|
eddie_munster
Sep 24, 2006, 5:25 PM
Post #1 of 32
(3693 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2004
Posts: 78
|
Of course, this is just a hypothetical question, as it is a comparison of apples to oranges. But, consider that most people (that are athletically prone) can train to run a marathon in about a year or maybe less. Some people might need two years of effort to work up to it.
80 feet of anaerobic yankin' compared to 26 mi., 385 yds. of sloggin'...
you decide
|
|
|
|
|
talnlnky
Sep 24, 2006, 6:05 PM
Post #2 of 32
(3693 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 9, 2006
Posts: 80
|
i've heard a few people on this forum say that in your first year you SHOULD NOT try to climb at the .12 level because of the risk to your tendons if you're training that hard. Granted.... I'm not even a year into it, and i've climbed .11a, and have started (free solo) the first 4 moves on a .12 crack before and thought that it wasn't too hard.
but really, if you're going to compare to a marathon.... i'd say multipitch... in the 5.10 range... how many pitches... err.... i dunno... 5-10?????
|
|
|
|
|
fancyclaps
Sep 24, 2006, 6:09 PM
Post #3 of 32
(3693 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 23, 2005
Posts: 210
|
I think the wide variations in physical ability, even among those who are athetically prone, renders irrelevant any statement about "train this long and climb this hard." Every persons body responds differently to training and some people could climb 5.10 in a month and then spend five years working to get to 5.12. Climbing, like running, includes a very prominent mental aspect, so someone might have the physical ability to climb 5.12, but not the mental fortitude.
So that in mind, I would say somewhere between hard 5.11s and easy 5.12s.
|
|
|
|
|
jer
Sep 24, 2006, 8:03 PM
Post #4 of 32
(3693 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 26, 2000
Posts: 426
|
When someone decides they are going to run a marathon they say "I am going to run a marathon in June."
As a beginning climber, most people would not proclaim this- "I am going to climb a 5.12 in June".
I would contend that the similarities between a marathon and sport climbing would not lie in a numeric difficulty, but at sustained difficulty at a particular rating.
For example, I know when my 225 lb. father in law said "I am going to run a marathon in 6 months" I knew he was not going to run it at a 6 minute pace(5.12?). I figured he had a very good chance at finishing at a 10 minute pace(5.6?). But, he was still finishing. It was not dependent on his "difficulty" or "speed", but that he completed it at his own pace.
So let's say you are 60 lbs overweight and you say "In 6 months I am going to climb 5.12". I know this is not impossible, but I doubt you could pull it off(unless you were climbing at Boulder Canyon, perhaps).
But if you said "In 6 months I am going to climb 24.6 pitches of 5.6 in a day", I would guess that would be a fair comparison to a marathon.
Distance, not difficulty.
jer
|
|
|
|
|
jaybro
Sep 24, 2006, 8:10 PM
Post #5 of 32
(3693 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2005
Posts: 441
|
Well put, Jer!
Jay-48(slow)marathons,andsomeclimbing-bro
|
|
|
|
|
notch
Sep 24, 2006, 8:30 PM
Post #6 of 32
(3693 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 599
|
Because every sport climber knows that if it doesn't have a hard grade, it's not worth doing. :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
vegastradguy
Sep 24, 2006, 9:10 PM
Post #7 of 32
(3693 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 5919
|
my ex ran marathons, and the closest i ever came to being as beat up as she was after a race was when i did Resolution Arete in 2005- 23 pitches in 12 hours- average 5.8-5.9 the whole way with a few 5.10 moves and some aid. Toss in a 90 minute approach and a 4 hour descent....
as far as ability goes, i dont think you can compare a climbing grade with running a marathon at all....
|
|
|
|
|
redlegrangerone
Sep 24, 2006, 10:42 PM
Post #8 of 32
(3693 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 21, 2005
Posts: 851
|
^^^^^^Best example yet^^^^^^^^^
I have done both. It would be really hard to compare the two based on grades.
|
|
|
|
|
chenchilla
Sep 24, 2006, 11:13 PM
Post #9 of 32
(3693 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2005
Posts: 30
|
I have known many people who have done a marathon without training (they are motivated for different reasons). I think that running a marathon is 75% mental. If you have the will power to complete it...you can...anyone can finish a marathon. just depending on how far you want to push yourself.
However, with climbing, it's 1/3 mental and a lot more skill to it...it doesn't matter how much mental capacity I have...if I have never climbed before, or just started, there is NO way that I can jump on a 5.12.
So, my answer would be that you can't compare the two...and if you try. I would say that a marathon is equal to climbing at whatever level you are comfortable with and then pushing it just a bit more...single pitch 5.8's vs. a 10 pitch 5.8 :D
|
|
|
|
|
brianmccully
Sep 24, 2006, 11:16 PM
Post #10 of 32
(3693 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 23, 2004
Posts: 59
|
Yeah no comparisons really as 5.13 depends on skills schemas and neuromuscular recruitments and strength. Or that the completion of a 5.13 depends upon Sport Specific Skills and is highly dependt on Type 1a muscle fibers
A marathon depends on glycogen stores in the muscle, you have about a two hour supply, and general fitness and someone can go from couch to marathon without developing any sport specific running skills!!!! And is highly dependt on type II muscle fibers. This is why its appels and oranges in my humble nonatheletic opinion. When you run long distances your whole body is literally turned into fuel to be metabolized and this is why Men's Fitnees will tell you that men shouldnt need to run for more than 20mins as you will end up breaking down lean muscle mass as a fuel source do to its readily availability compare to other fuel sources even though Fats have twice the energy of sugars or proteins.
Though as far as a worthwhile comparison I run 60mins 4 times a week and when I wasnt injured, climbers elbow a b____, I could onsight V6ish, outdoors not in,
I would compare a marathon to redpointing 5.12c consitently or harder, outside. As it takes about the same level of commitment and for the ATHELETIC person going into either one can take the same amount of training but Climbing requires the development of sport specific skills!!
Thats my two cents on the sunject
|
|
|
|
|
whoa
Sep 25, 2006, 3:54 AM
Post #11 of 32
(3693 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 2005
Posts: 193
|
extreme duffers finish marathons all the time.
better, let's assume the athlete has been at the sport for a while, perhaps a few years. (this isn't a "how impressive is it to be able to run a 3hr marathon off two weeks' training.)
then basically you'd run a statistical comparison of the percentages of seasoned climbers who can climb at various grades, and the percentages of marathoners who can run various times. you might have to correct for the fact that, unlike in marathoning where slow-pokes are encouraged to the extent of composing a huge percentage of the field, there's less of that sort of thing in climbing.
anyway, at a very blind guess (i have considerably more experience with marathoners at various levels than climbers), this is what you'd find:
(men's) marathon time :: sport climbing grade (reliably climbable)
6:00 :: 5.5
5:00 :: 5.6
4:00 :: 5.8
3:30 :: 5.9
3:15 :: 5.10a
3:00 :: 5:11a
2:40 :: 5.12a
2:25 :: 5.13a
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Sep 25, 2006, 5:14 AM
Post #12 of 32
(3693 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: then basically you'd run a statistical comparison of the percentages of seasoned climbers who can climb at various grades, and the percentages of marathoners who can run various times.
Too simple. There's also the fact that climbing is a much younger sport, and the knowledge on training methods and injury prevention are accordingly far less developed. But maybe if you did your comparison to marathon times when the sport was in a similar stage of development (I don't know when that'd be---a century ago?).
In reply to: you might have to correct for the fact that, unlike in marathoning where slow-pokes are encouraged to the extent of composing a huge percentage of the field, there's less of that sort of thing in climbing.
Wrong. There is a huge field of "slow-pokes" in climbing---hang out on this site a little, and you'll notice one consistent indicator of this fact: most climbers over-estimate the athletic difficulty of climbs at every level (including the grades they are capable of).
You even demonstrate this in your post, as it happens: I'm no runner, but even I can tell you that a 2:25 marathon time (20 minutes off the men's world record, 10 minutes off the women's) is way harder than doing reliable redpoints of 5.13a (which many people can do after a year or two of climbing).
(The other interesting phenomenon relating to climbing "slow-pokes" is the strange anti-improvement culture. Many (weak) climbers like to denigrate those who actually try to improve with negative epithets like "number chaser". The reason is mostly a historical accident. Climbing-as-a-sport evolved out of an activity that is definitely not a sport: in some significant ways, things like gymnastics, running marathons, or even chess have more in common with modern sport climbing than walking up mountains does.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
whoa
Sep 25, 2006, 6:18 AM
Post #14 of 32
(3693 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 2005
Posts: 193
|
In reply to: Too simple. There's also the fact that climbing is a much younger sport, and the knowledge on training methods and injury prevention are accordingly far less developed. But maybe if you did your comparison to marathon times when the sport was in a similar stage of development (I don't know when that'd be---a century ago?).
In reply to: You even demonstrate this in your post, as it happens: I'm no runner, but even I can tell you that a 2:25 marathon time (20 minutes off the men's world record, 10 minutes off the women's) is way harder than doing reliable redpoints of 5.13a (which many people can do after a year or two of climbing).
In reply to: (The other interesting phenomenon relating to climbing "slow-pokes" is the strange anti-improvement culture. Many (weak) climbers like to denigrate those who actually try to improve with negative epithets like "number chaser". The reason is mostly a historical accident. Climbing-as-a-sport evolved out of an activity that is definitely not a sport: in some significant ways, things like gymnastics, running marathons, or even chess have more in common with modern sport climbing than walking up mountains does.) |
|
|
|
|
overlord
Sep 25, 2006, 6:26 AM
Post #15 of 32
(3693 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
id say its about 2-3 grades below your onsight level, 10+9pitches, done fast.
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Sep 25, 2006, 8:08 AM
Post #16 of 32
(3693 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: In reply to: Too simple. There's also the fact that climbing is a much younger sport, and the knowledge on training methods and injury prevention are accordingly far less developed. But maybe if you did your comparison to marathon times when the sport was in a similar stage of development (I don't know when that'd be---a century ago?). Well of course there are a lot of complicating factors, but I don't see why this correction would be particularly relevant. The comparison is between the accomplishments of today's athletes in both sports. Better training methods would move the whole curve up, which is as it should be.
Climbsomething's point notwithstanding.... ;)
I think the very issue is what you want to compare. Is the accomplishment of atheletes relative to their contemporaries more interesting than the accomplishment relative to their (our) capabilities? Maybe in a game like chess or poker or basketball, where optimal strategies depend very heavily on the behavior of other players.
But the thing with marathon-running (or climbing) is that the game is, in a sense, played entirely by one player. So, a 2:15 marathon in 1950 isn't really a different accomplishment than a 2:15 marathon in 2006, eh? It's the same accomplishment (though the modern runner probably has some advantages in training and injury prevention, etc).
In reply to: Yeah, I have really very little sense of how many climbers make it to high grades.
The point is that 5.13 is no longer one of the "high grades", despite the perception it has.
In reply to: 2:20 is the US Oly trials qualifying standard (which is intended to make for a plenty big qualifying race), and the IAAF Olympic qualifying standard is 2:14.
Ah, interesting (I did say I don't know anything about running ;))... That last is faster than the fastest female time ever, eh? Guess there is a big gender gap?
I'm sticking with my estimate that it's still way harder than 5.13a though. For example, if we were to guess an analagous place to 2:14 based on the best female performance in sport climbing, you'd be talking about 15a. (But there is also the possibility that the gender gap in climbing is smaller, or that the gaps appear larger if you have a larger population of invovled atheletes.)
|
|
|
|
|
ratmnerd
Sep 25, 2006, 11:32 AM
Post #17 of 32
(3693 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 5, 2006
Posts: 120
|
In reply to: i've heard a few people on this forum say that in your first year you SHOULD NOT try to climb at the .12 level because of the risk to your tendons if you're training that hard. Granted.... I'm not even a year into it, and i've climbed .11a, and have started (free solo) the first 4 moves on a .12 crack before and thought that it wasn't too hard. but really, if you're going to compare to a marathon.... i'd say multipitch... in the 5.10 range... how many pitches... err.... i dunno... 5-10?????
ummm, dude, you're new here, so let me point out to you that it's not the start that's the hard part which determines the grade, but the CRUX is. hence, the starting moves may well have been 5.6, but because the crux is 5.12, that's the climb's overall grade.
|
|
|
|
|
jaybro
Sep 25, 2006, 2:01 PM
Post #18 of 32
(3693 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2005
Posts: 441
|
Hhmm? a 5.5 pitch takes maybe two minutes and burns maybe 100 calories.
A 6 hr marathon takes, well, 6 hours and burns maybe 1000+kcals (wild guess)
Yeah, I don't see how you can tell them apart.
|
|
|
|
|
cchas
Sep 25, 2006, 2:40 PM
Post #19 of 32
(3693 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 9, 2005
Posts: 344
|
Well put Whoa.... I've done a marathon less then 2:25 and for me its not worth training to race since I'll always be a schmuck and don't find joy in it anymore. Now a good 5.13 (or 5.12 crack) is just pure joy.
But if the question is what more probable in the first year, a 5.13 or a sub 2:25 marathon, I'd have to say 5.13. A marathon like that tends to require decent speed+ endurance which just takes time. Difficult, no, but takes time. I could train someone to do either but most people wouldn't want to do the time for the marathon in sub 2:25
|
|
|
|
|
jaybro
Sep 25, 2006, 10:10 PM
Post #20 of 32
(3693 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2005
Posts: 441
|
It's apples and oranges. I don't think we are close on this thread to finding any possible equivilence. Too many variables. I've climbed literally thousands of five twelve crack pitches (including repeats and TR's.) I've run 48 marathons (mostly trail, admitidly, a different gig) and only two sub 3:30. I believe my physique favors climbing over running. I have a plus four ape index, prominenet chest and lats and short skinny legs (tipped by narrow, gruesomely arched bird feet) that hurt like a motherfuyeah after a marathon on pavement, requiring weeks off. When I'm in shape however, I can do four hour trail marathons everyother week with no further training (for a while, anyway).
I truly don't believe it would ever have been physically possible for me to do a sub 3 hr marathon (well maybe) but certainly not anything in the 2:25 range; I barely did that on skate skis. ( 2:28 for 27miles and 50k in 2:42, was my best)
|
|
|
|
|
cchas
Sep 25, 2006, 10:19 PM
Post #21 of 32
(3693 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 9, 2005
Posts: 344
|
In reply to: ........ I truly don't believe it would ever have been physically possible for me to do a sub 3 hr marathon (well maybe) but certainly not anything in the 2:25 range; I barely did that on skate skis. ( 2:28 for 27miles and 50k in 2:42, was my best)
You could do it if you really wanted to.... I could write out a plan if you want. It would only take 3-5yrs and only 2-3hrs a day.....
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Sep 25, 2006, 10:39 PM
Post #22 of 32
(3693 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
Ok a much more interesting question: what is the comparison between sport climbing and competitive eating contests?
The world record holder on hotdog eating can do 53.75 dogs in a sitting. What do you guys think; maybe redpointing 5.13a is like eating a dozen or so hotdogs?
I'd argue that these comparisons are far more meaningful than comparisons to marathon times, since the two sports are in more similar stages of development. To illustrate: when Takeru Kobayashi came on competitive-eating scene in 2001, the world best was only 25 hotdogs. He single-handedly doubled it.
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Sep 26, 2006, 1:05 AM
Post #23 of 32
(3693 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
^^ trophy
Oh, and a sport climber wouldn't even eat 2 hot dogs. A trad climber, on the other hand...
|
|
|
|
|
tradmanclimbs
Sep 26, 2006, 2:43 AM
Post #24 of 32
(3693 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2003
Posts: 2599
|
hard sport is a strength and skill game. marathon is endurance. only compareson to climbing would be long climb with burly approach and lots of wide phisical scary pitches :?
|
|
|
|
|
jaybro
Sep 26, 2006, 4:43 AM
Post #25 of 32
(3693 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2005
Posts: 441
|
First, gotta say we are way OT here from the original question about comparing sport climb ratings to marathon times and only slightly farther afield from when I said I thought comparing a 5.5 pitch to a 6-hr marathon was specious.
But, good points, CCHas
"You could do it if you really wanted to.... I could write out a plan if you want. It would only take 3-5yrs and only 2-3hrs a day....."
We Do find time for the stuff that is most important to us. As a dad, mortgage holder, fulltime employed and, then, a semi serious climber, I'm, not going to be putting the time into it you suggest. It's 'just' running. Which, I think was part of your point.
But can you make a blanket statement like that? Given, you can assume from what I said that I have some level of physical fitness, have run some marathons, etc. But I am fifty years old. live in sunny California and have about zero heat tolerance, and a heart murmer. Still wanna cast that net? You didn't ask, and it doesn't apply but, what if I was fifty lbs overweight, with a history of seizures? Still think that program would work for me?
A lot of things Are open to a lot of us, if we (can and do) put our attention to it. But we all do have our limitations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
