of my grades I'm unlikely to repeat it once it's been redpointed. However there are still routes I find hard that I may repeat and yes they will likely require reworking. I'm unlikely to try anything that would take more than a day to repeat. Some routes are repeated just as a form gauge.

In reply to LeeWood:
Yes. Even more so with trad of course.

In reply to Misha:

Wasn't saying technique isn't crucial, just that the physical side of hard climbing is harder to come by than the technical side, in my experience.