Hardest achievable grade without being genetically gifted?

In the how many years to climb 8a thread, I referenced a Magnus Midtbo video that he and Adam Ondra agreed that they thought anyone (barring disability) could achieve 8a (sport climbing) if they worked hard enough and dedicated their lives to it. After that, you needed to be gifted genetically/natural talent etc.

I agree.

Many people disagree.

So I pose the question:

What do you think is the highest achievable grade the the average person can reach?

This means they are willing to do whatever it takes to reach that grade. Dedicating their life to reaching their physical limit.

Where's the video? I can't seem to find it. 

My answer is as hard as they think is reasonable for them. 

If I can do it, anyone can, barring blah blah blah of course. 

I would probably guess 5.14. Some people seem to have poor coordination. Other people are bad at training. If you "dedicate your life" to it you would hire a personal trainer and dietician.

Adam R wrote:

Where's the video? I can't seem to find it. 

My answer is as hard as they think is reasonable for them. 

If I can do it, anyone can, barring blah blah blah of course. 

I think it's this one. They did 3 and it was in one of them.

Max grading at some gyms could be indicative (rare to see anything higher than low 5.13s in a major climbing gym, largely because it’s at the limit of the setters at these gyms). I have sent a fair number of 5.11b on lead and have pieced together parts of several low 5.12 climbs. If I cut out alcohol, improved my diet, climbed more regularly in lieu of other activities like running/weightlifting, and got consistent coaching for technique and strength, then high 5.12s or perhaps 5.13a would be perfectly achievable a few years down the road. I think anything into the 14s and certainly the 15s is on the narrow end of the bell curve and likely tied to genetics (or being solid in the 13s and getting lucky on one route). Do I want to climb 13+? Not really. I mostly enjoy easy outdoor multi pitch and being a strong climber means I can do it confidently.

I think one place these discussions fall short is they forget about the left side of the bell curve. I could maybe agree with the premise that someone with average genetics (i.e. the middle of the climbing ability potential bell curve) can probably reach 8a, provided they have a high level of motivation, unlimited time, resources perfect coaching etc. 

Or maybe it's lower, IDK. This is really just a hypothetical thought experiment, and we don't have the data to say where the true average (or median) person is. Even if we have an anecdote of a "normal" person reaching a certain grade, how do we know that person is "average". Maybe they are 65th percentile, or 40th percentile.

Meanwhile, I think everyone can agree that to reach 9a you're likely going to need above-average genetics (the right side of the bell curve), plus motivation, time, resources, etc.

But everyone forgets about the left side of the bell curve. It doesn't make sense to say that because the average person can reach 8a, that anyone can. The existence of an average implies that lots of people are below average! And there are some people with remarkably below-average genetic potential. Who with perfect motivation, training, resources, and whatnot would still max out at 7a or whatever. I definitely know some of these folks. Lovely people, have good potential in other sports that suit their bodies, but will always be pretty mediocre at climbing. Doesn't mean they can't enjoy the sport though.

An interesting side question here is what is the distribution function for genetic potential in climbing. Is it normal? Lognormal? Something else?

Returning to the OP question, what is "genetically gifted"? Anything above 50th percentile? 90th? 99th? There is no one answer; it is a sliding scale.

I think we're beginning to see the average top level of regular serious adult climbers settle around 5.12, based on gym setting and my coaching practice. Beyond that you're seeing innate genetic strengths, especially finger strength, play a major role. 5.14 is IMO out of reach if you don't have that advantage. 

The pattern of very strong climbers being children of strong climbers will only become more obvious over time. Finger strength is such a specific and strong determinant of high-end climbing ability that any innate advantage in that area is profoundly beneficial and any deficiency in that area is basically impossible to overcome.

JCM wrote:

Returning to the OP question, what is "genetically gifted"? Anything above 50th percentile? 90th? 99th? There is no one answer; it is a sliding scale.

From google: In general, A percentile greater than 75 is considered above normal. A percentile between 25 and 75 is considered normal. A percentile less than 25 is considered below normal.

saign charlestein wrote:

From google: In general, A percentile greater than 75 is considered above normal. A percentile between 25 and 75 is considered normal. A percentile less than 25 is considered below normal.

Seems as good an answer as any. So is the question then, what grade can the 75th percentile person climb? 

Ultimately I don't care what the answer is in terms of grades, I just think that these questions are poorly framed and sloppy with what is meant by "average".

infiniti

I'm more impressed with high end climbers that have to work for a living and have kids. 

So, off the top of my head, I came up with eleven climbers that I know personally who have climbed at least 5.14-.  This is in the very small pond of Albuquerque/Santa Fe, and most of these individuals are anywhere from their early thirties to late forties. They all have careers and most have children. I am not at their level, but then again, I am a decrepit old man and a true former gym class reject. 

Frank Stein wrote:

So, off the top of my head, I came up with eleven climbers that I know personally who have climbed at least 5.14-.  This is in the very small pond of Albuquerque/Santa Fe, and most of these individuals are anywhere from their early thirties to late forties. They all have careers and most have children. I am not at their level, but then again, I am a decrepit old man and a true former gym class reject. 

They have climbed at 14- or still are?

Darren Mabe wrote:

They have climbed at 14- or still are?

They still are, for the most part. Two of them were PHDs with newborns when they did this. 

Go Back to Super Topo wrote:

I’m always more impressed some of these high end (professional) climbers can afford a house and family by just climbing. 

Oh I didn't know we were talking about professional climbers too

EDIT: that's impressive Frank!

When I'm out at actual sport crags, things seem to peak around the 9/10a level, past that you see fewer climbers, past 5.11 there are only the occasional really strong people on the 12's and higher. Dunno where the utmost peak is, but it sure feels like most people don't climb super hard. I personally prefer to struggle on Voo "5.7" climbs or trad dad multipitch of course.

I'll agree with an above poster that 5.12 or maybe 13a feels like the upper bound for someone trying super hard and arranging their life around climbing, but not having good DNA.

Darren Mabe wrote:

Oh I didn't know we were talking about professional climbers too

EDIT: that's impressive Frank!

I mean if they “aren’t genetically gifted” they should be mentioned. My initial post was more in jest than actually contributing to the topic. Apologies. This is what happens when I try to be funny. 

Prince Kitty Hatr wrote:

Damn, this could be regional but I feel like most serious climbers (who train more than once a week and climb outside more than once a month) hover around the high 12 to mid 13 range. I feel like most climbers can get to the 5.12 range by just climbing and not training at all. I also interpreted the question slightly different than you as  I thought the OP was looking for the highest grade for the average (genetics) climber, not the average grade for serious climbers. 

That group of serious climbers Peter is seeing in the gym in Boulder is already subject to a strong selection bias effect, and can't be assumed to represent the average  potential of the broader population.

Nathan Sullivan wrote:

When I'm out at actual sport crags, things seem to peak around the 9/10a level, past that you see fewer climbers, past 5.11 there are only the occasional really strong people on the 12's and higher. Dunno where the utmost peak is, but it sure feels like most people don't climb super hard. I personally prefer to struggle on Voo "5.7" climbs or trad dad multipitch of course.

I'll agree with an above poster that 5.12 or maybe 13a feels like the upper bound for someone trying super hard and arranging their life around climbing, but not having good DNA.

You are in colorado, right?  Go to Rifle. There you’ll see most climbers warming up at about .12-  

Jared Angle wrote:

Max grading at some gyms could be indicative (rare to see anything higher than low 5.13s in a major climbing gym, largely because it’s at the limit of the setters at these gyms).

A little off topic, but max grading is usually more indicative of the gyms clientele than the limit of the setters. No point in a setter spending their energy to set and forerun something hard in a commercial gym if no one is going to climb it.

And at that level of sport climbing, its generally more effective to boulder to get strong, and use high 12s / low 13s for fitness.