|
kansasclimber
Feb 11, 2005, 2:19 AM
Post #1 of 56
(5645 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 21, 2002
Posts: 541
|
I have been told by many people if you want to be a very good climber, then you must be lucky enough to have the genetics to do so. Is this true? Not all are creatd equally in this sense? Now the thing that comes to mind is the defenition of "good". Well I would have to say 5.13's consistant. Or V10 or so. But thats just my def. of good. What do you think. If you have the passion to be one of the best, can you do it;
regardless???
Stephen
|
|
|
|
|
bb
Feb 11, 2005, 2:58 AM
Post #2 of 56
(5645 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 31, 2004
Posts: 33
|
Genetics is huge! I think Dave Graham was repointing high 13's his first year climbing. That is all genetics. Yes definitley. You can train your ass off and get better but superior genes will get you further
|
|
|
|
|
vegastradguy
Feb 11, 2005, 3:03 AM
Post #3 of 56
(5645 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 5919
|
i would say that to be a climber who pushes the envelope of what is possible takes some genetics or at least an extraordinary amount of talent.
all it takes to be a good climber is the mindset of having fun and challenging yourself. (obviously, my definitiion of 'good' is not even remotely close to your definition)
|
|
|
|
|
tattooed_climber
Feb 11, 2005, 3:11 AM
Post #4 of 56
(5645 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2003
Posts: 4838
|
....i think it has to do more with being Well-rounded....well-rounded in you climbing and personality
in the terms of your climbing, to be well experienced in may styles of climbing and knowledge (sport, trad, alpine, aid, bouldering, mountaineering, gym, Ice, Mixed, first-aid, self-rescue, knots, running, working out at weight gyms, gear, routes, etc etc etc.) benifits of eachone of these can make you a better climber....
exp: if you a sport climber, and the bolts are ran-out, it would help to know how to place a nut..OR if at the crux of a trad route and your pumped out, to A0 out of it.
i don't consider good climbers to climb harder grades, but ussualy this is the case
Who is a better climber? someone who can do a one handed, one pinkie pull up and only climbs sport??? OR someone who climbs trad and sport and works at a gear shop and does some other stuff????
...neither, cus its all opinionated....and my opinion is to be well rounded (and in general is great too cus no one whats to climb with an asshole)
|
|
|
|
|
socalbolter
Feb 11, 2005, 3:26 AM
Post #5 of 56
(5645 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 27, 2002
Posts: 796
|
Genetics can definitely speed up the improvement curve, but I know of several climbers (including myself) who have gotten better through sheer desire and working our asses off. If you want it bad enough, and try hard enough, eventually you will succeed.
As I tell people often:
If you throw yourself at a route enough times, sooner or later the route will give up.
|
|
|
|
|
collegekid
Feb 11, 2005, 4:03 AM
Post #6 of 56
(5645 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2002
Posts: 1852
|
That's not true...some routes will just leave you injured. Imagine the average climber trying out Action Direct and blowing some finger tendons.
The human body has physical limitations, some moreso than others. Same goes for mental aspects of climbing, if you're a wuss like me, you'll never be "well-rounded" to the point that you climb trad, alpine, etc.
If your definition of "good" was lowered to onsighting 5.11, I think the average person could attain this...5.11 is pretty respectable, since it usually requires a combination of good technique and some strength to make it up. Most people can't onsight 5.11, so that is a reasonable benchmark for "good".
|
|
|
|
|
skecthballer
Feb 11, 2005, 4:10 AM
Post #7 of 56
(5645 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 14, 2003
Posts: 123
|
I think anyone can become the climber they want to achieve, they just have to train hard enough to get to that point.
|
|
|
|
|
socalbolter
Feb 11, 2005, 4:15 AM
Post #8 of 56
(5645 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 27, 2002
Posts: 796
|
OK, point taken.
I thought that a certain amount of common sense was implied, but let me clarify. If you are somewhat realistic in your expectations and plan on making incremental difficulty gains, what I said above is very accurate.
In your example of Action Directe, my theory would be fine and hold true for someone that was conditioned for climbing on small pockets and monos and was already climbing 14a's or so. Someone with that strength and fitness level could certainly climb 14d with persistence and desire.
Whatever level you are climbing at now could certainly jump a few grades if you were to step up your training and the intensity of your efforts on harder projects.
Again, don't expect to go from 10+ to 14+ based on "wanting it" alone. Rather expect to go from 10+ to 11+ and then solidify before trying to go forward from there.
I've personally seen regular folks get psyched and jump 3-4 letter grades in a single season. If you want it and work for it, it will happen for you too.
|
|
|
|
|
onbelay007
Feb 11, 2005, 4:30 AM
Post #9 of 56
(5645 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 20, 2004
Posts: 107
|
Steve Prefontaine was a truly amazing distance runner back in the late 60s and early 70s. He probably would have been the best runner the world has ever seen if it wasn't for a tragic car accident that ended his life. Pre and others recognized that he was born with certain abilities to give him an advantage over his competitors. However, if you were to ask Pre why he never lost he respond: "I can endure more pain than anybody I have ever met." Genetics certainly can help but desire, will power, and perseverance will make you the climber you aspire to be. :idea:
|
|
|
|
|
crag_shwagger
Feb 11, 2005, 5:12 AM
Post #10 of 56
(5645 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2005
Posts: 142
|
Hmmm... intersting thought my Pops was a climber and i was born into it. I didnt start off so hot but i worked my way up. but him1 on the other hand well hes 53 and Bouncin 5.10s like it going outta style
|
|
|
|
|
bandidopeco
Feb 11, 2005, 5:58 AM
Post #11 of 56
(5645 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 17, 2004
Posts: 257
|
ahh, the old Genius Vs Hard Work debate. I would say that with climbing genetics probably pre-dispose you to a certain type of climb. How long do you think it'll be before someone redpoints both Action Direct and The Nose?
There was a good article in the Alpinist about Tommy Caldwell's youth in Estes Park. I think that definitly helped him become one of the great climbers. Damn, maybe I should have my kids in some badass mountain town.
|
|
|
|
|
rocklife
Feb 11, 2005, 6:25 AM
Post #12 of 56
(5645 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 17, 2003
Posts: 3
|
I think that to be at or close to the limits of any sport, its easier to have genetics that support the activity that you are doing.
But then comes the question of limits and the mental aspects of rock climbing. You also have to question what a "good" climber is. If you think that a good climber is one that can pull consistent 5.13 and v10, then I think that you have your standards a little out of whack. For me, the best climber on any given day is the one that tries the hardest and refuses to accept defeat. Somedays that can be a new climber who throws themselves at a v1 until they are bleeing so much they can't grasp the holds anymore. This person sounds like a much better climber to me than the stuck-up elitist v13 climber who refuses to work on some problem because the conditions aren't "perfect". Then comes the question of the falseness of grades and the superficial values that are assigned to them. Thirty years ago, a v10 would have looked out of the question to almost all climbers, except for the elite few who were extremely famous in their time. Nowadays, their is a large percentage of the climbing community that can crank v10 and 5.13's. Even little 10 year olds are doing it. v10 is starting to seem a little less hard, still pretty hard, but a little less so when you compare it to how hard it seemed thirty years ago. In another thirty years we'll all be warming up on 5.12's and v5's. This has a lot to do with human evolution, but it has a lot more to do with mental progress.
So, I think that it helps to have genetics that support your activities because it makes it easier to mentally progress. However, I don't think that in order to be pushing the limits of our sport you need to have good climbing genetics. ***Look at that british dude, cranking hard 5.14/5.15 with a massive beer-belly***
Stop Making Excuses and Try HArder!
, and grades aren't everything, in fact they're nothing!
|
|
|
|
|
jcshaggy
Feb 11, 2005, 7:15 AM
Post #13 of 56
(5645 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2004
Posts: 340
|
Genetics can only get you so far-the rest is up to you. Climbing 5.14's is a whole lot more complicated than that-think of the climber's 'mindset' etc.
|
|
|
|
|
alliwanttodoisclimb
Feb 11, 2005, 1:46 PM
Post #14 of 56
(5645 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 28, 2005
Posts: 32
|
For clarification, that 'british dude' is John Dunne
I believe that Genetics is only a very small part of it, similiarly to faith, I don't believe in it. I refuse to believe that my destiny is already decided. Which is why I enjoy the freedom of choice and deciding my own destiny...which of course is trad climbing!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
jammer
Feb 11, 2005, 3:11 PM
Post #15 of 56
(5645 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 25, 2002
Posts: 3472
|
Being built to flash the hardest route does not make anyone a "good" climber. That comes from the heart.
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Feb 11, 2005, 4:12 PM
Post #16 of 56
(5645 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
good genetics are helpfull but theres more to being a climber than jsut good predispositions.
|
|
|
|
|
keinangst
Feb 11, 2005, 4:31 PM
Post #17 of 56
(5645 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2003
Posts: 1408
|
I think the single biggest factor in being a great climber is lack of other responsibilities.
Sure, there's a natural base level that is different for ever person--the grade they climbed their first or second day climbing. Likewise, there is probably a natural cap on the technique/learning curve, beyond which most people won't climb without very regular, regimented training (for example, I am probably V1/V4 on those two scales).
So I submit that the lack of a regular job (hence, responsibility to others) is the biggest single, fundamental factor. So you high school kids--and most of the college folks--keep that in mind. :D
|
|
|
|
|
gat
Feb 11, 2005, 5:26 PM
Post #18 of 56
(5645 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 3, 2003
Posts: 420
|
In reply to: Steve Prefontaine was a truly amazing distance runner back in the late 60s and early 70s. He probably would have been the best runner the world has ever seen if it wasn't for a tragic car accident that ended his life. Pre and others recognized that he was born with certain abilities to give him an advantage over his competitors. However, if you were to ask Pre why he never lost he respond: "I can endure more pain than anybody I have ever met." Genetics certainly can help but desire, will power, and perseverance will make you the climber you aspire to be. :idea:
Couldn't it be argued that a person's degree of "...desire, will power, and perseverance..." is also partially the result of genetics?
Here is the way I view virtually every human behavior and capability...
I use the bell curve when I think about nature vs. nurture. Based on your genetics, you have upper and lower limits that you are capable of reaching (or falling to). Think of the mid-point as your natural "center". Outside influences (nature) have an effect on you, moving you away from your "center" in one direction or the other. The further from "center" you are, the more difficult it is to keep moving in that direction.
Apply this to climbing...some people could dedicate their life to climbing as hard a grade as possible and never achieve 14d.
|
|
|
|
|
gat
Feb 11, 2005, 5:27 PM
Post #19 of 56
(5645 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 3, 2003
Posts: 420
|
In reply to: Steve Prefontaine was a truly amazing distance runner back in the late 60s and early 70s. He probably would have been the best runner the world has ever seen if it wasn't for a tragic car accident that ended his life. Pre and others recognized that he was born with certain abilities to give him an advantage over his competitors. However, if you were to ask Pre why he never lost he respond: "I can endure more pain than anybody I have ever met." Genetics certainly can help but desire, will power, and perseverance will make you the climber you aspire to be. :idea:
Couldn't it be argued that a person's degree of "...desire, will power, and perseverance..." is also partially the result of genetics?
Here is the way I view virtually every human behavior and capability...
I use the bell curve when I think about nature vs. nurture. Based on your genetics, you have upper and lower limits that you are capable of reaching (or falling to). Think of the mid-point as your natural "center". Outside influences (nature) have an effect on you, moving you away from your "center" in one direction or the other. The further from "center" you are, the more difficult it is to keep moving in that direction.
Apply this to climbing...some people could dedicate their life to climbing as hard a grade as possible and never achieve 14d.
|
|
|
|
|
horst
Feb 11, 2005, 5:42 PM
Post #20 of 56
(5645 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 9, 2004
Posts: 19
|
Becoming a "good" climber has nothing to do with genetics--becoming a "great" climber has everything to do with genetics. I've written a lengthy section on this (with research references) in Chapter 1 of Training for Climbing. (If you own the book, tap it for a refresher.) But a couple quick comments on previous posts:
Most folks mention the importance of time, commitment, effort and such, ALL of which are vital to make the most of YOUR genetic potential. However, becoming one of the very best doesn't happen simply by "trying harder" than everyone else. To say that anyone can achieve, say, 5.14 or V14 through disciplined focus and meritorious effort is like saying that anyone can become a 2:20 marathoner or play basketball like Michael Jordan with enough effort.
Also, be careful jumping to hasty conclusions about a "beer belly" equaling "bad genetics." All a beer belly tells you is that a person eat/drinks too much. Some of the most important genetic factors can't be readily seen...such as the location of tendon insertions, which provide massive mechanical advantage and freakish grip strength despite a normal (or pudgy) frame. This, and other, subtle genetic factors make possible the "sends 5.13 in first year of climbing" phenomenon.
Meanwhile, all I can do is dream about that...and train smarter!
|
|
|
|
|
skateman
Feb 11, 2005, 6:10 PM
Post #21 of 56
(5645 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 186
|
Well said Eric! Let's hear a hurrumph for the beer belly toting folks such as myself!
S-man
|
|
|
|
|
stardrivin
Feb 11, 2005, 6:27 PM
Post #22 of 56
(5645 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 7, 2005
Posts: 25
|
if one's goal is to become a media poster child then genetics is very important. that being said, this trait must be cultivated (proper mix of enivormental factors) for it to be maifested.
if one's goal is to be mentally "good," the degree of genetic predisposition may be negligible. (as this type of strength relies relies heavily on environmental influences)
in summation....
1) depends on how you define "good"
2) there is a deal deal of overlap between genes and environment on phenotype
|
|
|
|
|
gunked
Feb 11, 2005, 6:41 PM
Post #23 of 56
(5645 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2002
Posts: 615
|
Sorry Eric,
Gonna have to disagree with you here. There's one major flaw in your argument: "Good" and "Great" are relative terms!
That said, genetics has little to do with the equation, unless your commitment level is genetically pre-disposed.
In any arena, there are going to be the examples of genetically pre-disposed physical wonders such as Sharma, Caldwell, etc... But what does their performance have to do with me being a "great" climber. We're dealing with some amazingly subjective terms here!!!
-Climber - What type of climbing denotes a 'climber'?
-Great - I promise you all that Eric Horst's (just using you as an exampleof a higher-end climber) definition of great is quite different than mine as is the average gym rat ogleing a 5.13 gym climber on lead.
-Good - same thing!
-Genetics - Physical? mental? emotional?, etc... Which ones? A combination of all three? What about an amazing physical specimen that's too scared to go out of his house?
I submit to you all that COMMITMENT has far more to do with be a "great" climber.
In my world, anybody that uses "Genetics" as an excuse for not being what they consider to be "great" in any aspect of life is using it as an EXCUSE for not being their best! PERIOD! :wink:
My 2 cents
-Jason :D
|
|
|
|
|
jw11733
Feb 11, 2005, 7:01 PM
Post #24 of 56
(5645 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 27, 2004
Posts: 65
|
OK folks, I't pretty clear what good and great mean in the context of this discussion. I totally agree with what Eric is saying here. I think an interesting related question is what genetic factors make the biggest difference, and how can you compenstate. Eric listed tendon insertion as one important one; not much one can do about that! Height on the other hand also plays an important role, but technique can compensate. What else?
|
|
|
|
|
stardrivin
Feb 11, 2005, 7:08 PM
Post #25 of 56
(5645 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 7, 2005
Posts: 25
|
lactic acid threshold (genetic and environment)
# of muscle fibers (predetermined)
VO2 max (gentic cap w/ environmental influences beneath that cap)
inhibition level (genetic and environment)
strength of connective tissue (genes and enviro)
time to train (environment)
muscle fiber recruitment (environment)
etc........
|
|
|
|
|
jw11733
Feb 11, 2005, 7:40 PM
Post #26 of 56
(5188 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 27, 2004
Posts: 65
|
Lets not forget sticky fingers. In fact, I'm genetically gifted with this trait. (or is it all those candy bars... naw). I mean forget finger strength, I couldn't LET go of most holds if I tried. Down side is, I've been banned from the gym.
|
|
|
|
|
tenesmus
Feb 11, 2005, 7:48 PM
Post #27 of 56
(5188 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2004
Posts: 263
|
In reply to: Height on the other hand also plays an important role, but technique can compensate. What else?
Great. The height debate. Why are most of the truly elite climbers short?
My wife always makes fun of my short climbing friends. "Why are they all so little?" she says.
|
|
|
|
|
jw11733
Feb 11, 2005, 8:06 PM
Post #28 of 56
(5188 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 27, 2004
Posts: 65
|
Just for the record, I did not mean to imply that being tall is always an advantage. On those low sit starts, being tall is a real disadvantage sometimes. Also, I know a woman who is an awsome climber (way better than me), even though she has to do about two moves to my one. Her creaivity and raw power/weight ration more than make up for reach. However, I raised the height issue as an example of one of those genetic traits that influences climbing, which I still think it is!
|
|
|
|
|
crag_shwagger
Feb 11, 2005, 8:43 PM
Post #29 of 56
(5188 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2005
Posts: 142
|
The more i think about the term "Good Climber" is relative. I dont climb to prove anything im out there cause i love it sooo just curious on yall's input on this one.
|
|
|
|
|
bumblie
Feb 11, 2005, 8:59 PM
Post #30 of 56
(5188 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
In reply to: I submit to you all that COMMITMENT has far more to do with be a "great" climber.
Nice job in redirecting the issue. :wink:
The initial post was about where or not genetics was a factor in being able to climb 5.13. While commitment is key to reaching your maximum potential, genetics determines the the basic equipment. Without the right genetic makeup, 5.13 ain't gonna happen, period.
|
|
|
|
|
midwestishell
Feb 11, 2005, 9:22 PM
Post #31 of 56
(5188 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 147
|
Social darwinism at its finest. Little data or solid facts. Just a whole bunch of people with strong opinions about the topic.
I give credit to the people who have atleast tried to examine the genetic/environment interactions for this question. They are well on the way to examine the biologic basis for any complex trait. Performance ability is just one of these very complex traits that needs to be examined criticially with data to back it up.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 11, 2005, 9:41 PM
Post #32 of 56
(5188 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
[quote="gunked"]Sorry Eric,
Gonna have to disagree with you here. There's one major flaw in your argument: "Good" and "Great" are relative terms!In reply to: Actually, Eric defined "great" in objective terms, as being "one of the best," and it is difficult to see how one would get to that level without some genetic predisposition. In reply to: In any arena, there are going to be the examples of genetically pre-disposed physical wonders such as Sharma, Caldwell, etc... But what does their performance have to do with me being a "great" climber. Their performance defines "great," and leaves you (and me) in the dust. -Jay
|
|
|
|
|
dynoguy
Feb 11, 2005, 9:55 PM
Post #33 of 56
(5188 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 6, 2003
Posts: 730
|
In reply to: Steve Prefontaine was a truly amazing distance runner back in the late 60s and early 70s. He probably would have been the best runner the world has ever seen if it wasn't for a tragic car accident that ended his life. Pre and others recognized that he was born with certain abilities to give him an advantage over his competitors. However, if you were to ask Pre why he never lost he respond: "I can endure more pain than anybody I have ever met." Genetics certainly can help but desire, will power, and perseverance will make you the climber you aspire to be. :idea:
Great point
oh and Go Pre
|
|
|
|
|
mack_north
Feb 11, 2005, 9:57 PM
Post #34 of 56
(5188 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 8, 2005
Posts: 74
|
My friend Dale Nixon is a monster of a man and we can’t figure out why. He looks like a puffed-up Rulon Gardner and drives around in an old Econoline with a Viking airbrushed on the side. To be honest (since I know he’ll never read this,) he looks like the guy who played “Gluttony” in “Seven.”
His daddy was a taconite miner in the Minnesota northwoods and makes Steve Buscemi look like Lou Ferrigno. His momma taught charm school and had a gimped hand and a spidery eye. I have seen Dale climb 5.11 in his Red Wings at Blue Mound. He can crack spark plugs with his fingers. Nobody knows where he got it from. I told him he ought to go on the comp circuit – his kids would be wearing gold-plated diapers.
|
|
|
|
|
boadman
Feb 11, 2005, 10:05 PM
Post #35 of 56
(5188 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 7, 2003
Posts: 726
|
In reply to: That's not true...some routes will just leave you injured. Imagine the average climber trying out Action Direct and blowing some finger tendons. The human body has physical limitations, some moreso than others. Same goes for mental aspects of climbing, if you're a wuss like me, you'll never be "well-rounded" to the point that you climb trad, alpine, etc. If your definition of "good" was lowered to onsighting 5.11, I think the average person could attain this...5.11 is pretty respectable, since it usually requires a combination of good technique and some strength to make it up. Most people can't onsight 5.11, so that is a reasonable benchmark for "good".
I think the average climber in boulder probably onsights 11+, fair to middling ones can do 12+s and good ones don't have much trouble with 13s. I think that any of these levels can be reached without superior genetics (I'm a 190 lb fat boy that onsights 12 regularly). With specific training (which most people don't have the mental discipline for) I think that most average people could climb 14- with enough time and energy invested.
|
|
|
|
|
dynoguy
Feb 11, 2005, 10:27 PM
Post #36 of 56
(5188 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 6, 2003
Posts: 730
|
I think technique can be learned simply through experience and muscle gain be gained by training, but I believe one of the biggest limiters on the grade at which someone climbs is finger strength. Granted, finger strength can be gained through training but not to the same extent as muscle and technique. It would seem finger strength is mostly genetic. I read in article from an old issue of Climbing about this couple who test different attributes on world class climber. They found Dave Graham to have the strongest fingers of all the climbers they tested. How could Graham, who hadn't been climbing that long when the tests were done(1998), have stronger fingers than the likes of Caldwell and Sharma, who have been climbing much longer, unless genetics plaid a big role?
|
|
|
|
|
gunked
Feb 11, 2005, 10:52 PM
Post #37 of 56
(5188 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2002
Posts: 615
|
Clearly we're going to have to agree to disagree here. I firmly believe that anyone is capable of anything...PERIOD!!!
Hugh Herr may have been what you consider to be genetically pre-disposed before he lost his legs...but how do you account for his being able to climb 5.13 trad with fake legs. Are we breaking down genetics now???
In reply to: In reply to: Sorry Eric, Gonna have to disagree with you here. There's one major flaw in your argument: "Good" and "Great" are relative terms! In reply to: Actually, Eric defined "great" in objective terms, as being "one of the best," and it is difficult to see how one would get to that level without some genetic predisposition. Quote: In any arena, there are going to be the examples of genetically pre-disposed physical wonders such as Sharma, Caldwell, etc... But what does their performance have to do with me being a "great" climber. Their performance defines "great," and leaves you (and me) in the dust. Anybody's performance and accomplishments at any level leaves somebody "in the dust". Are we now defining "great" by who gets in the magazines now??? I don't buy it! IT IS all subjective. I've climbed with a few people who I consider "Great" and at the top end of their sport. They're not in the mags! I, myself, have cranked out 5.12 TR (in the gunks) within a year of starting climbing. I did it in shoes that were 2 sizes too big. I can't repeat it today! I've never done it since! I'm about as far as genetically pre-disposed as one gets in our climbing world while still having my limbs and not being very over-weight. Ask any of my partners!!! I have strong-will...That's it! I don't have strong muscles or tendons. Never did! In reply to: gunked wrote: I submit to you all that COMMITMENT has far more to do with be a "great" climber. Nice job in redirecting the issue. Wink The initial post was about where or not genetics was a factor in being able to climb 5.13. While commitment is key to reaching your maximum potential, genetics determines the the basic equipment. Without the right genetic makeup, 5.13 ain't gonna happen, period. See above :wink: I've known too many people that don't look like much and aren't genetically pre-disposed by anybody's definition pull off some amazing stuff on lead or on a boulder problem, ice, big-wall, etc... Yes...even 5.13!!! :o It ain't genetics :!: -Jason :D
|
|
|
|
|
rocknalaska
Feb 12, 2005, 12:26 AM
Post #38 of 56
(5188 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 19, 2002
Posts: 129
|
How much is truly genetic, how much environment. How do you measure the effects different childhood's have on a person's ability? Tendon attachment can truly be measured, and is something that can't be changed. However, finger strength is often brought up as being genetic. Is it really genetic, or could it also be related to a body reacting early to being stressed in that manner. To me, it seems there is some of both in everything, and to try and define them is stupid and futile. Personally, I truly believe anyone can reach 5.13 or v10 with enough drive and the intelligence to learn how to train appropriately. There will be 13's and v10's that they can't do, but in general I think anyone can do them.
Todd
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 12, 2005, 2:00 AM
Post #39 of 56
(5188 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: Anybody's performance and accomplishments at any level leaves somebody "in the dust". Are we now defining "great" by who gets in the magazines now??? I don't buy it! IT IS all subjective. I've climbed with a few people who I consider "Great" and at the top end of their sport. They're not in the mags!
No, we're not defining "great" by who's in the mags; we're defining "great" by being at the top of the sport.
In reply to: I, myself, have cranked out 5.12 TR (in the gunks) within a year of starting climbing. I did it in shoes that were 2 sizes too big. I can't repeat it today! I've never done it since! I'm about as far as genetically pre-disposed as one gets in our climbing world while still having my limbs and not being very over-weight.
And you are not at the top of the sport, which is what Horst was talking about, nor even climbing at the 5.13 level that the OP was talking about. Thank you for illustrating my point.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
buckyllama
Feb 12, 2005, 2:04 AM
Post #40 of 56
(5188 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 314
|
Check out "Training for Climbing" By Eric Horst. He discusses this a bit.
Being a good climber is at least partially genetic. You can push your mental and physical skills to the point of breaking, but if your tendons fail and your body rebels, you will fail. People like caldwell, sharma, etc simply have body types and specifically muscle and tendons that are way on one side of the bell curve for positive traits for climbing. I could train perfectly for many many years and never approach their level. Most people who stick with this sport for the long term (say 10+ years)have some level of genetic predisposition to it. If you were built like Shaq, climbing probably wouldn't be as much fun and you would suffer frequent injuries.
It's also a question of what "good" means. Nearly everybody can climb 5.11. Most can climb 5.12 with training. Many can climb 5.13. Few can climb 5.14, even with optimum training. If you didn't pull 11+ on your first week of climbing, you'll probably never send 5.14+ or higher. We hear in the mags about kids who have climbed for a couple years a few days a week sending V10+. This is not just training, it's not just mental, it's genetic.
Someone else mentioned about the ability to "endure more pain than anyone else". This is also at least partly genetic. Modern endurance sports heroes like Lance Armstrong or maybe better, John Stamsted, just aren't built or wired like the rest of us. http://outside.away.com/magazine/0996/9609feki.html (read the part about the tests that have been done) This guy is mentally tough as nails, but he also just doesn't feel pain and fatigue like most people do. It takes both to be elite.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 12, 2005, 2:11 AM
Post #41 of 56
(5188 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: Check out "Training for Climbing" By Eric Horst. He discusses this a bit. Being a good climber is at least partially genetic...
Dude, read the thread. Eric, himself, just posted the same thing.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
pushsendnorcal
Feb 12, 2005, 2:20 AM
Post #42 of 56
(5188 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 15, 2003
Posts: 207
|
The problem with the question is that is simply sames good and genetics. There is no detail as to what good means in climbing terms and completely ignores to what degree of optimum climbing genetics that person has.
My belief is that after V12 and 5.14B there is a need for more superior genetics (high metabolism, tendon placement, mentality etc..) Anything below that can be obtained through very hard work (in many cases). Those that argue my point/opinion, need to look back at their time spent climbing and see if they are having fun or working their butts off.
Also there are good climbers and mutants (sharma, graham, nicole, zangerl, etc)
|
|
|
|
|
pushsendnorcal
Feb 12, 2005, 2:59 AM
Post #43 of 56
(5188 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 15, 2003
Posts: 207
|
The problem with the question is that is simply sames good and genetics
I meant to put 'says' instead of sames
|
|
|
|
|
gunked
Feb 12, 2005, 5:45 PM
Post #44 of 56
(5188 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2002
Posts: 615
|
jt512,
We'll make this easy:
You're Right!
-Jason :D
|
|
|
|
|
bandidopeco
Feb 12, 2005, 6:57 PM
Post #45 of 56
(5188 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 17, 2004
Posts: 257
|
5.12 climber - part time job
5.13 climber - no job
5.14 climber - sponsored
This question can't be truly answered simply because you can't go back in time and swap Tommy Caldwell or the Huber brothers with some other less genetically gifted (if that's what you're assuming they are) kids and see what happens.
Nature vs. Nurture is an impossibly hard question to answer definitevly
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Feb 13, 2005, 1:22 AM
Post #46 of 56
(5188 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
I really hate this stupid topic.
BUT, since you asked,
WE DON'T KNOW.
We will not know until the best athletes train for climbing from childhood, just as they do now for other sports. When climbing attracts lots of world class athletes, who maybe could have made a lot of money in some other sport, THEN we will have a clue.
|
|
|
|
|
kansasclimber
Feb 13, 2005, 2:07 AM
Post #47 of 56
(5188 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 21, 2002
Posts: 541
|
It seems that its not genetic, yet i almost have to change my vote (no). You must believe that there is no way MANY of us can be as good as sharma, therefore, gentics has something to do with it. Yet i still agree that you can progess as far as you want to, just slower than others.
If that makes sense....
Stephen
|
|
|
|
|
bumblie
Feb 14, 2005, 2:28 PM
Post #48 of 56
(5188 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
Chris Sharma
Dave Graham
Mike Tyson
Spud Webb
LeBron James
your "average" nfl runningback
Anyone out there think they could trade punches with a fat, old(56) George Foreman?"
If you're still not clear on this, go talk to a racehorse breeder. I'm sure they'd find the notion of "genetrics doesn't matter" pretty laughable.
|
|
|
|
|
speedywon
Feb 14, 2005, 7:05 PM
Post #49 of 56
(5188 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 5, 2005
Posts: 182
|
Consider this comparison:
Many high school basketball players dream of playing college ball. Now, if you truly work your butt off day in and day out, there a decent change that they could play at some junior college or a small 4-year. However, if they want to play D-I, they are going to have to be blessed with some height (genetics) that no amount of work is going to get them. Now, if they want to play for a top-ranked school, they'll have to have both genetics and work ethic on their side.
Similarly, I believe that just about anyone can work their way up to 5.10, maybe even 5.11 if they are willing to put in the time and effort. I've heard of a few climbers sending 5.12 - 5.13 in their first year of climbing, which indicates to me some genetic endowment that I certainly don't possess. Now, if you want to be the next Sharma, you'd better have been created in a test-tube and spend more time climbing than you do sleeping.
|
|
|
|
|
gunked
Feb 14, 2005, 11:48 PM
Post #50 of 56
(5188 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2002
Posts: 615
|
This topic interests the hell out of me simply because it blows my mind how so many climbers think that there are achievements that are out of their reach.
As to the previous mention of Pro-Basketball players having to be tall:
Spud Webb was a pro-basketball player and a dunking champion at 5'6" was it?
In every arena of life there's going to be at least one person who defied all odds to achieve what they believed they could, no matter how impossible. These people didn't believe in their limits! They believed in possibility and their commitment to get them there.
Every one reading this, at one point in their life, has achieved something that they believed was completely out of their reach. I submit that nothing out of reach unless you believe it is. NO EXCEPTIONS!
I think I'm done with this topic. I'm going somewhere where the glass is half full.
-Jason :D
|
|
|
|
|
ikefromla
Feb 15, 2005, 12:14 AM
Post #51 of 56
(4264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 23, 2002
Posts: 1216
|
read my signature. I once jumped three letter grades in one summer, and i'm not talkin 11a to 11d.
|
|
|
|
|
ron_burgandy
Feb 15, 2005, 12:52 AM
Post #52 of 56
(4264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 186
|
anyone can climb as well as sharma or other top climbers, it will just takes different amounts of effort and time. some people say that they cant ever reach that skill level, and they are right if they dont have the drive to become a better climber and put forth that much energy and time into getting that much better.
BUT on the other hand people like sharma are genetically geared better for climbing so they dont have to do as much work (comparitavly) as say the average weekend worrior type. Look at any sport from golf to biking to climbing to race car driving, there will always be a Chris Sharma or an Arnold Palmer or a Lance Armstrong or a Sterling Moss.
They are genetacally better than you or me at their respective disiplines. But just because they are gifted by their genes it dosent mean that you or me will never be able to acheive greatness, they just have a head start.
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Feb 15, 2005, 12:53 AM
Post #53 of 56
(4264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
Of course genetics comes into play...
Think of it this way: I think just about everyone will accept that someone can have genetic traits that make it difficult or impossible for them to climb... a pre-disposition towards rheumatoid arthritis, say, or one of many mutations in the gene for collagen I which leads to weaker connective tissue (tendons etc), or a mutation in any of a large number of genes involved in muscle cell contraction/relaxation, oxygen/ATP/glucose transport, etc., etc., etc.
Someone who, on the other hand, has "perfect" copies of all of these genes, will most definitely have the potential to become a much better climber than average. I would go further, and guess that most of the "elite" climbers around do have genetic traits which have helped them get to where they are today.
The fact is, everyone has a limit. This limit is much higher for some than for others. For 99.99% of the population, however, this is academic, because they will never actually approach it. Me, I don't bother worrying about it all that much - I just try to enjoy climbing when I get the chance.
|
|
|
|
|
texplorer
Feb 15, 2005, 2:31 AM
Post #54 of 56
(4264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 24, 2002
Posts: 199
|
Judging from the voting I would say RC.com has a bunch of dumbasses on it.
If you really think genetics don't play a role your sadly mistaken.
|
|
|
|
|
fluxus
Feb 20, 2005, 1:45 AM
Post #55 of 56
(4264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2003
Posts: 947
|
In reply to: Judging from the voting I would say RC.com has a bunch of dumbasses on it. If you really think genetics don't play a role your sadly mistaken.
to the extent that genetics make us who we are it would be foolish to say that genetics play 'no" role, of course they do.
However climbers are often quick to pull out the "genetic limit" argument, when they don't even begin to understand how the body works, how the brain learns, the skills underlying climbing, and the fact that climbing is a VERY young sport with no widly used training and teaching methods.
Here is an example, some authors claim that the amount of fast and slow twitch muscle tissue a climber has effects their ability to perform dynamic moves. The problem with this is that these authors have not examined how movements are produced by the motor system, and the actual speed of climbing moves in relation to the speed of the motor system / muscle tissue. Important issues to consider are reaction time, the role of feedback and the speed of information processing in relation to the duration of a specific movement.
The entire question of weather or not the % of fast or slow twitch muscle tissue effects climbing is, in the long run, moot because the duration of dynamic moves is long enough that, both tissue types are more than able to produce movements of the speed necessay in dynamic moves. If you have a lot of slow twitch muscle fibre you may or may not become the national dyno champ but you sure as hell will be able to do great dynos.
So the people who believe that the type of muscle tissue effects dynamic movement are merely speculating based on a limited knowledge of how movements are produced and a over developed sense of their own authority.
we are many years away from understanding the role of genetics in climbing, we know its there but we don't understand what it is (I mean this in the clinical sense) No one participating in this discussion ever needs to worry about it because we won't have the time or the methodology necessary to train well enough to reach our genetic limits.
peace
|
|
|
|
|
vawwyakr
Feb 20, 2005, 2:14 AM
Post #56 of 56
(4264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 8, 2004
Posts: 90
|
In reply to: Genetics can definitely speed up the improvement curve, but I know of several climbers (including myself) who have gotten better through sheer desire and working our asses off. If you want it bad enough, and try hard enough, eventually you will succeed. As I tell people often: If you throw yourself at a route enough times, sooner or later the route will give up. |
|
|
|
|
|
