Training for Climbing, 2nd: The Definitive Guide to Improving Your Performance (How To Climb Series)

correlation between fitness and climbing ability. The stronger climbers were not necessarily the better climbers, so mental and technical differences account for the difference in ability.
    Another, more complex study (Mermier 2000) looked at a larger group of forty-four male and female climbers with a wider range of abilities (5.6 to 5.13c). The results showed that the variance in climbing performance related primarily to trainable variables, and that anthropometric variables (height, weight, arm and leg length, arm span, percent of body fat, and the like) were not a statistically significant factor. So this study also supports my sense that by optimizing technical and mental skills (the trainable variables), the average climber should be able to progress to a high level of climbing, possibly even as high as 5.13c. Note that no 5.14 climbers were included in the study, so we don’t know if inclusion of these world-class individuals would have yielded similar results (I suspect not).
    In fact, a third, very similar study (Watts 1993) looked only at world-class climbers (those competing in the semifinals at a World Cup event). It found that these elite individuals exhibited a higher grip-strength-to-body-mass ratio, had a lower percentage of body fat, and were of a slightly smaller stature when compared with other athletic groups. This study supports the idea that those world-class 5.14 climbers are born, not made, in that they are extreme outliers with just the right build to be able to climb at the highest levels of difficulty.

Great Genetics Don’t Guarantee You’ll Be a Great Climber
     
    Still, the premise that climbing requires equal mastery of mental, technical, and physical abilities means that good genes aren’t enough to make you a rock star. Just as genetically average individuals can progress to climbing 5.12 or 5.13 by perfecting their technical and mental skill sets, genetic freaks who can crush bricks in their hands may forever remain 5.10 climbers due to poor technique or lack of mental skills.
    Consider figure 1.3, which depicts the genetic potential (solid line) and real-life ability (dashed line) of a climber with average genetic makeup versus the brick-crushing genetic freak. Through dedicated, intelligent training of all the elements under her control, the average climber has pushed her ability almost the whole way out to her genetic potential. The superstrong genetic freak, on the other hand, with his poor technique and mental control, is an underachieving slacker when you compare his real-life performance with his genetic potential. Comparatively, the genetically average climber pushed the dashed line out farther and is, thus, the real master of rock!
    Next time you go to the gym or crag, observe all the men and women, of all ages, shapes, and sizes, who are climbing 5.11, 5.12, and even 5.13. The vast majority of these folks are of average genetic makeup (located near the middle of the bell curve in figure 1.2), but through dedication and hard work on all aspects of the climbing game, they have succeeded at pushing their dashed line out toward the edge of their genetic limitations.

Limits to Climbing Performance
     
    The top climbing grade exploded upward from 5.12d in the mid-1970s to 5.14b by the end of the 1980s. The primary reasons for this marked improvement are equipment (better shoes, stickier shoe rubber, easy-to-place active camming devices, and bolt-protected routes), better training (indoor walls, fin-gerboards, and so on), and more effective practice methods (hangdogging). In 1991 Wolfgang Güllich upped the ante with his ascent of Action Directe (5.14d). This route went unrepeated for five years and has since seen only a handful of repeats, despite attempts by many of the world’s best climbers.

     
    Figure 1.3 Genetic Potential
     

    Now, more than fifteen years after the first ascent of Action Directe , the benchmark of maximum difficulty has been stretched to 5.15a/b and V16. Given the length of time required to consolidate the 5.15a grade, we have to wonder if we are approaching human limitations to free climbing. While we can never rule out another breakthrough in technology (equipment), it’s highly unlikely that we will see another grade explosion as occurred during the 1980s. Instead, slow increases will occur over the time frame of decades.
    For a glimpse of what we might expect, let’s look at several “mature” Olympic events. Over the last fifty years,