Comparing climbing grades to running times

Okay we can ask Chris Sharma what time he runs a 5k in.

I don't think Chris Sharma has the desire to run a 5K, but the question is , what would be equivelent efforts to achieve equivelent levels of expertise....

In reality its all a pissing match... just go out there , and with whatever time YOU wish to invest, do what YOU can do...

I don't think there's much more correlation than, say, this:
5.0 - 5.5 Reading "The Secret."
5.6 - 5.8 Reading Depak Chopra
5.9 - 5.10+ Voltaire (Not particularly demanding, but plenty of meat)
5.11 - 5.12 Descarte
5.13 Hume
5.14 Kant

I'd be interested to see this comparison done for mile times because, you know, this is America, dammit. If we want to talk, kilometers, perhaps we should also be using Frenchy grades.

In all seriousness, though, I think that (for sport climbing), the mile is a more appropriate comparison in terms of length of effort, power vs. endurance, etc for the standard American sport pitch. Maybe even the 400 meter. A short power route in Wild Iris might only be a 200 m; a boulder problem might be the 100 m. A mega endurance route in Spain might be a 5 k; a long, sustained trad pitch might also equate to a 5 k. A sustained and varied multi-pitch route might be like the decathalon, requiring you to apply a diverse set of skills over the course of a day. Our best marathon analogy, methinks, is the Nose speed record.

Paul Leverich wrote:Okay we can ask Chris Sharma what time he runs a 5k in.

Paul, the question being discussed IS NOT how fast can Sharma run a 5k or how hard can Rupp crank down. The question is about finding times and grades that show close to equivalent levels of talent and training in either discipline. No one beside yourself has suggested that we ask a strong (sport) climber to run a 5k. It isn't necessary for one person to climb 5.14 and run a 14:30

Who here actually runs and climbs regularly? I do both, although my distance is 6-13 miles. A 6 minute mile or three of them in the case of a 5k means 1:30 laps on the track, 12 of them. That's not a joke! Whoever is throwing around sub-18 mins like they are a 5.11s or 5.12s needs to reevaluate, or hit the track to find out what three six minute miles feels like. Or maybe this just means I take my climbing more seriously than my running.

I think you are Evan. I was a competitive runner before being a full time climber. Running is more of a competitive sport. Climbing has never been competitive to me. I do not work "projects". I guided some gal recently who supposedly "projected 5.12" but was paying me to take her up 5.10.

I lead the same on trad as I would sport. I consider 5.12 and above as too much work. I ran 16 min+ 5ks (at the appropriate age!) consistently with adequate speed training which was always pretty straight forward to me. I ran 36 min 10ks...my main motivator? beating friends who ran the same pace. In contrast, I could care less what goes on in the 5.13 and above world. I derive similar satisfaction from a huge 5.9 remote alpine day as I do pushing myself on some 5.11 Jtree single pitch, but they are vastly different experiences. Racing is the same experience for me, marathon or 5k.

Climbing and Running are like comparing apples to oranges....no way to draw much correlation except over weight people do poorly in both. Virtually impossible to be elite in both as each devours time to be at that level, same as any two Olympic sports. An elite swimmer is not going to get a medal in skiing.

I am one of the more diversified back country enthusiast you will find, bc skiing, waterfall ice, alpine, rock, trail running, xcountry skiing...trust me...you kind of suck when you do everything...but even if you just pick out two (i.e. running and climbing)...they will steal time from each other.

Evan Riley wrote:Who here actually runs and climbs regularly? I do both, although my distance is 6-13 miles. A 6 minute mile or three of them in the case of a 5k means 1:30 laps on the track, 12 of them. That's not a joke! Whoever is throwing around sub-18 mins like they are a 5.11s or 5.12s needs to reevaluate, or hit the track to find out what three six minute miles feels like. Or maybe this just means I take my climbing more seriously than my running.

I'm not sure if you're saying 6min/mi times are good or bad. I did a little under 8 miles last night averaging a 7min/mi. The hill at the end always drops my times. The first three miles were in the six minute range and I wasn't pushing. If I am only running three miles, and on flat ground, I can hold mid 5min/mi. I'm not competitive with real runners either.

Dow Williams wrote:I think you are Evan. I was a competitive runner before being a full time climber. Running is more of a competitive sport. Climbing has never been competitive to me. I do not work "projects". I guided some gal recently who supposedly "projected 5.12" but was paying me to take her up 5.10. I lead the same on trad as I would sport. I consider 5.12 and above as too much work. I ran 16 min+ 5ks (at the appropriate age!) consistently with adequate speed training which was always pretty straight forward to me. I ran 36 min 10ks...my main motivator? beating friends who ran the same pace. In contrast, I could care less what goes on in the 5.13 and above world. I derive similar satisfaction from a huge 5.9 remote alpine day as I do pushing myself on some 5.11 Jtree single pitch, but they are vastly different experiences. Racing is the same experience for me, marathon or 5k. Climbing and Running are like comparing apples to oranges....no way to draw much correlation except over weight people do poorly in both. Virtually impossible to be elite in both as each devours time to be at that level, same as any two Olympic sports. An elite swimmer is not going to get a medal in skiing. I am one of the more diversified back country enthusiast you will find, bc skiing, waterfall ice, alpine, rock, trail running, xcountry skiing...trust me...you kind of suck when you do everything...but even if you just pick out two (i.e. running and climbing)...they will steal time from each other.

This is a good point. Call it spraying if you want but to me just sounds like personal experience.

When I used to run competitively, I ran almost every day, and almost all of those days were focused on training rather than enjoyment. During the season we would have a race every 2 weeks or so, with most of those races also being "training" kind of like taking burns on a project. At the end of the season you'd have state, regionals, etc, which was basically what you spent all that time training for.

Who here trains all year to peak for 2-3 really hard red points? I certainly don't. I climb pretty regularly since I live close enough to be able to do that, but most of it isn't really "training". My training plan for climbing is roughly: sometimes I try hard stuff if I'm psyched.

Then again that could be why I think 5.12 is really hard but 20 min 5k is pretty cruiser.

I will also say that with running I was mostly in it "to win", whereas climbing I could give a fuck. Climbing is also more fun (for me), partly due to lack of competitiveness. YMMV

Ryan Watts wrote: Climbing is also more fun (for me), partly due to lack of competitiveness. YMMV

True. And even those of us who thrived on competition at a young age, lose quite a bit of that competitive spirit as we age, not a bad thing, just reality. Races have this scam called "Masters" division. So when folks turn 40 they can magically become competitive again. They make as big to do, prizes, etc. at races about the master winner as they do the open winner. I admit that worked on me some, I lived in Canmore at the time I turned 40 and competed is this stellar summer long series in Alberta called Five Peaks. Where you essentially raced up five mountains and at the end of the summer they calculated the winner. You win a pair of tail running shoes this way, they become much more valuable than if you paid for them...but the 39 yr olds kept slipping into the division and by year 4 I could no longer compete for the top spot and lost interest...when I turned 50 (at the bottom of another age category), I was hoping to get back into racing if for nothing more to see how I stood up to my peers via attrition...but the competitive motivator was gone...I don't want to do speed work at the track...I just want to run my beautiful 10k through Snow Canyon State Park while listening to Bill Maher on the head phones at a very causal pace.

In that realm, running can eventually become somewhat similar to climbing in that it is more about the experience than your abilities. But if you are actually racing, I consider the two very different experiences.

I probably sounded like a prick on my post, but I get fruastrated whem people put up road blocks to potential experiences by saying this is hard, or this is really hard.

In running as in climbing, the question is not what number is it (time or grade) but did you get the experience you wanted out of it that you were hoping for. But the chart and discussion of "no this is hard or that is" is all self defeating. I think most people have FAR more potential than we realize, but the reality of life, is that there are other things, jobs, kids, relationships... whatever. Wherever you are at, if you REALLY are honest about yourself, and you feel you did what you wanted to get out the experience you want... feel good about that...

But if the talk is about this is hard or that is, its pretty self-limiting. Myself, I could careless what I did, but the question is,. did I explore my boundries today. If I ever talk to you about a climb or a run, I'll probe you about the experience, not about the number.

Sorry, Just absolutely despise any thread that smacks of "this is hard", or "this is in the realm of experts" or whatever. I just find it limiting.