How many years does it really take to climb an 8a?

giraud b wrote:

Between 4-5 years for the lower quartile according to this study:

https://kate-d.medium.com/how-long-could-it-take-to-climb-my-first-8a-d841f2573518

For the average climber 6 years and the rest if ever, 7 to 8 years.

To sum it up: it isn't easy to climb an 8a regardless of what people think. 

You mean 4-5 years for the upper quartile. Right?

Just keep in mind that these graphs are only for people who have managed to send 8 etc.
People who failed to send such graded are not present on these graphs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

Yes sorry I forgot the stats correct order in box plots. In any case unless you are a gifted climber sending an 8a isn't easy because you basically have to be very strong physically and not just mentally prepared. I remember the case of one of those talented climbers who managed to climb his first 8a in just 2 years of climbing and how he quickly solved a boulder problem I thought it was impossible to do. This was in 1990. He did it effortlessly and on sight! I said to myself: glad I only climb for fun...

giraud b wrote:

Yes sorry I forgot the stats correct order in box plots. In any case unless you are a gifted climber sending an 8a isn't easy because you basically have to be very strong physically and not just mentally prepared. I remember the case of one of those talented climbers who managed to climb his first 8a in just 2 years of climbing and how he quickly solved a boulder problem I thought it was impossible to do. This was in 1990. He did it effortlessly and on sight! I said to myself: glad I only climb for fun...

When you are super strong/weight it opens up a lot of beta that isn’t available to weaker climbers. You might see at as pure skill but I’m guessing it was still impossible for you after he showed you his way of doing it. 

I and countless other climbers don't have that level of strength regardless of how long and often they climb. This particular climber I know was able to free solo in 1992 an overhang, polished and bouldery 8a route. It is known for being a hard 8a. 

Photo:

https://www.8a.nu/crags/sportclimbing/spain/patones/gallery?imageId=140919

Elite athletes exist in any sport and climbing is no different.

giraud b wrote:

I and countless other climbers don't have that level of strength regardless of how long and often they climb. This particular climber I know was able to free solo in 1992 an overhang, polished and bouldery 8a route. It is known for being a hard 8a. 

Photo:

https://www.8a.nu/crags/sportclimbing/spain/patones/gallery?imageId=140919

Elite athletes exist in any sport and climbing is no different.

This is not free soloing, there’s a rope, draws, and no self belay mechanism on him

John Clark wrote:

This is not free soloing, there’s a rope, draws, and no self belay mechanism on him

I don’t think this is the person being referenced. Were those shoes on the market in ‘92? The earliest reference I’ve found for La Sportiva Otaki is 2016. 

Of course is not him. I just wanted to point out the route with a pic.

Doug Chism wrote:

When you are super strong/weight it opens up a lot of beta that isn’t available to weaker climbers. You might see at as pure skill but I’m guessing it was still impossible for you after he showed you his way of doing it. 

Being super strong (in a traditional sense) also only caters to specific styles of climbing. For example, take a solid 8a climber who only ever climbs at the RRG or Rifle and put them in Ten Sleep or Smith and he/she will have to cherry pick which 8a’s they are able to do. Physicality still remains one of the more overrated things in climbing IMO. Look at Dave Graham or a young Ondra. You can have embarrassing physique and still climb very, very, very strong. 

I disagree with your comment. You can't put everyone in white and black boxes. Physicality as being able to climb well doesn't equate to look like an olympic gymnast. I have met many 8a plus climbers who you wouldn't know they were elite climbers by looking at them. W. Gullich on the other hand looked like a bodybuilder until he had to transform his physique in order to redpoint the first 9a. But he was an exception rather than being the norm. Also one of those guys was good at everything except for ice climbing as he wasn't into it. 

Not Not MP Admin wrote:

Being super strong (in a traditional sense) also only caters to specific styles of climbing. For example, take a solid 8a climber who only ever climbs at the RRG or Rifle and put them in Ten Sleep or Smith and he/she will have to cherry pick which 8a’s they are able to do. Physicality still remains one of the more overrated things in climbing IMO. Look at Dave Graham or a young Ondra. You can have embarrassing physique and still climb very, very, very strong. 

What they look like means nothing in terms of climbing strength. I've had people tell me I look like I could climb 8a but I climb 11a, lol. 

Is this a Zen koan ?

giraud b wrote:

I disagree with your comment. 

I’m not sure what you disagree with. Most of what you’re trying to say, I mentioned in my post.

You can't put everyone in white and black boxes. Physicality as being able to climb well doesn't equate to look like an olympic gymnast.

Which was part of my point….

 I have met many 8a plus climbers who you wouldn't know they were elite climbers by looking at them.

Again, part of my point. Hence, why I said physique has very little to do with climbing ability and used Dave Graham as an example….

W. Gullich on the other hand looked like a bodybuilder until he had to transform his physique in order to redpoint the first 9a.

This is a horrible example. Wolfgang climbed 9a while looking like a bodybuilder lol 

Doug Chism wrote:

What they look like means nothing in terms of climbing strength. I've had people tell me I look like I could climb 8a but I climb 11a, lol

Hence why my closing line was, “You can have embarrassing physique and still climb very, very, very strong” lol 

My understanding of what Ondra said in the aforementioned Midtbo/Ondra video was that 8a was probably the upper limit for a person who is not genetically gifted AND who doesn't train like a professional/climb professionally, but whose main pursuit is climbing.  Or in other words, to climb harder than 8a would require some combination of genetic advantage and professional coaching and training.  Which seems to imply to me that Ondra's opinion is that for the average climber (which seemed to me to have it's own implication of fitness, lack of disability, etc.), an 8a redpoint isn't going to come quickly or easily, it's more like the culmination of many years of climbing recreationally.  It also seems to imply that the average climber being able to climb an 8a is dependent on picking an 8a "in their style," as opposed to being able to simply redpoint any random 8a.

Based on my local climbing community, that seems to hold up.  I know lots of climbers who have redpointed in the high .12s, but .13a/b seems to be a pretty precipitous dropoff.  I think some of it comes from self-imposed limits, and I see a similar phenomenon in bouldering.  It's easy to think of 5.12d and 5.13a as completely different levels of difficulty, but a lot of that is just a psychological trick we play on ourselves.  In bouldering, I see lots of climbers treating V10 as something vastly harder than V9 because it is the magical "double digit" delineation, but for European climbers, that "break" happens at V11, but that's only because they use a different grading scale and for them, it's the difference between 7C+ and 8A.  Humans like to think of things in epochs and groups and categories, and those borders we create can lead to perceived limitations.  Think of how many routes or boulder problems we send where our personal perception of difficulty doesn't align with the consensus grade.

It appears that at least certain folks posting on this topic are arguing that anyone, absent a significant obvious handicap, who is willing to put in the time and effort, should be able to climb 8a. I disagree, as I think that most humans do have inherent limitations, both physiological and psychological, that prevent most from reaching certain levels of performance. Do you believe that anyone, with sufficient time and effort, can relatively consistently throw an 85 mph fastball in the strike zone or accurately throw a 30 year pass while being blitzed or run a 4:10 mile, etc?All of these are quite high level athletic milestones, but not close to elite—just like 8a today. Similarly, some have the capacity to understand and solve relativity complex math and physics problems or speak and understand multiple languages, others ( myself included) are at a complete loss but may well have the ability to do other things very well that would stump the mathematician, physicist, or linguist. Likewise, not everyone, or even most, even with time and effort,  can be a chess master or produce passable art.

Maybe in the ‘circle’ of those posters, most of their peers are able to attain 8a, but such circles are usually self-selecting—often quite specifically, even if not intentionally, for the very traits that enable the ‘members’ to climb at those levels. But that is not evidence that ‘anyone’ can do so. Maybe I’m just rationalizing my own lack of performance!!!!

Its funny I don't think too many other sports have quantitative individual benchmark anxiety the way climbing does. Weightlifting, golf...an interesting comparison is chess where everyone who competes does have a "grade". I asked a friend who was a chess "team kid" but pushed by their parents and coaches, who completely gave it up when they got older.

"Is chess kind of like climbing with the grade obsession?"

"OH FUCK YES AHAAAHAAAHA it's exactly the same"

Except they call training "studying" and the grade everyone wants to get to is 2000. For a typical enthusiast it's more like 1500-1600.

I looked and there's some hilarious chess forum threads out there with exactly the same shit as climbing forums.

Anyone can reach 1900 (or not!). I reached 2000 in three years only studying 5 hours a week! In my 20's I reached 2000 in two years not studying at all! (it turned out they were previously a team kid for like five years, doesn't count) How much of chess is natural talent vs study!? The best chess player in the world claims, if you can just  make studying fun, anyone can be a champion!

Alan Rubin wrote:

It appears that at least certain folks posting on this topic are arguing that anyone, absent a significant obvious handicap, who is willing to put in the time and effort, should be able to climb 8a. I disagree, as I think that most humans do have inherent limitations, both physiological and psychological, that prevent most from reaching certain levels of performance. Do you believe that anyone, with sufficient time and effort, can relatively consistently throw an 85 mph fastball in the strike zone or accurately throw a 30 year pass while being blitzed or run a 4:10 mile, etc?All of these are quite high level athletic milestones, but not close to elite—just like 8a today.

Literally any high school quarterback can throw a 30yard pass while being blitzed. That’s not quite an accurate comparison as you have other outside forces (opposing team) involved. Conversely, only less than 20 high schoolers ran under a 4:10 mile last year. I understand your point, and it’s valid, but your example or analogies don’t really add up. Using your examples I think climbing an 8a is infinitely easier to do than running under 4:10 whereas throwing a 30 yard pass while being hit by a linebacker is infinitely easier than climbing 8a

Similarly, some have the capacity to understand and solve relativity complex math and physics problems or speak and understand multiple languages, others ( myself included) are at a complete loss but may well have the ability to do other things very well that would stump the mathematician, physicist, or linguist.

Apples to oranges. You can’t increase intelligence to the same degree you can improve strength, mobility, endurance, etc. 

Maybe in the ‘circle’ of those posters, most of their peers are able to attain 8a, but such circles are usually self-selecting—often quite specifically, even if not intentionally, for the very traits that enable the ‘members’ to climb at those levels. But that is not evidence that ‘anyone’ can do so. Maybe I’m just rationalizing my own lack of performance!!!!

I would argue that the “circles” who have less members of 8a are also the “circles” which tend to be more well-rounded in all sports (i.e. they also mtn bike, trail run, etc) and do not focus solely on climbing and only climbing. Maybe we are saying the same thing, but my point is that once you start adding other hobbies to the mix, climbing 8 a becomes exponentially harder.

What percentage of high school aged people are quarterbacks for their school teams?

Prince Kitty Hatr wrote:

This is completely irrelevant as you’re now limiting the amount of people who could qualify. Multiple players/people would be capable of doing such a task, if given the opportunity. This why it’s an unfair and poor comparison to try and make, as I pointed out earlier. Your analogy to a 4:10 would be more accurate, but still completely subjective. Comparing to another sport is fine if we can make most other factors somewhat relatable. In other words, comparing climbing 8a to chess (and game entirely based on strategy and intelligence) is not relatable. Nor is comparing to a team sport where not everyone has access to the same achievements, as they are often position based (a linebacker will likely not ever be kicking and therefore should not be pooled into kicking stats/benchmarks). Additionally you have outside factors like opposing teams/players that are highly more variable than any outside factors involved with climbing.  

It's interesting that you've so far ignored Alan's first example, which might be the best: throwing 85mph strikes consistently. Like climbing, pitching has a strength component as well as a skill component. And while actually getting outs in a game involves an opponent, just throwing it repeatedly in the strike zone doesn't.

And I guarantee that I can't do that nor can the vast majority of people. Either they can't coordinate their upper and lower bodies to generate the velocity, or if they can, they can't repeat their mechanics to throw consistently, and even if they can do both, a significant percentage of people will suffer repeated elbow, core, or shoulder injuries. the proof is in the numbers here: there are thousands and thousands of middle and high school baseball players out there and talent is very highly developed and scouted because the rewards are enormous. But the vast majority of pitchers (which are already self-selected!) don't even get to this level, which, without a decent breaking ball, isn't gonna get you drafted or even a rotation spot at an ok college program (source).

To also add to this, a quick google search reveals that the sub 4:10 mark for females was just broken a few weeks ago at roughly 4:07. Making this comparison is a bit off and maybe more relatable to 9a than 8a. 8a is so far below elite level, doesn’t mean it’s not hard, but not elite in any sense. I think the elite level grade for sport is probably somewhere around 8c+ for male and 8b+ for female. 

Nkane 1 wrote:

It's interesting that you've so far ignored Alan's first example, which might be the best: throwing 85mph strikes consistently. Like climbing, pitching has a strength component as well as a skill component. And while actually getting outs in a game involves an opponent, just throwing it repeatedly in the strike zone doesn't.

I’ll start out by saying I don’t think comparing the likelihood of climbing 8a to most team sports is an accurate comparison. It’s way too subjective. So anything that I say, and have said this far, is kinda pointless anyways. With that said I don’t think that the throwing 85mph fastball is a horrible comparison, albeit very subjective still. I am not as competent with how hard it is to throw an 85mph strike as I am with track and football therefore I chose to omit it from my argument. However, talking to friends I know that have played baseball their whole lives and/or coached, I am not sure I would consider that elite though. Again, super subjective. My understanding is that just about every JUCO pitcher these days can pitch an 84-85mph fastball in the zone once. Idk the number, again, seems subjective. 

the proof is in the numbers here: there are thousands and thousands of middle and high school baseball players out there and talent is very highly developed and scouted because the rewards are enormous. But the vast majority of pitchers (which are already self-selected!) don't even get to this level, which, without a decent breaking ball, isn't gonna get you drafted or even a rotation spot at an ok college program (source).

Either way I’ve stated that I don’t consider 8a as elite based on numbers of people who can climb the grade. I don’t consider it elite due to how far below the most difficult climbs it is. Your argument is based on someone considering 8a as elite and I’m not. So I’m not sure this comparison is even worth having. Obviously we are arguing over a subjective matter, but I still I think that too many are focusing on how many people can/cannot climb 8a and not on how far below the highest grades 8a is….at least in regards to the categorizing it as “elite” or not conversation.

jessie briggs wrote:

To also add to this, a quick google search reveals that the sub 4:10 mark for females was just broken a few weeks ago at roughly 4:07. Making this comparison is a bit off and maybe more relatable to 9a than 8a. 8a is so far below elite level, doesn’t mean it’s not hard, but not elite in any sense. I think the elite level grade for sport is probably somewhere around 8c+ for male and 8b+ for female.

Again, this is another example why bringing other sports into the conversation to try and argue the likelihood of climbing 8a makes a subjective argument even more subjective lol