UKC

Hi,

Has anyone attempted the test shown here, it explains the scoring system and how to perform the test.

https://rockandice.com/videos/climbing/the-strength-you-need-to-climb-9c-5-...

It is a 4 step test that allegedly shows you your theoretical max grade possible. I gave it a go yesterday with the equipment i have available at home which wasn't ideal but it was all I had. I was using a lattice rung (top jug) for the max pull up and hang rather than a bar. I don't think it affected the end result all that much.

Scores below.

Test 1.

5 second hang 20mm edge with 120% body weight - 3 points 

Test 2.

Max pull up 120% body weight -3 points

Test 3.

Core - 30 seconds L sit with bent knees - 3 points

Test 4.

Max Hang - 1 minute - 2 points 

Total 11 points - 7a+/5.12a

I've not climbed anywhere near this level for some time or indeed ever really(indoors doesn't really count), which does support my climbing partners theory that i am stronger than the grades i currently punter about on. Be interested to hear if anyone else has done the test and how it correlated to their real world abilities. 

In reply to ro8x:

I wonder if Marcus has data that sits behind this range?

Also it lacks an Entourage scale. 
100% = Billy no mates

110% = that odd fellow that provides you continuous unsolicited beta for all the V3 Boulder problems at the wall.

...

220% = personal physio, personal psychologist, nutritionist to fire puy lentils at you for a mid-climb refuel, dermatologist to blend the perfect liquid chalk alcohol to chalk ratio depending on crag humidity. Camera crew. A German version of Windy Miller as your rival.

In reply to alx:

I agree would be good to know if he has any data that goes along with it. 

I think the unsolicited beta sprayer should come with a -10% actually due to their sheer annoyance. 

In reply to ro8x:

It's far more annoying watching you miss the obvious. It's a simple heel hook, look, just like this, I'll show you, yeah, get the knee over, like this and then it's a cruise to the top. See, now I'll stand here and watch you do it. 

Now you need to spend the rest of the session revering me as a demi-god.

Bet the girls are super impressed. 

In reply to bouldery bits:

hahaha!! If there was a sketch show in a boulder wall it would go something like along the lines of that. 

In reply to alx:

Don't forget somebody abseiling down the crag with a portable fan to keep the holds at optimal dryness.

In reply to ro8x:

Yeah I saw this, I'd be interested to take the test (got no handy weights at home) but I think the theoretical max grade conversion table at the bottom is nonsense.

I think the way the guys who put the test together calculated it was to test a load of people, compare that to their max grade and then extrapolate the table from there.  And that's the issue, climbing doesn't work like that. 

For example there are plenty of people who do gymnastics, calisthenics or general fitness who could probably score ok on this test, but can't get up a 6a.  Why?  Because climbing is about so much more than strength.  Likewise I've met people who can barely make one pull up who climb in the 7s.

To say "you score as well on this test as someone who climbs 7b, so you theoretically have enough strength to climb 7b too" is nonsense - there's stamina, headgame, ability to recover on marginal rests, flexibility, problem solving, efficiency of movement etc etc.

Like I say, I'm interested to take the test (maybe I can find some improvised weights around the house?), as it'll be a bit of fun and interesting but I wouldn't take the grade conversion table at the bottom too seriously!

This is a bit off topic, but whilst I'm here - I was discussing this test with a mate and he was saying it shows the grade you should be climbing.  I hate the word "should" in relation to climbing "I should be sending x grade. or I should be able to send this route".  Aint no "should" about it, we aren't born climbing and the "should" makes it sound like failure if you don't.  I prefer hope to, or want to, or would like to.

In reply to ro8x:

https://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,31022.msg623391.html#msg6233...

Ukbouldering had a view on the test which I found rather amusing.

In reply to ro8x:

Don't even need to do it to tell you it's bollocks.
I'd score either 9 or 10 points on test 1&2. 7 points on #3 (5 sec front lever has to be easier than 20 sec L-sit??!??! surely. Is for me anyway), and no idea how long I can hang from a bar for, but... I'm already at 8b from the first 3 tests, which is beyond fantasy. So I'm calling this beyond bullshit.

In reply to AJM:

"Mitbo has gone from being  respectable 9b (?) climber to being one of the top 5 instantly-ignorable clickbait chodes on Youtube."

In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

Yeah I did a quick tot up in my head and came out at 7b.  I've yet to send 6c outdoor so I think mine might be a bit off too...

In reply to Iamgregp:

I saw it as a way of saying whether the test elements are obstacles to climbing the grade or not. e.g. If you can only hold 100% of bodyweight on a 20mm edge then that is perhaps a barrier to climbing 7b (well, it is to me).

It doesn't mean that if you can hold 160% of bodyweight on a 20mm eedge then you should be able to climb 8b, it just means that this aspect probably isn't stopping you.

it's also perhaps a way of saying that if you scored 8 8 2 and 8 then you might look at core as a a weakness.

All tests are pretty rubbish for (for some subjective definition of rubbish)

In reply to timparkin:

Yeah I'd agree with you on all of this, testing and benchmarking are really useful for identifying weaknesses but the test points to grade conversion is the part I think is nonsense...

In reply to ro8x:

The test has got to be rubbish; L-sits and front levers are impossible if you are tall and everyone knows being tall basically gives you 2-3 grades for free

I propose some better tests:

- What magazines are at your eye level in the newsagents? 

- % of flight spent complaining about lack of leg room?

- Max number of concussions sustained during a week in a Cornish holiday cottage?

In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

Obviously the test is just a bit fun and likely to be pretty inaccurate for lots of people, but if you can do near +100% bodyweight for both hang on 20mm edge and 1 max pull up then from a pure physical perspective 8b should be  totally achievable I would think.

Interestingly did quick of the test with my daughter a few weeks ago she got 10 (despite still being unable to do a single pull!) and I got 17, which lines up pretty well with best redpoints this year of 7a+ and 7c respectively.  

In reply to ro8x:

He has such a way with words.....

By and large though a lot of the critiques are sensible. The rationale behind the choice of tests is a bit odd especially for 3 & 4:

- test 1 - finger strength, the variable which generally shows the strongest correlation to climbing ability, makes sense

- test 2 - pullup strength - makes sense, pulling hard is obviously relevant for a lot of hard climbing

- test 3 - what is this actually testing? At lower points it's testing the ability to bend your hips, which is maybe useful of you want to put them back on after you've cut loose but only dubious relevance to keeping them on in the first place. Then half way through it switches to front levers which are basically about lat strength. So at the lower end the scores are for a fairly irrelevant skill, and at the higher end they're testing basically the same muscles as test 2.

- test 4 - endurance? In a very non specific way. And presumably mainly shoulder endurance rather than forearm endurance (I assume the point is to keep your shoulders engaged, rather than letting them slump)? Is that the usual point of failure?

At a guess, I suspect it would put me at about 7b, depending on whether you have to hang the bar with engaged shoulders, and with L sits being probably my worst score (unsurprising but mostly irrelevant). I haven't spent much time projecting a route in ages but I onsighted one of those in 2019 and I wouldn't have scored better on the test then. I also doubt I'd have scored better when I was climbing my hardest.

In reply to AJM:

Test 3 is a combination of two things. i) compression core which is very different to the typical “open core” you are taught via planking or trying to keep your feet from cutting loose when reaching. Compression core is key for toe hooks/bicycles that are at awkward lengths compared to your shin and thigh length as turning lips on roofs. It’s the gymnastic foundation for pike position which gets integrated into so many advanced movements. ii) people train core based on a pattern of movements, if the standard core taught is “plank” then the movement pattern people understand is open and flat, engage core. However when you are bunched in terms of leg and torso but need to reach with out cutting loose from same tight dihedral or super tenuous sit start (e.g. pendragon - Rocklands) you still need good core. Lots of people’s core switches off when in these positions because they simply don’t understand the movement. If you’re still not sure try a regular squat versus an overhead squat
 

In reply to alx:

Thanks. I hadn't made the link between L sit and toe hooks - neither is something I'm very good at, but then toe hooks aren't something which crop up for me on mid grade sport routes so it's mainly an infrequent weakness for bouldering from my perspective. 

The point about specificity of core (which is I think what you're saying in the second part) is obviously very relevant but to that extent the fact the test swaps between compression core and lats half way through (the switch from L sit to front lever half way through) means it's moving away from that compressed position to something that's open and flat half way - effectively, it says you can climb easy grades with L sits but for hard grades you need front levers. If compression core is important, then extra points should probably come from more difficult L-sits (V sits and so on), not a switch to front levers.

I'm more inclined to think it's a fairly lax progression of "core" exercises rather than being thought through for relevance in the way you have done

("so let's have one about front levers. Now, what's like an easy version of a front lever? I know, let's start the points off with L sits").

In reply to ro8x:

Mine came out at E4.

Did I do it wrong?

In reply to AJM:

Is this test the reason everyone is talking about L sits on fit club??

In reply to Si dH:

I don't know about everyone else - I'm just playing with new toys!

In reply to Iamgregp: The point being that if you aren't climbing the converted grade it's not your strength, fitness that's the problem, it's your climbing skills.

In reply to wbo2:

Yeah I get that, and it’s a fair point. I just think that plotting strength against grades is a bit of a silly excercise as there’s so much more to climbing that’s doesn’t play out in a nice linear way like that.  
 

Intereting test though and a fun video (quite like Magnus’ vids) so I shouldn’t really knock it!

In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

Dunno. Pete Whittaker and Mari Salvesen failed the 5s front levers when they did this test, but then managed the 20s L-sit pretty comfortably subsequently.

In reply to Mr. Lee:

Agreed - I reckon I could manage a 20s L sit, or at least be pretty close to it whereas my front levers aren't even a second!

In reply to ro8x:

According to this I can climb E0...

In reply to Olaf Prot:

day trip to Frogatt must be in order then?? 

A front lever with one leg extended could have been added 

In reply to UKB Shark:

Yeah, agree - you could either have continued making the L sits harder or used the one leg and then down to tuck front lever progressions to capture things that are easier versions of the full thing.

In reply to wbo2:

I would agree. With this mind the scale needs a new addition.

”Neck”

100% Average cabbage

150% The Pooch. Reduced mobility due to vertebrae fusion but add 100% to fingers and brutal strength.
210% Czech Neck. The ability to look at your own shoulder blades without a mirror.