Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
bachar
Trad climber
Mammoth Lakes, CA
|
|
"A goal is not always meant to be reached, it often serves simply as something to aim at." - Bruce Lee
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Ah yes one day I left the Valley and went to Fresno. They have a Wall Mart there.
I could not find the training CD to become Superman. I asked the clerk which isle it is in. The clerk was not very helpful.
Thus I came back to the Valley to hide.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
I posted similar plots for climbing in a thread last summer...
[url="http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.html?topic_id=226916"]5.14 does NOT exist[/url]
I'll post a figure here from it:
where I calculate the maximum grade using the existing data and the model that the number of climbers capable of climbing above a particular grade is zero... that is, there will never be a climber who is such a mutant that they could climb arbitrarily hard.
The model makes the following predictions for attaining a grade in the Valley:
5.4 1901
5.5 1936
5.6 1945
5.7 1951
5.8 1956
5.9 1959
5.10a 1962
5.10b 1965
5.10c 1967
5.10d 1969
5.11a 1971
5.11b 1973
5.11c 1975
5.11d 1977
5.12a 1978
5.12b 1980
5.12c 1982
5.12d 1983
5.13a 1985
5.13b 1986
5.13c 1988
5.13d 1989
5.14a 1991
5.14b 1992
5.14c 1994 (V12)
5.14d 1996 (V13)
5.15a 1997 (V14)
5.15b 1999 (V15)
5.15c 2001
5.15d 2003
5.16a 2005
5.16b 2008
5.16c 2010
5.16d 2013
5.17a 2017
5.17b 2022
5.17c 2028
5.17d 2039 maximum grade
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
I'm proud to mention that, according to that chart I can consistantly climb the grade that was the upper limit at the year of my birth. ... except, maybe in Dresden, or that siberian solo place.
|
|
TradIsGood
Happy and Healthy climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
If they had gone to hexadecimal numbering instead of 5.10 we would have been able to max out at 5.f.
Perhaps we could start lettering the grades above 5.15 so that we do not have to go above 5.20. So 5.15 should be 5.15a through let's say 5.15z.
|
|
426
Sport climber
Buzzard Point, TN
|
|
Seems that a few climbers like Yaniro and Gullich were climbing (more than) a full number grade harder than the "Valley" predicted. ie, '78 was a banner year....
In terms of training, the Jaybro speaks wisdom.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
There is an interesting reaction among climbers to the premise that there is a maximum difficulty limit to climbing. There is at least two things going on in what somebody hears in that statement: 1) you are limited and/or 2) there are limits. As far as individual limits are concerned, this is a combination of individual physical make-up and prepartion. No doubt that in most cases, we don't think we reach our own maximum capability. We could all figure out someway of getting better, if that is what we want to do, of course. It is possible that there are people out there who are physically incapable of climbing even in the low grades, but they are rare (those people who are otherwise physically capable).
As Gould points out regarding baseball statistics, as you start to reach the limits of performance, those elite atheletes start to "pile up" at the performance limit. The variation in the measurable ability becomes less as the play becomes better. This is an interesting point, basically you've got all the the best people that could play baseball playing it, you've sampled the high end of the distribution of people who could play at that level. Once you've done that, you can start to see how that population differs from the rest of the population and start to get some idea of what physical limitations impose performance limitations in baseball. Doing that, you might actually see how to improve, but after a while you come to the conclusion that you're never going to see someone come along with all the attributes needed to significantly outperform the rest. I say "never" and mean very very unlikely.
So my thinking really is from the second statement, 2) above, there are limits. How could I assert such a thing? Well the logistics curve is a standard solution to a differential equation with exactly the meaning in the previous paragraphy. Given a sample of people to draw upon, there are only so many that can climb at the extreme limits of the sport. As the sport is "created" it draws on that sample, as it matures the difficulty increases quickly, but at some point all the best people are climbing and they're are no more capable of pushing the difficulty limit.
So it is just an observation that the sport is not developing in difficulty as quickly as it did through the 5.12's... which is the difficulty grade around which difficulty was changing the quickest. Interestingly enough, this agrees with Horst's assertion that 5.12 is accessible to anyone who wishes to train for it. (What I think is true is that people with average physical attributes for climbing can train to climb at that level, not everyone has those attributes, but more people do than don't). At that point, the physical limitations start to set in and fewer people are capable of climbing harder. With fewer people doing it, the progress on increasing grades decreases until there is no one around able to do it... the model says 5.17d is where that is...
My interest concerns what sets the maximum grade.
It's just a hypothesis, interestingly, I might be around to see it tested!
|
|
TradIsGood
Happy and Healthy climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
Actually, of course, the same number of people have above average ability as below average, normally.
But there clearly is a physical limitation to climbing. The question of whether 5.17d as a prediction is the max, though, begs the question of how 5.17d is defined. Currently the grades are subjective. So it might be that as progress slows the difference, objectively, between grades diminishes. So that the "grade creep" might continue just as it has, unlike the objective performance as shown in the history of the long jump or other measured physical performances.
|
|
TradIsGood
Happy and Healthy climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
But there clearly is a physical limitation to climbing.
I recant this statement. It now seems obvious to me that we might someday be just as capable of climbing our walls and crossing the ceiling as a housefly - not climbing as we know it today, but aided perhaps by nano-technological devices that take advantage of Coulombic forces or nano-scale rugosity.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Some say that taping for cracks is aid... some say that chalk so not be used...
...certainly if the rules by which we play change, then the rating limits will too, but given the equipment we'd expect a boulderer to employ, backed up with a rope and anchor system similar to what we use today, the limits are physical.
As for objective vs. subjective system, I agree that the there is a degree of subjectivity, I have used only Valley climbing, and "high statistics" data pre-1990's... where the grades were well established.
I'm surprised that TIG would take up a "no limits" stance, certainly if you are climbing friction, there is a calculable limit given coefficient of friction for boots and hand on rock... that would limit, physically, the difficulty. Now extend that sort of thinking to other types of climbing.
|
|
TradIsGood
Happy and Healthy climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
Ed, I was basically agreeing with you with respect to physics and biomechanics. But, of course, we do now have shoes that have higher friction than those of yesterday. So imagining shoes and gloves that are not limited by classical friction is not hard.
Study physiology and you will find that the body has a number of mechanisms for supplying energy to muscles. Each works at different speeds and has limitations on the rate and volume of energy produced.
So while we might not see man "running" a one minute mile, we have seen skating and cycling at significantly higher speeds than running.
As far as climbing "naked", their are limitations imposed by size, skeletal structure and composition, muscular components, energy generation, and even, or maybe especially, skin. If there were enough money in it, would climbers break bones so that they could be repaired with metal?
So it is conceivable to me that the grades change proportionally to the remaining distance to the asymptotic limit, allowing us to claim that we are making progress forever.
Consider also how many different types of climbing activities have been measured on the same scale, i.e. one of "difficulty". It is easy to imagine routes that NBA centers could do quite easily that even NBA guards (and no current professional climbers) could do.
|
|
joane
climber
|
|
I agree, "You can't limit a complex sport like climbing to physical limits... too many factors working together."
It's too complex to know what an "ultimate" truth or ultimate limit even is and the history shows increased difficulty and how that difficulty is measured for comparison and how climbers use it in planning to succeed in doing the climb--to the extent they share the info.
I just don' t think climbing is a quantifiable activity. Take a look at your own progress and how it happens that something that you believed was impossible to do at one time, whether on a hard move to take another "step" in a climb or attempt a harder route of more hard moves, what you judged in the first place to be this way or that, under certain conditions including those of your own physical/mind, changes under the test of doing it.
Could you believe that when you finally did do the move that it could be done, or rather could you believe the move could be done when you were struggling and failing to do it?
I think that's why the competition idea is a big challenge, how do you measure all it takes to make a climb and then what is one climb against another one.
It is easier to artificially develop standards as in gym climbing where you can control the variables a bit more but even then, technique and the understanding of it is always evolving as in many sports.
And who is best or who is first is purely a social generalism kind of approach which is not meaningless but it is not the definitive show on why anyone climbs.
So there is what you know intuitively about climbing, what you can tell your friends about in communicating how you climbed something, what scientific scheme various measurements can fit into to give some meaning to it etc.
For example, in the Alps it has been a long and old tale that your pace in altitude should be steady and continous to be most efficient, that is unlike here in the US where people tend to climb a bit, stop a bit, start again etc etc. A US study of 3 climbers up in Alaska had them swallow some measuring device that in fact during the study measured a better core body temperature for the clmiber who more consistently used this old alpine method of steady continuous movement versus the climber that used a stop/go style to climb in altitude. The study was interesting, it was scientific "proof" of something some climbers learned a long time ago, without the same measuring devices.
Similar measurement issue -- the Brits climbing in Everest in wool sweaters versus what we have today. The latest effort seems to be that some climber will climb Everest with quite a bit of nothing on, back to the old pre- domesticated human state. So it should be interesting to see if he does it in such a "pure" style, and what does that say about someone wearing all Gore-tex etc. And I'm not sure what it will really measure, it's just one perspective on how to climb Everest among many competing ideas for the audience in our society watching and enjoying (or not) others and what they do. Same thing with the oxygen controversy, it's clearly an add on artificial device, enabling some climbers to climb where otherwise they couldn't climb--for long anyway.
So we measure a climb up Everest including a lot of these variables, that's why there should really be a long list of specifics about how people do accomplish climbs because it tells you really what the challenges were, that is what are "fair means" and not just in terms of reaching an end point by any means.
|
|
nutjob
Trad climber
San Jose, CA
|
|
One of the most powerful meanings that we create in our lives is the desire to improve and accel. Purposeful action toward this goal both exercises and refills our spirit.
As we asymptotically approach physical limits (and other limits imposed by our own chosen passions and priorities), we'll celebrate ever-smaller physical improvements as the significant leaps of will and spirit that they are. I hope this celebration continues open-ended, because when it stops that means our spirits lose the sense of more to come, more to achieve, something for which to live.
Maybe I show my relative youth... perhaps the proper attitude should be that of a person at the end of his life, looking back in satisfaction at all he has accomplished and feeling that it is right to be done.
I hope I go to my death bed a long time from now feeling there is still more to be done.
|
|
bonin_in_the_boneyard
Trad climber
Sittin' on the dock by the bay...
|
|
1-minute mile aside, there is an interesting fact about breaking the 4-minute mile barrier.
It was once accepted as fact that running a mile in less than 4 minutes was impossible -- that is until Roger Bannister did so in 1954.
What most people don't know is that in the next 18 months over 40 other people managed to achieve official sub 4-minute mile times as well.
Hmmm...
|
|
Melissa
Gym climber
berkeley, ca
|
|
"I'm proud to mention that, according to that chart I can consistantly climb the grade that was the upper limit at the year of my birth"
Alas, all of that scarey stuff on Middle was going up around the year of my birth. The grades aren't huge, and I can, like, climb those numbers in the gym 'n stuff. But knowing what was happening back then...and I'm not so young...is humbling indeed.
Anastasia...a 300 lb guy climbing 12's has some sort of gift!
|
|
Anastasia
Trad climber
California
|
|
No I wouldn't...
He was a great climber in his early years and had developed great skills. Plus, despite the fact that he can't pull his weight up, he still goes out and climbs walls that need more foot work than upper body strength.
I will call him a smart guy, not a physically gifted one. This showing that natural physical ability is not everything.
I believe you can achieve what you work for; nothing more and nothing less.
|
|
Melissa
Gym climber
berkeley, ca
|
|
I'm just saying that the ability and drive to do that work is a gift in itself worth celebrating and not wasting. Most people over 300 lbs would quit trying. Some people are born with more strength, and some people are born with more drive, and it's on us to use our gifts to their fullest...or not.
|
|
Anastasia
Trad climber
California
|
|
Melissa,
Did I forget to tell you that you are beautiful and brilliant? I just caught you drift and agree whole heartedly.
AF
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
"and it's on us to use our gifts to their fullest...or not."
Definitely at the heart of the half the conversation relevant to individual climbers...
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!