|
jw11733
Feb 11, 2005, 7:40 PM
Post #26 of 56
(5191 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
(5191 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
(5191 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
(5191 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
(5191 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
(5191 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
(5191 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
(5191 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
(5191 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
(5191 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
(5191 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
(5191 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
(5191 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
(5191 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
(5191 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
(5191 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
(5191 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
(5191 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
(5191 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
(5191 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
(5191 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
(5191 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
(5191 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
(5191 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
(5191 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
