|
camhead
Dec 15, 2011, 10:37 PM
Post #26 of 37
(3063 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
jomagam wrote: DouglasHunter wrote: At an event two weeks ago I am pretty sure the MC introduced her as the first woman to climb 5.14d. Is there anything behind that other than misinformation ? I've heard some people questioning Charlotte Durif's ascent, but I don't really understand why. Are there any doubts about Josune Bereciartu's climb, or its rating ?
Please re-read my initial comment. Josune has not sent just one 14d, she's sent several. Check her wikipedia page for more info. And no, I have heard no doubts about her ascents, or about them being on soft routes. Haven't heard anything about Durif, either, though.
The false fixations on Sasha being the "first" may be partly the fact that Americans tend to only care about other Americans. Of, it might be that Josune is actually a dude.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
damienclimber
Dec 16, 2011, 12:16 AM
Post #28 of 37
(3038 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2011
Posts: 313
|
Alex Honnold solos many routes with no one around to see his 5.14's!
|
|
|
|
|
DouglasHunter
Dec 16, 2011, 7:06 PM
Post #29 of 37
(3012 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2010
Posts: 106
|
jomagam wrote: DouglasHunter wrote: At an event two weeks ago I am pretty sure the MC introduced her as the first woman to climb 5.14d. Is there anything behind that other than misinformation ? I've heard some people questioning Charlotte Durif's ascent, but I don't really understand why. Are there any doubts about Josune Bereciartu's climb, or its rating ?
I think the MC just made a mistake or didn't know the full story. I tend to agree with Camhead that the horizons of American climbing are pretty limited and we often don't know what is going on in the rest of the world. The American climbing media could do a much better job of reporting on Europe and Asia.
|
|
|
|
|
rossross
Dec 21, 2011, 6:40 PM
Post #30 of 37
(2875 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 29, 2007
Posts: 40
|
jacques wrote: Fortunately, climbing hard and challenging ourself in an unsight route is qualify by sport and trad climbing.
What?
jacques wrote: I wonder how many hours of training (any sport) and rock training do we need to climb 5.14? and how many people can afford so much time?
The general rule for this is the "rule of 10,000". Basically means if you truely want to master something you must spend at least 10,000 hrs practicing and training. That said, once you have spent that much time climbing you are not guarenteed to be climbing 14d, but more likely to be very close to your personal genetic potential.
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
Dec 22, 2011, 2:59 AM
Post #31 of 37
(2812 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
rossross wrote: jacques wrote: Fortunately, climbing hard and challenging ourself in an unsight route is qualify by sport and trad climbing. What? jacques wrote: I wonder how many hours of training (any sport) and rock training do we need to climb 5.14? and how many people can afford so much time? The general rule for this is the "rule of 10,000". Basically means if you truely want to master something you must spend at least 10,000 hrs practicing and training. That said, once you have spent that much time climbing you are not guarenteed to be climbing 14d, but more likely to be very close to your personal genetic potential.
One number based on a best seller doesn't make it it right.
|
|
|
|
|
surfstar
Dec 22, 2011, 6:01 AM
Post #32 of 37
(2789 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 31, 2011
Posts: 206
|
<-- 1 vote for worst thread of the month
|
|
|
|
|
rossross
Dec 22, 2011, 4:55 PM
Post #33 of 37
(2753 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 29, 2007
Posts: 40
|
guangzhou wrote: rossross wrote: jacques wrote: Fortunately, climbing hard and challenging ourself in an unsight route is qualify by sport and trad climbing. What? jacques wrote: I wonder how many hours of training (any sport) and rock training do we need to climb 5.14? and how many people can afford so much time? The general rule for this is the "rule of 10,000". Basically means if you truely want to master something you must spend at least 10,000 hrs practicing and training. That said, once you have spent that much time climbing you are not guarenteed to be climbing 14d, but more likely to be very close to your personal genetic potential. One number based on a best seller doesn't make it it right.
Well first off that "rule" was not based on the best seller Outliers. The theory was based mainly on a study performed by Dr. K. Anders Ericsson, who is widely recognized as the world leader in expertise. There have been a number of books on the subject published long before Outliers, such as Toward a General Theory of Expertise and The Road to Excellence: The Acquisition of Expert Performance in the Arts and Sciences, Sports and Games.
But yeh its not an exact science by far. But its pretty obvious that the more time you spend at something the better you get. i would bet that over 90% of climbers who climb 5.14 have spent over 10,000 hrs climbing/training.
Read more, post less uneducated one liners. You can feel smart for a justified reason then, as opposed to being a rc.com expert on everything.....
|
|
|
|
|
rangerrob
Dec 22, 2011, 6:35 PM
Post #34 of 37
(2730 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 8, 2003
Posts: 641
|
If Dr. Ericsson is the world leader in expertise, does that, by his own definition, mean that he has spent over 10,000 hours studying and practising expertise?
|
|
|
|
|
robdotcalm
Dec 22, 2011, 8:33 PM
Post #35 of 37
(2710 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1027
|
In reply to: The general rule for this is the "rule of 10,000". Basically means if you truely want to master something you must spend at least 10,000 hrs practicing and training. That said, once you have spent that much time climbing you are not guarenteed to be climbing 14d, but more likely to be very close to your personal genetic potential.
Having spent a little time practicing and training for various activities, I can assure you with some confidence that both are highly over rated and joyless activities that only appeal to those who feel the need for a trainer or guru. They will in no way overcome a lack of talent.
Rob.calm
(This post was edited by robdotcalm on Dec 22, 2011, 8:35 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
rossross
Dec 22, 2011, 9:26 PM
Post #36 of 37
(2700 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 29, 2007
Posts: 40
|
robdotcalm wrote: In reply to: The general rule for this is the "rule of 10,000". Basically means if you truely want to master something you must spend at least 10,000 hrs practicing and training. That said, once you have spent that much time climbing you are not guarenteed to be climbing 14d, but more likely to be very close to your personal genetic potential. Having spent a little time practicing and training for various activities, I can assure you with some confidence that both are highly over rated and joyless activities that only appeal to those who feel the need for a trainer or guru. They will in no way overcome a lack of talent. Rob.calm
I think you are misunderstanding the meaning of practicing and training for this discussion. Practicing and training by no means have to be joyless.
climbing outdoors, for fun, falls under "practice/training"
so does campusing
so does onsighting
so does long trad routes
so does pretty much anything related to climbing
Practicing/ training, in this sense reffers to anything associated with the said activity. It does not mean only going to the gym and campusing and doing pullups.
I think the more time you spend "practicing/training" (aka climbing!) the more talented a climber you will become (up to a certain point). You think this is wrong?
The more time you spend doing something, more often then not you actually do become more talented at that activity. Its pretty hard to increase you talent in a specific field without increasing your experience (practicing/training/doing). And yes people have varrying level of natural talent and limits on what they can achieve genetically.
I knew as soon as I put down the rule of 10000 i would get these replys. Forget dwelling on the semantics, all it basiclly means is the more time you spend on something they better you get at it, and that generally it takes around that much time to become very talented/profecient/good/knowledgeable at it.
(This post was edited by rossross on Dec 22, 2011, 9:44 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
Dec 23, 2011, 1:19 AM
Post #37 of 37
(2673 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
rossross wrote: robdotcalm wrote: In reply to: The general rule for this is the "rule of 10,000". Basically means if you truely want to master something you must spend at least 10,000 hrs practicing and training. That said, once you have spent that much time climbing you are not guarenteed to be climbing 14d, but more likely to be very close to your personal genetic potential. Having spent a little time practicing and training for various activities, I can assure you with some confidence that both are highly over rated and joyless activities that only appeal to those who feel the need for a trainer or guru. They will in no way overcome a lack of talent. Rob.calm I think you are misunderstanding the meaning of practicing and training for this discussion. Practicing and training by no means have to be joyless.
I agree here, doesn't have to be joyless
In reply to: climbing outdoors, for fun, falls under "practice/training" so does campusing so does onsighting so does long trad routes so does pretty much anything related to climbing
Not 100% accurate
In reply to: Practicing/ training, in this sense reffers to anything associated with the said activity. It does not mean only going to the gym and campusing and doing pullups. I think the more time you spend "practicing/training" (aka climbing!) the more talented a climber you will become (up to a certain point). You think this is wrong?
Yes I do. I know plenty of people who spend more time climbing than others, but who don't push themselves, so never become better. How much time you spend is only a small factor, how you spend that time is a bigger factor.
If I spend five hours a week doing pull ups to improve my climbing, I won't get better at climbing, although the pull-ups are part of my "training for climbing" program. I will just get better at doing pull-ups.
Same is true of climbing, if I spend two days a week climbing routes at the 5.8 level with no problem, but never get on 5.9 and 5.10, I won't get better at climbing routes that are harder.
Time spent is only a very small factor. What you do with the time spent is much more important. the 10,000 hour rule of thumb falls under the practice longer, not practice smarter philosophy.
In reply to: The more time you spend doing something, more often then not you actually do become more talented at that activity. Its pretty hard to increase you talent in a specific field without increasing your experience (practicing/training/ doing). And yes people have varrying level of natural talent and limits on what they can achieve genetically.
Again, you only improve if you push yourself along the way. They are many climber who don't push themselves, so don't get better faster.
Average 8 hours of climbing a week, hard to do when you consider how long eight hours of climbing actually is. (Not eight hours at the climbing gym, cliff, bouldering, but 8 hours actually being on the cliff moving)
That would equal 416 hours of actual climbing a year. to reach the goal of 10,000 hours, you would have to climb almost 25 years.
In reply to: I knew as soon as I put down the rule of 10000 i would get these replys. Forget dwelling on the semantics, all it basiclly means is the more time you spend on something they better you get at it, and that generally it takes around that much time to become very talented/profecient/good/knowledgeable at it.
Again, more time doesn't equal getting better. How you spend that time has far more influence on how much you progress.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
