Chalk Usage In Climbing

j mo wrote:

Weird how you never see these anti chalk folks at the crag, crushing and loving life.

You know what must really make them mad?  Roads. Cities. Trails. Ropes. Gear. Humans. Other things like this. 

Yet you use all of these things to live your life and couldn't exist without them.  You must be really conflicted.  

Referencing the two chalk-less climbing photos posted earlier: is chalk more useful for face/sport climbing, than it is for trad climbing (ie using cracks to wedge body parts in)? Noticed both photos posted seemed to be more about jamming than crimping, and wandering if the chalk-less crew is more apt to leave chalk on the ground for crack climbs vs. face climbing? Hope that question makes sense…

Curmudgeon Don wrote:

Referencing the two chalk-less climbing photos posted earlier: is chalk more useful for face/sport climbing, than it is for trad climbing (ie using cracks to wedge body parts in)? Noticed both photos posted seemed to be more about jamming than crimping, and wandering if the chalk-less crew is more apt to leave chalk on the ground for crack climbs vs. face climbing? Hope that question makes sense…

Personally I just don't use chalk. I think my hands sweat less the most people's. My comment was meant to be taken as a joke, though. I don't care if others use it. Though it can be quite enjoyable to get on a route without any chalk and find holds and sequences for oneself.

The amazing thing is how chalk helps you on holdless slab. Mental friction for sure. 

Long before the recent studies, John Stannard did his own study, using rock from Yosemite, Eldorado Canyon, and the Gunks.  What he found is that heavily chalked hands had less grip than bare hands but lightly chalked hands did better than bare hands.  Back when chalk first appeared on the scene, a huge number of climbers tried it and concluded that it enhanced their grip,  Any lab experiment that leads to a different conclusion is probably flawed, for instance ignoring the distinction Stannard found between light and heavy dustings.

Chalk serves another function, mentioned by John Gill with respect to rope-climbing: it keeps climbers' hands from depositing skin oils on the holds. Eysore that chalk is, and unfortunate as it is to downgrade routes into follow-the-dots sequences of holds, things would probably be worse if no one used chalk, and holds got horribly greasy from repeated use.

Although Gill initiated the use of chalk, I doubt things would have gotten out of hand with his approach, which was to dust a tiny amount on the fingertips from a block.  This barely transferred to the rock; even after multiple ascents there were no white-hold highways.  The big change happened in Yosemite and I think was due to Jim Bridwell, although I'm happy to be corrected about that. Yosemite climbers saw the need to chalk, not only for their fingertips for some crux moves, but also for the whole hand, front and back, for hand-jamming, move after move.  And so it was that the chalk bag was born, something Gill and other early chalk adopters never used or imagined.  And then the chalk bag, which made sense for crack climbing, became the de facto chalk application modality for all climbing, and we ended up the mess we now have.  A mess, by the way, that is exacerbated by gear stores and manufacturers, who sell beginner packages that invariably include a chalk bag.

There are two things that would make the situation better.  One is the chalk sock, invented by Stannard to reduce the amount of chalk applied to the hand and so actually confer a grip benefit.  The other is liquid chalk, which first of all dries out the hand because of the alcohol content, and then applies a coating that stays on the hand much longer than chalk bag dustings and does not transfer to the rock as readily.  The combination of liquid chalk and a chalk sock provides the best increase in grip with a far lower destructive footprint, both visually and in terms of hold-caking.  But the contemporary climber is so addicted to heavy suboptimal chalk coatings that the chalk sock, leveraged with liquid chalk, never caught on.

rgold wrote:

Long before the recent studies, John Stannard did his own study, using rock from Yosemite, Eldorado Canyon, and the Gunks.  What he found is that heavily chalked hands had less grip than bare hands but lightly chalked hands did better than bare hands.  Back when chalk first appeared on the scene, a huge number of climbers tried it and concluded that it enhanced their grip,  Any lab experiment that leads to a different conclusion is probably flawed, for instance ignoring the distinction Stannard found between light and heavy dustings.

Chalk serves another function, mentioned by John Gill with respect to rope-climbing: it keeps climbers' hands from depositing skin oils on the holds. Eysore that chalk is, and unfortunate as it is to downgrade routes into follow-the-dots sequences of holds, things would probably be worse if no one used chalk, and holds got horribly greasy from repeated use.

Although Gill initiated the use of chalk, I doubt things would have gotten out of hand with his approach, which was to dust a tiny amount on the fingertips from a block.  This barely transferred to the rock; even after multiple ascents there were no white-hold highways.  The big change happened in Yosemite and I think was due to Jim Bridwell, although I'm happy to be corrected about that. Yosemite climbers saw the need to chalk, not only for their fingertips for some crux moves, but also for the whole hand, front and back, for hand-jamming, move after move.  And so it was that the chalk bag was born, something Gill and other early chalk adopters never used or imagined.  And then the chalk bag, which made sense for crack climbing, became the de facto chalk application modality for all climbing, and we ended up the mess we now have.  A mess, by the way, that is exacerbated by gear stores and manufacturers, who cell beginner packages that invariably include a chalk bag.

There are two things that would make the situation better.  One is the chalk sock, invented by Stannard to reduce the amount of chalk applied to the hand and so actually confer a grip benefit.  The other is liquid chalk, which first of all dries out the hand because of the alcohol content, and then applies a coating that stays on the hand much longer than chalk bag dustings and does not transfer to the rock as readily.  The combination of liquid chalk and a chalk sock provides the best increase in grip with a far lower destructive footprint, both visually and in terms of hold-caking.  But the contemporary climber is so addicted to heavy suboptimal chalk coatings that the chalk sock, leveraged with liquid chalk, never caught on.

Write a book full of stories and history and stuff like this and I will pay you a lot of money for it. Like let's say you go really crazy and publish a huge hard cover coffee table book and sell it for one hundred freaking dollars-- I'd be buying two. Or just email me a PDF, I'm not picky and heck it's working out for Sloan! 

No, but really, think about it. 

My answers: (1) Yes (2) No (3) Chalk has yet to make my eyes sore. 

rgold wrote: This barely transferred to the rock; even after multiple ascents there were no white-hold highways.  The big change happened in Yosemite and I think was due to Jim Bridwell, although I'm happy to be corrected about that. Yosemite climbers saw the need to chalk, not only for their fingertips for some crux moves, but also for the whole hand, front and back, for hand-jamming, move after move.  And so it was that the chalk bag was born, something Gill and other early chalk adopters never used or imagined.  And then the chalk bag, which made sense for crack climbing, became the de facto chalk application modality for all climbing, and we ended up the mess we now have.  A mess, by the way, that is exacerbated by gear stores and manufacturers, who sell beginner packages that invariably include a chalk bag.

So we can blame OG Tradsters for the chalk epidemic, and not sport climbers… Great news! Thanks rgold, that definitely makes sense. 

The chalk bag makes sense not only for crack climbing but any kind of multi pitch climbing.

Kevin Mokracek wrote:

The chalk bag makes sense not only for crack climbing but any kind of multi pitch climbing.

I use one (with a chalk sock) for multi pitch.  But before the chalk bag I also did a lot of multipitch climbing with no chalk and then a lot of multipitch climbing up to 5.10 with one or two small chalk chunks in my pocket for the odd crimpy move, and this would have been true of all the climbers I knew.  So the chalk bag "makes sense" in the context of a belief that we need full hand dustings for every pitch.  It isn't the chalk bag that does or doesn't make sense, it is the belief in the necessity of chalk that is now a virtual article of faith that could, in some alternate world, be questioned.

rgold wrote:

I use one (with a chalk sock) for multi pitch.  But before the chalk bag I also did a lot of multipitch climbing with no chalk and then a lot of multipitch climbing up to 5.10 with one or two small chalk chunks in my pocket for the odd crimpy move, and this would have been true of all the climbers I knew.  So the chalk bag "makes sense" in the context of a belief that we need full hand dustings for every pitch.  It isn't the chalk bag that does or doesn't make sense, it is the belief in the necessity of chalk that is now a virtual article of faith that could, in some alternate world, be questioned.

The chalk bag makes sense in terms of convenience.   

Curmudgeon Don wrote:

So we can blame OG Tradsters for the chalk epidemic, and not sport climbers… Great news! Thanks rgold, that definitely makes sense. 

Oh yeah, we OG tradsters own this one.  But in the case of single pitches, folks like Stannard used to rap down after an ascent with a spray bottle and clean all the chalk off the holds.  Now with the frequency of use and queues on popular routes, there is no way this could be done even if climbers had Stannard's environmental sensibilities--which few have.

The only thing I'd add is that none of the OG tradsters could have anticipated the explosion of popularity of climbing and the sheer number of participants at the crag. In our day, climbers were small and the crags were immense; it didn't seem as if any puny human intervention could possibly have much in the way of impact. That said, given the human race's proven inclination to destroy the planet, even when the warning signs are crystal-clear, it is questionable whether climbers BITD would have restrained themselves at all, even if they saw clearly where the chalk tsunami was headed.

I also vividly remember John Stannard saying "No one needs chalk more than a 5.4 leader, off route, on 5.7 rock." I suspect this was in response to people complaining about chalk showing up on easier climbs. Now I often see chalk on the second flatiron. I suppose it's better than greasy holds.

The wise adage: "The key to success is heavy pre chalking" has never let me down.

I love the sight of a well chalked climb; it looks like victory.

After years of using chalk when exercising on the horizontal ladder at the park, I now use cherry Lifesavers in damp rag instead. Works better and no unsightly white residue.