|
monkeyarm
Jan 3, 2003, 3:17 PM
Post #1 of 38
(3373 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 11, 2002
Posts: 323
|
Everyone talks about the elvels todays climbers are pushing, but are they really?
Are the top climbers today that much better than the top climbers of 40 years go, or is it simply a matter that todays climbers have better technology.
For example many of John Gill's problems are rated from climbing in sticky rubber climbing shoes, but to really understand the difficulty that he endured climbing it it should be rated climbing with work boots.
I am just wondering how other people feel about this because personally i think that many people tend to overrate what has been climbed recently and overlook much of what was done in the past.
|
|
|
|
|
saagax
Jan 3, 2003, 3:51 PM
Post #2 of 38
(3373 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2001
Posts: 244
|
I agree, technology has improved the climbers and soprts men in general, not only because the gear used during the activity itself, but for training, knowledge and averything that sorrounds the sportsmen.
|
|
|
|
|
micronut
Jan 3, 2003, 4:52 PM
Post #3 of 38
(3373 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2002
Posts: 1760
|
as far as pure difficulty, I'd say yeah, they are that good. This new generation had the advantage of growing up with climbing gyms and advanced training.
I think boldness in this country (U.S.A.) peaked in the '80's. There are some sickhard, runout, face climbs put up on lead in places like J-Tree and Eldo that hardly ever get done because they are so scary. Nobody wants them anymore, becuase of the focus on high numbers only.
[ This Message was edited by: micronut on 2003-01-03 08:55 ]
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jan 3, 2003, 5:07 PM
Post #4 of 38
(3373 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
The comparison of climbing to other sports, in terms of progress, is a good one. As in other sports, the number of those at the top levels is higher today than in the past.
Also, the very best climbers today are probably somewhat better than those that came before, due to the fact that the newer generation benefits from those that have come before them.
Last of all, micronut's point above is an excellent one. Some of the "advancement" in climbing over the last 20 years or so has come at the expense of style and ethics. One could argue that this may or may not constitute true progress.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
wandt
Jan 3, 2003, 5:22 PM
Post #5 of 38
(3373 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 3, 2000
Posts: 341
|
Yes, technology and training, and perhaps equally important, medical and dietary knowledge have come a long way since "back in tha day", but I think the most important factors are socio-economic/demographic. The world population has grown a great deal in the last 50 years or so, and I think it's safe to say that with the growing middle class, the 40 hour work week, and many businesses in cities offering liesure services, a much larger portion of the populace are able to devote time and effort to climbing than ever before.
The number of students in schools has grown, but you still only have 12-15 players on the basketballl team, and Xplayers on the football team. What do the other kids who want to take part in athletics do? They look for outside sports.
In recent years the media has had an infatuation with "extreme sports", so the youngsters are bombarded with images of what's "cool". Fortunately (or unfortunately), climbing is "cool". And with safe, regulated, generally affordable facilities in every city, kids are going to get into it.
Finally, when you have a larger population base, you'll have a higher number of great athletes. Simple probability. We've got a lot more 7' tall basketball players than 50 years ago, not because people are that much taller, but just because there are more people. The percentage is probably about the same.
|
|
|
|
|
wv5ten
Jan 4, 2003, 5:18 PM
Post #6 of 38
(3373 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 2, 2002
Posts: 671
|
I think it falls on both, some people are just that good, and that the technology is better. Think of it this way Zangerl has sent a V15, This was unheard of in earlier days, but think of it this way, how many other things have ever been at its hardest point in their beginnings. No, there were no V15s back then, but climbing shoes weren't either. This doesn't mean that the only reason Zangerl bagged a 15 is his shoes, nor does it mean no one was as good as him back in the day. Its just a fact that everything has to start somewhere, of course, naturally, it starts at its easiest point and adapts to more harder things. had Gill in all his abilities, started at around the same times as all the hard climbers today, We would be reading about his v14/v15 projects.
|
|
|
|
|
kalcario
Jan 4, 2003, 5:57 PM
Post #7 of 38
(3373 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
*No, there were no V15s back then, but climbing shoes weren't either. This doesn't mean that the only reason Zangerl bagged a 15 is his shoes, nor does it mean no one was as good as him back in the day.*
I think the thread is about are today's climbers better that the past's, and Zangerl is'nt a climber, he's a boulderer, so how can you compare him to past climbers? That's like comparing today's best miniature golfer to Palmer or Nicklaus, or saying that Chris Sharma is better than Walter Bonatti, there's not much common ground to compare there...
I tend to think that today's best climbers are the ones who are good at more than one style of climbing, in Europe the guy redpointing that 5.14 over there is also an expert ice climber and is wearing a t-shirt with the name of the expedition to whatever 8000 meter peak he just got back from, then you go to the local climbing shop and there's a picture of him on the wall leading the Hook or Book pitch on Sea of Dreams on El Cap. There are literally dozens of guys like that in Europe that nobody in the US has ever heard of. They really are better than the climbers of the past but since self promotion is usually seen as a sign of weak character they choose to remain anonymous..
|
|
|
|
|
rockfax
Jan 4, 2003, 8:10 PM
Post #8 of 38
(3373 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 26, 2001
Posts: 652
|
"I think the thread is about are today's climbers better that the past's, and Zangerl is'nt a climber, he's a boulderer"
I think today's climbers are dumber than those in day's gone by considering the above statement.
Zangerl is a climber.....A CLIMBER......he climbs rocks......sometimes with a rope sometimes without.....sometimes he boulders, sometimes he sport climbs....he may do other types of climbing....but he's a climber just like I'm a climber, you are, Chris Sharma is and ad infinitum...
Oh and V12 in 1978......V15 in 2000....not that much of an advance but there are more climbing harder...
5.13b in 1978.............5.15a in 2001...Hmmmm some advance there....
cheers,
Mick
|
|
|
|
|
meataxe
Jan 4, 2003, 8:13 PM
Post #9 of 38
(3373 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 23, 2002
Posts: 1162
|
Boulderers aren't climbers???
It seems to me that we are close to the physical limitations of gravity and the human body. Excluding the advances in shoes, we probably weren't far off years ago.
One factor that may advance climbing a bit further: With increased popularity of climbing and the increased access to gyms (helping beginners get started), there is a larger pool of potential great climbers. There will be more climbers like Dave Graham or (-name-your-favourite-climber-) to choose from.
I think it was actually John Gill who pointed this out on this board--possibly because of his background in gymnastics. Why are China, Russia, USA so good at gymnastics? Because there is a large pool of athletes who can be trained.
|
|
|
|
|
stevematthys
Jan 4, 2003, 9:19 PM
Post #10 of 38
(3373 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 13, 2000
Posts: 1248
|
i think that as climbing technology (shoes, chalk, etc...) increases then the level of climbing will continue to rise.
|
|
|
|
|
jgill
Jan 4, 2003, 9:28 PM
Post #11 of 38
(3373 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 18, 2002
Posts: 653
|
Today's elite rock climbers are usually more genetically attuned to the sport than were many of the climbers of 40 years ago. As has been said, this comes from a greater sport population base - the ends of the bell curve contain more people. I would probably have been too large and heavy to successfully compete with climbers like Dave Graham and Tommy Caldwell. (How can they pull up on such tiny holds?!)
Age, also, may have a lot to do with it in the future: look at how the standards in women's gymnastics has soared in the last 20 or 30 years, primarily among the very young. (Although you don't necessarily see that in men's gymnastics). I would love to see male high bar performers compete with some of the 14-16 year old girls - since many of the uneven bar moves the girls do are the hard high bar moves.
|
|
|
|
|
falke
Jan 4, 2003, 9:37 PM
Post #12 of 38
(3373 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 20, 2002
Posts: 25
|
Its the shear number of people involved. It breeds (and finds) a new kind of athlete. One that just starts out where the ones before have left off.
[ This Message was edited by: falke on 2003-01-04 13:38 ]
|
|
|
|
|
kalcario
Jan 6, 2003, 5:38 AM
Post #13 of 38
(3373 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
*Zangerl is a climber.....A CLIMBER......he climbs rocks......sometimes with a rope sometimes without.....sometimes he boulders, sometimes he sport climbs....he may do other types of climbing....but he's a climber just like I'm a climber, you are, Chris Sharma is and ad infinitum...*
The word is "disingenuous".
Backpackers climb rocks too. Without ropes.
In order for the word "climber" to have any meaning, it has to have a definition that clearly describes and delineates something specific.
Climbing is unroped fall = certain death. Anything else is scrambling or bouldering.
People who jump off 10 meter diving boards are not skydiving. Telling people you are going surfing and then going skimboarding and not even getting your shorts wet, or describing your ping pong match as a good round of tennis because you were hitting a ball over a net, or telling people you are going climbing and not getting more than 10 feet off the ground...this is called "being disingenuous". Politicians do it when they want to evade discussing an issue that exposes the hypocrisy of their views.
I am passionate about this issue because I see so many kids nowadays who in years past would already be competent trad climbers with a few El Cap routes under their belts, instead I see all that youthful passion and drive that used to fuel the sport ending 6 feet above a foam pad.
Describing bouldering as climbing is an insult and dishonors the history, the tradition, and the spirit of our still proud sport.
|
|
|
|
|
malaclypse
Jan 6, 2003, 7:43 AM
Post #14 of 38
(3373 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 30, 2002
Posts: 20
|
i wonder i our generation can get the same results with the equipment the generation before us used...
maybe we climb higher grades but don't orget our material is much better.
|
|
|
|
|
rockfax
Jan 6, 2003, 11:17 AM
Post #15 of 38
(3373 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 26, 2001
Posts: 652
|
"Describing bouldering as climbing is an insult and dishonors the history, the tradition, and the spirit of our still proud sport."
Complete and utter bull$#!&. You are either trolling or are on crack.
Bouldering and all other types of climbing are the history, tradition and spirit of our sport. Labelling climbers as this, that or the other is a modern phenomenon.
You climb rocks, on a regular basis, roped or unroped, short or tall and you are a climber.
Pre-sport climbing revolution (mid-eighties) we were all called climbers.....whether you soley bouldered, or bouldered and "did" "trad", and further the "traditional" climbing label only arose because of "sport climbing" by those who wanted to distance themselves from the sexy and "unethical" sport climbing.
I do all types of climbing, respect all types of climbing and am a climber. You'll find that despite the conventional wisdom most humans who climb do more than one type of climbing and if they are concentarting on one type at a particular moment in their lives will almost definately try other types.
Your so-called "passion" is divisive and destructive.
So there.
Mick
www.rockfax.com
|
|
|
|
|
crumpy
Jan 6, 2003, 11:37 AM
Post #16 of 38
(3373 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 27, 2002
Posts: 7
|
Man labels scare me... think I'll just keep messing about climbing a bit...
|
|
|
|
|
rockfax
Jan 6, 2003, 11:54 AM
Post #17 of 38
(3373 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 26, 2001
Posts: 652
|
Exactly Crumpy.
Mick
www.rockfax.com
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Jan 6, 2003, 12:45 PM
Post #18 of 38
(3373 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
Well, technical skill may have improved, but I say they can't touch the pioneers who had nowhere near the available gear offered today. They faced the same hardships, same difficulties, yet weren't as "safe" as they are today.
Both old and new are fantastic, but old will always kick ass.
|
|
|
|
|
djmeat
Jan 6, 2003, 7:56 PM
Post #19 of 38
(3373 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 4497
|
So what your saying is the originators may not have climb as high a grade. But that trail blazing(or wildtrail blazing) is always more difficult that just following in some one elses foot steps.
|
|
|
|
|
jgill
Jan 7, 2003, 1:58 AM
Post #20 of 38
(3373 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 18, 2002
Posts: 653
|
Kalcario, I sense that you are sincere about your views of bouldering and climbing - and you have every right to your opinion - but am curious why you issue them from behind a veil of anonymity?
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jan 7, 2003, 3:08 AM
Post #21 of 38
(3373 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
kalcario,
I too believe that there should be precision when using the English language. However, I do not follow any string of logic in your arguments regarding bouldering and climbing.
You said,
"People who jump off 10 meter diving boards are not skydiving. Telling people you are going surfing and then going skimboarding and not even getting your shorts wet, or describing your ping pong match as a good round of tennis because you were hitting a ball over a net,"
These examples above would, in my opinion be disingenuous representations of the activities listed. However there is absolutely no logical connection between the above comments and your next statement:
"or telling people you are going climbing and not getting more than 10 feet off the ground...this is called "being disingenuous".
Climbing does indeed have a precise definition in our language and it is "to move upward on....to ascend" (American Heritage College Dictionary.) Can you seriously argue that bouldering does not fit within the factual definition of climbing?
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
jonf
Jan 7, 2003, 5:22 AM
Post #22 of 38
(3373 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2002
Posts: 123
|
I think the equipment improvements have had some responsibility in the difficult climbing that is now being done, but it is also one of the least important factors. Training, gyms and genetics all play a part also. But I feel the true advancement is coming from a more mental aspect. Climbers nowadays view routes in the 5.10 - 5.12 range as being not very difficult while a number of years ago these were considered the high end of climbing. If climbers view 5.11 as being routine they begin to climb routes of that difficulty routinely, but if they saw them as being beyond their abitlity then their chances of succeding on them diminishes. Dave Graham went from climbing 5.9 to climbing 5.14 in 18 months. Training cannot explain such rapid success because the body takes a long time to develop muscle and lay capillary beds in the forearms. Sure he has alot of talent and genetic ability, but climbers in the past with that same amount of natural talent would not have progressed that quickly if they saw the know limit of climbing as being 5.12 or 5.13. I think dave was able to improve so quickly because he was not intimidated by these difficult routes and saw them as being well within his reach. I would not say that dave is a much better climber than wolfgang gulich yet he sent action direct much more quickly, and improvements in equipment cannot be very responsible for that.
|
|
|
|
|
zzsean
Jan 7, 2003, 6:13 AM
Post #23 of 38
(3373 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2002
Posts: 42
|
wow, this thread turned interesting.
kalcario, how can you possibly, with a straight face, say that Bouldering is not a valid form of climbing.
Do you know nothing of the history of climbing ? As a person who obviously enjoys big wall climbing have you no knowledge of the history of bouldering in Camp 4 itself ? With classic problems put up by Royal Robbins and Pat Ament as one just one example.
Perhaps, the bouldering done by the likes of John Long and John Bachar in more semi-recent times still ring in your mind ?
Who cares if many kids nowdays are infatuated with climbing hard moves a mere 6 foot of the ground instead of hanging from the walls of yosemite ? They are still outside having fun at what they do and pushing their own personal limits. To degrade their dedication and achievements is to degrade similar dedication from the likes of one John Gill. Would you call John Gill a "non-climber" ?
As Mick pointed out, but that you seemed to ignore, Zangerl does more than bouldering and has done plenty of roped climbing in his time.
Back on the original topic - improvements in technology as always been a part of climbing, simply look at big wall climbing since the 50's. And yet limits are pushed beyond what technology could ever provide alone - in all aspects of climbing - The mountains, Ice, Big Walls, Trad, Sport and Bouldering.
Cheers.
[ This Message was edited by: zzsean on 2003-01-06 22:15 ]
|
|
|
|
|
vicum
Jan 7, 2003, 6:47 AM
Post #24 of 38
(3373 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 18, 2001
Posts: 167
|
kalcio, your definition of climbing has a serious flaw, which I believe I have pointed out before.
When an un-roped fall means certain death is required for the activity to be considered climbing, you are rarely, if ever climbing. Certain death is a very drastic term. Death is rarely certain.
We read all the time about people taking one pitch ground falls and surviving. Thus, they are not "climbing."
Is there some vertical point at which you can define “certain death?” Is there some point when a line goes from bouldering to free soloing, when one actually begins “climbing”?
I don’t think so. People have even survived sky diving accidents. You can not, therefore possibly claim that even scaling El Cap is climbing.
All I can say is that your definition of climbing is ridiculous. The dictionary defines it quite well. I think that this argument is why we have developed sub-categories to climbing. That is, aid climbing, trad climbing, sport climbing, and bouldering. Do we need to say, "boulder climbing" or something?
~Arnold
[ This Message was edited by: vicum on 2003-01-06 22:48 ]
|
|
|
|
|
spandexomo
Jan 7, 2003, 8:43 PM
Post #25 of 38
(3334 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 14, 2002
Posts: 34
|
kilomojaro is a traddy chuffwit. he embodies the stereotypical elitist traddy attitude i know and despise. there are tons of 5.6 traddies here in ny at the gunks that have the same attitude. if they suck at it, they try to bring it down. call it what you will, you still won't be able to do it. and its ok to bolder v0 with a power spot, i think everyone should do what they feel is fun. but just cuz you can't climb vb, doesn't mean it isn't climbing. troll. heh.
i love to trad climb. but traddies really are the dumbest of all climbers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
