UKC

Has 2022 been the best year yet for elite climbing? The numbers most definitely suggest so.

Read more

In reply to UKC Articles:

Good round up. I liked the graphs! 

In reply to UKC Articles:

It would be interesting to see a graph of E10+ by year since some of the routes haven't seen many repeats and there's presumably a little overlap between the grades. I didn't get the impression the year was any more spectacular for hard trad than many other years, but could be wrong. 

In reply to UKC Articles:

Nice wrap up, although I would have liked to see some outlooks from the female climbers as well. 

Just wondering, the hardest male onsight is 9a+, right? Ondra with Super Crackinette.

And Simon Lorenzi also has two 9A, unless Soudain Seul isn't considered established because of the proposed downgrade by Nico Pelorson?

In reply to roelq:

Supercrackinette was a flash for Ondra, not an onsight.

In reply to UKC Articles:

I counted 5 paragraphs about women and 21 paragraphs about men. Did women really have so many fewer notable ascents? Hoping for some more equal reporting in 2023.

In reply to Jemima Churchhouse:

I think that's going to be difficult in a sport like climbing and I'll explain why.

Sports like cricket and football have separate men's and women's competitions (or should that be male and female - not going down that rabbit hole) so it's relatively easy to give equal reportage. The Beeb is relatively good on this although I do wish they'd label it "Women's Football" rather than just "Football" - and they'd then have to label it "Men's Football" as well.

But sports like climbing have an objective measure, i.e. grades. So it's much more difficult to generate reporting interest in for example female first ascents of routes that have already had several ascents by men, regardless of the impressiveness of the achievement.

Sports like athletics will have a similar issue, a woman pole vaulting 15' is impressive but it's immediately tempered by the fact that it's nowhere near as visually impressive as the 19' achieved by men.

I'm not sure how this can be overcome, the only obvious solution is to impose quotas but that'll just annoy a lot of people.

Maybe as reporting of "separate" sports becomes universally equalised it'll rub off onto "objective" sports like climbing.

In reply to Michael Hood:

But this article was about 'notable ascents' and a woman climbing a route at the cutting edge of what women have climbed is as 'notable' as a man climbing a route at the cutting edge of what men have climbed. In this sense, female ascents of E9/9a+/f8B+ should be as notable as Male ascents of E11/9b+/f9A. In this article they read more like a footnote after acknowledging all the amazing stuff done by blokes.

I don't keep much up to date with news and stats but have women had such a poor year in comparison to men who have, apparently, been on top form?

One suggestion would be to have different graphs for male and female ascents, as women are not contributing at all to that bouldering or trad data, and barely any sport numbers. That may in turn lead to more balanced reporting.

In reply to Michael Hood:

I'm not sure that is necessarily true. First female ascents of really hard routes have generated a huge amount of interest, but I think you do have a point if you mean that women are not (currently!) making first ascents of the very hardest routes.

But I think you could say the same of football and tennis - women just aren't as fast and powerful as men.

Actually, I think there is a case for arguing that, in time, climbing might be one of those rare physical activities where the top women might climb just as hard as the top men (they are not far behind at the moment). Anecdotally, I see climbing becoming more and more a female dominated activity if the number of young girls compared to boys cranking hard at the wall is anything to go by!

In reply to Michael Hood:

Paul Jepson has explained what I meant, thanks Paul.

In reply to Robert Durran:

See Lynn Hill freeing The Nose and Beth Roddens Meltdown, which repelled all for over a decade. Women are definitely capable of burning off men in some instances! 

In reply to PaulJepson:

I'd agree that it's just as 'notable', but as of today, it's not seen as equally newsworthy. That's what we're trying to correct. I was musing that the nature of climbing will make this equality harder to achieve than in some other sports, but that's not a reason to not strive for that equality.

That's a good idea, there's no reason why the stats can't be collated for both.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Yes but because the activities are "separated", there's no direct comparison which makes equal reporting easier. Sure I can postulate that the women's football isn't (yet) as high quality as the men's but there's no direct objective measurement of that because they're separate.

It's difficult to know whether the male "dominance" in climbing is a pyramid/numbers thing or an actual "generally more powerful" thing - I suspect a bit of both but I also think that eventually when the pyramid/numbers factor has disappeared (which I think it will over the next generation) then we'll see that men are generally better at some climbing styles and women generally better at others.

In reply to PaulJepson:

With apologies for the "mansplaining", maybe the top women should seek out desperate unclimbed thin finger cracks (*), etc - that would help address the reporting imbalance.

(*) - maybe they're already doing this and have some wicked lines nearing completion.

In reply to Michael Hood:

This is specifically discussed in the video - it's been used for decades by presumably mainly men to demean the climbs done by women. The chap who repeated Meltdown said it hadn't been repeated because it was ridiculously hard, not because Rodden has magic dainty girl fingers. Indeed he reckoned the route was easier for him because he was much taller. 

In reply to Michael Hood:

I'd argue the only area where men are far more 'dominant' is first ascents (itself an important area to consider, though of course there are some well known extremely significant exceptions to the rule). In pretty much all other areas there is no dominance - women's standard of sport climbing and trad repeats is arguably far closer to that of men than in many other sports/activities.

I'm not totally convinced by the style of climbing argument either. Whether super strenuous stuff, hard slabs, finger cracks, offwidths etc, plenty women have done some really hard stuff. If I had to think of something I could maybe suggest death routes as an exception, Indian Face etc? No reason why anyone would feel they 'have' to take on those sorts of routes of course, but that came to mind as a potential area.  

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Is that just a numbers thing again though? As the ascentionists have said, the climbing on Indian Face is relatively easy for a hard trad route (was it suggested 7b climbing or something?), and yet it has had hardly any ascents in nearly 40 years. There have been hundreds if not thousands of male climbers capable of climbing that in that time frame and yet only a handful have climbed it. 

Im not surprising that no women have climbed it yet, purely on the numbers operating at that level (especially when you consider that in the 70s and 80s women in climbing were still mostly seen to be, at best, capable belayers and seconds for their strong husbands).

I've no doubt that climbers like Hazel have climbed similarly dangerous routes, albeit slightly less famous than Indian Face. 

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Himalayan ascents are statistically a lot more dangerous than unprotected hard trad. The top women held their own there over the years and sadly quite a few died.

I think UKC needs to show annual plots of top ascents for women as well as for men for us to fairly judge comparative improvements. My impression is a slight closing of the gap for the elite, especially in sport and bouldering. Given the vast majority of new lines are set by men, that's not a bad result. UK women these days have significant numbers climbing elite grades.

https://climbing-history.org/lists

In reply to PaulJepson:

Possibly. How many have done it now, I lose track. 7? 9? I guess there probably are as many as 9x as many men operating at E9, so you could have a point.

Yes, but I suspect they would be slightly easier routes, not E9s. Not sure things like Impact Day would usually be thought of as death routes? Bold, no question.

In reply to Offwidth:

Depends on your criteria I suppose. 8000ers, I think you're right. Alpine style ascents of difficult routes? I'm not sure, but there's a lot I don't know about   

In reply to TobyA:

Sorry, what video.

And I certainly wasn't trying to demean climbs done by women, my comment was a bit "tongue in cheek" because of course I wasn't really trying to tell women what to do.

Needing "magic dainty girl fingers" would be no more valid than needing "a large reach", etc. If it's hard, it's hard; there'll always be one or more reasons why it's hard.

In reply to Jemima Churchhouse:

I don't understand why you've got so many downvotes ☹, my posts I understand, I'm making some points that some will find contentious, but your post is just a call for more equality.

It seems there are more f**kwits about in 2023 than I realised. 

In reply to Michael Hood:

https://www.ukclimbing.com/videos/categories/news/the_top_ascents_of_2022-6... 

Sorry, confusingly the same photo for written and video articles.

In reply to Jemima Churchhouse:

I think a fair analysis, would be to look at the advancement in each discipline for both genders.

Not to dwell, I'll just use bouldering as an example:

The current hardest grade climbed by a women is F8C (Lehman & Shiarashi).

The hardest grade climbed by a male is F9A (Nalle etc..).

No females achieved F8C last year, and only 3-4 achieved the grade below that.

Not only has the mens grade of F9A seen multiple ascents the grade below has been smashed, suggesting that there might be more to report about.

If a majority of female ascents have been F8B and below then unless it's a UK climber, it's potentially not newsworthy. It's unlikely that we see male ascents reported of F8C or below these days, because they are common place unless, again, they are UK FA's or noteable repeats.

Basically, if you look at the figures, women didn't operate as closely to their known limit as the men did.

I've no doubts this trend will change over the next decade.

In reply to UKC Articles: Although we focus on people achieving the highest numbers, I think it’s a bit one dimensional. I’d prefer to see an article with more focus on a broader range of rock climbing achievements. Although really impressive, I sort of find 9b+ and 9c ascents as slightly sanitary. I’m more impressed hearing about bold trad ascents, big hard solos, big multi-pitch, first ascents, ascents by people with a disability…regardless of grade, as they all seem to involve more than athletic ability and the time to work a route into defeat.

In reply to PaulJepson:

Should the UKC “latest top ascents” have separate male and female sections?

In reply to Michael Hood:

Not to worry, I expected it - this is UKC after all!

In reply to Fishmate:

I agree, and thank you for answering my genuine question as to whether women had fewer noteworthy ascents, at least in bouldering. I would be interested to know if this was the same for sport and trad. If yes, I wish that had been acknowledged in the article as it would explain the uneven coverage. Separate graphs would be a good start.

Either way, it doesn’t explain the Future Look section only mentioning men.

In reply to Jemima Churchhouse:

I guess that only means one of two things, biased reporting or few plans amongst the female elites. I haven't heard much in that respect.

I could be wrong, but I also suspect, that there is more liklihood of male comp climbers getting out on rock than their female counterparts. This will have an impact on the upper end grade wise, although that's just my impression from climbing about and the news/grapevine etc..

In reply to Fishmate:

Just because they're more into it, or...?

Janja Garnbret has done some amazing stuff of course, though maybe not as much last year. Groundbreaking onsights are always going to be rare occurances.

In reply to Michael Hood:

If we were honest with ourselves, we'd admit we don't watch humans do athletic feats because its visually impressive. Humans are pathetic at most athletic skills e.g.  for jumping the men's high jump record towers at only 2.45m with years of dedicated training- barely more than their body height. Cougars can jump 6m. Fleas can jump ridiculous times their own height. Watch them if you want 'visually impressive'.

We watch it because we think its impressive relative to our own body and its capabilities. So to many of us (50% perhaps ), 19ft pole vault by a bloke is no more impressive than 15ft by a woman, and also is less relatable, and therefore less interesting. Same applies in climbing.

In reply to Martin Haworth:

And potentially repeats of routes/boulders rarely repeated?

In reply to Jemima Churchhouse: the fact that Jemimas post has more downvotes than upvotes just shows how sexist ukc is. editors should work put some work in 2023 in changing this nasty culture 

In reply to UKC Articles:

Mollie Thompson Smith did Sideshow before her ankle injury, it seems as significant as any male ascent at 8C+ to me. That's just off the top of my head for Brits if we're including worldwide there's so much more that's been missed here in terms of reporting about non male climbers which is disappointing in 2023.

The men trying to debate about having more representation in the Climbing media (particularly in the same ways as men do, such as championing hard ascents etc!) should really have a think about what they're saying and the sexist tones in their comments. It's really disappointing.

Just to be clear I'm not saying say less about the males achievements (I shouldn't have to say that really, but fragile masculinity is a thing so...) , I'm saying that there's so so so much more which could be said championing what women have achieved.

Really hope this is something UKC can work on this year with their articles, but I fear nothing will change as I recall similiar issues in previous years in comparison. 

In reply to Daniel Leech:

Examples? Have to say, I don't recall much (anything?) said above which came across as sexist. When folk talk about 'tone' as opposed to actual language, I can't help thinking this is as much inferred by some in reading posts as it is in anything which is actually said. 

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Is the 'tone' in this case people saying things like it's natural or normal that men get x amounts more coverage because they climb harder - or something along those lines?

In reply to TobyA:

Which IMO would be ok (*) because at the moment that's the situation. Where it would be wrong would be to assume or imply that this will always be the case or that it must be the case, so careless use of language may lead "readers" to think that was what was meant.

(*) I don't mean it's ok for there to be more coverage for men, I mean it's ok to postulate that as a reason (not a justification) for there currently being more coverage of men.

In reply to Michael Hood:

The meta point remains though that we know "...that's the situation" because we are told so. If we were told something or see something different we see the world differently.

I'm not particularly interested into getting a philosophical debate on this as I haven't put a lot of thought into it. Rather it was just a comment that 'tone' in Daniel's post above doesn't necessarily have to mean snark, or hearing a maybe there maybe not patronising edge to a comment, simply just things being presented as the natural or normal when maybe they aren't.

In reply to Daniel Leech:

Whilst definitely newsworthy, as per my previous post: "Basically, if you look at the figures, women didn't operate as closely to their known limit as the men did". Whilst I acknowledge that my comments are based purely on last years bouldering, the above stands. I don't think one year represents all years, however last year the women had a stab at at it and the men kicked the doors down. Fact. Again, I've no doubts this will change in the coming years.

Perhaps you are right. I'm aware our women did some insane trad last year. Interesting that we have womens only features for many things but not a round-up (or do we?). I'd read it.

In reply to TobyA:

Sorry, just noticed your question above. I don't know. Is there such a thing as a sexist tone? You have to look at the actual words used. And even then, I'm not sure - it really needs Daniel Leech to say which posts he was referring to; it was very unspecific.