Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Jul 26, 2006 - 02:52am PT
|
On a white board, you can show irrational numbers.
But you cannot hold such in your hand.
On a climbing forum, you can argue that there is no move harder than 5.13 (or V-somethingorother). But you can hold a 5.14 in your hand.
Go climb Just Do It, come back, and tell us how there is no 5.14.
|
|
Don't let go
Trad climber
Yorba Linda, CA
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2006 - 02:43am PT
|
About ten years ago when I started climbing, I was under the impression that 5.14 was the hardest thing imaginable. As time went on I was under the impression that 5.14d was a horizonatal sheet of glass and nothing could physically exist that would be harder than that. I guess my conceptions were wrong because the elite few can climb 5.14. It just seemed that the standard was that nothing could exist that would be harder than 5.14.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2006 - 03:13am PT
|
Here is a study of grades of routes in Yosemite Valley.
I took the distributions of dates for First Ascents (FA) or First Free Ascents (FFA) as a function of year, e.g. counting the number of 5.8 climbs in each year for each of the grades 5.4 through 5.12b, the total number of climbs I considered in each grade:
5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10a 5.10b 5.10c 5.10d 5.11a 5.11b 5.11c 5.11d 5.12a 5.12b
12 23 35 102 174 259 170 115 125 123 118 122 83 92 50 40
I then took the accumulated number of climbs for each grade over the years, and divided each year by the total number of climbs. So at present, the value should be 1, that is, all existing climbs have been put up (that just means all the climbs we know about today).
The distribution is somewhat different then I expected but might be explainable.
First I expected the distributions to be more like a "logistics curve" from biology, that the rate of growth of climbs would start out slow, increase to a maximum then decrease, an "s-curve". While these distributions look a little like that, they have important discontinuities.
First, it seems that a grade is established and then almost no activity takes place for some time. Then the rate of climbs at grade increases, this seems to decrease abruptly as the rate of climbs at the next grade increases. The rate of putting up climbs at one grade competes with putting up climbs at a harder grade.
If I pick the year in which 10% of the climbs at a grade have been done and say that the grade is "established" then I get the list:
5.4 1939
5.5 1937
5.6 1940
5.7 1948
5.8 1959
5.9 1962
5.10a 1966
5.10b 1968
5.10c 1970
5.10d 1970
5.11a 1974
5.11b 1973
5.11c 1974
5.11d 1978
5.12a 1979
5.12b 1977
Two points can be made: 1) the rate of establishing new grades in the 60's and 70's was very high, essentially a grade every other year and 2) once a new grade is established, the rate of putting up routes at lower grades decreases. Point 2) can be restated to say that the higher grade competes for climber attention with the lower grades.
If the rate of grade increase were followed, we'd expect roughly 15 new grades to have been established by now.. that is, 5.16a... and for several routes of at least a pitch in length. I don't believe that has happened.
What are the reasons? I think the climbs would be done.. the historic record of route production seems to support the idea that the hardest grades are the ones being produced at a given time.
1) the climbers capable of climbing at the hardest grade are not establishing routes in the Valley;
2) climbs at those grades do not exist in the Valley;
3) climbs at those grades are beyond the limit of climbers.
|
|
TradIsGood
Trad climber
Gunks end of country
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2006 - 07:28am PT
|
Ed, you need to diversify a bit - say finance. :-)
"The performance data shown represent past performance, which is not a guarantee of future results."
Since your model did not explain the post 1980 results, should we infer that those results can only be explained by human induced climbing environmental change? :-)
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2006 - 11:39am PT
|
TiG - not sure of your thrust here... I assume you are refering to the precipitous drop in FA's in the early 90's. There were several interpretations of the post 1990 data which were interesting and can be informed by new data:
1) The climbs were not yet reported. Anecdotal evidence of FA's in that period indicate that the route production rate may not have fallen off, that roughly 4,000 climbs may be out there. The reason for the uncertainty is that the only means of reporting the majority of climbs is in the guide books, which are infrequently published or choose only a "select" set of climbs. Looking in a 1989 Climbing magazine I found a rather extensive section listing new climbs in many US climbing areas, these sections no longer exist in the magazines.
2) The enforced ban on machine drilling in Yosemite Valley has reduced the number of routes because of the time and effort required to hand drill lines which require extensive use of bolts for protection. Actually this effects a project that I am working on with ablegable, the second half of which will probably require a "siege push" to complete because we cannot drill fast enough to complete the last 3 to 4 slab/face pitches in a day. So the power-drilling ban has a real effect on new route production and directly on the style of putting up new routes.
I suppose a third possible reason is:
3) Yosemite Valley is climbed out.
Which I seriously doubt, having had a rather productive winter walking around, scoping routes, and putting some up. Climbers with better skills and talent than I have could put up many more routes then currently exist. I don't know why they would, except at the top end...
Back to the topic of this post.
I am happy to have an opinion on whether of not 5.14 exists, but that opinion, based on the number of 5.14's I've done, is probably not worth a whole lot. I (nor does anyone I am aware of) have not produced a completed description of the biomechanics of climbing, or of the physics limitations (though I have thought a lot about that, mostly comes down to friction and gravity). Looking at the historical production of routes is a good place to go to see what the current trends are. In fact, the data tell an interesting story. Whether or not that story is true can be discussed in forums like this...
...your point seems to be? That the historical data is irrelevant, incomplete or irrelevant to the discussion? That my analysis is incorrect, misleading, selfserving?
Hey, it's all out there... I'm just trying to use bits of information to puzzle out a question I think is interesting and more complex than I orginally thought: is there a limit to how hard we can climb? and if the answer is yes: how close to that limit are we?
Your criticism is welcome, but you have an opportunity to do more than just snipe about the past informing future... and by the way, you have no model to support your point that the past is not necessarily relevant, you are just being contrarian.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana, Life of Reason, Reason in Common Sense, Scribner's, 1905, page 284
also see Shakespeare... courtesy the National Archives
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2006 - 12:04pm PT
|
I think the point is that it is easier to progress from, say 5.9 to 5.12 (even as a pioneer) than from 5.12 to .16a, or some other number. That was the asymptote I refered to ( I don't "reference"). We will keep getting new grades, but it will take more and more time per grade. without levitation, there are limits but I don't think anyone knows where they will be.
As far as my own world goes, 5.14 Does not exist, and only a Cap'n Hook's handfull of 13's do.
But, since you can't cross the same river twice (Hereclitus?)maybe it's okay to aproximate previous history, sometimes, to some extent.
though, I hope we Are learning something in this Bush regime and don't have to keep pushing this same turd up a hill forever...
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2006 - 12:53pm PT
|
here's an interesting thought I had on my bike ride in, and supported by the various published narratives..
WWII and Korea essentially delayed US climbing standards a decade (as can be seen in the fact that the hardest grade climbing was "flat lined" during that decade) and a similar effect exists for the escalation in the Vietnam starting in the late 60's into the early 70's.
These two historical periods may have been responsible for occupying the top climbers (at that time young men) with things other than climbing.
|
|
TradIsGood
Trad climber
Gunks end of country
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2006 - 01:47pm PT
|
Ed, those smiley's you missed...
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2006 - 02:14pm PT
|
Does the 'volunteer' army negate this, today? Or are the Good climbers all out in asian sand?
|
|
Mungeclimber
Trad climber
one pass away from the big ditch
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 27, 2006 - 02:21pm PT
|
once again Ed, nice posts, and a much better way to push the research. It does seem to lend a little credence to the theory.
Kman, let me rephrase a bit, so I'm less rhetorical...
5.14 is a label. What is important is not the words, but what the word implies.
We have already pushed the outer limit of that physically possible move.
 amount of overhang
amount of friction to the rock
amount of
sized holds
All that is left is further combinations of that outer limit move, and x amount of distance per rope length to amount to a new grade. That is, "Just do it" is actually just a lot of really hard 5.13 glassine moves with a touch of friction and little steeper. If we are calling make something steeper and with greater friction and better edges harder, then well, I'm a monkeys uncle.
|
|
Nefarius
Big Wall climber
Fresno, CA
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2006 - 02:50pm PT
|
I guess I'm not getting where you think that these harder climbs that make things "steeper" have "more friction" and "better edges", in your own words... Maybe you should get out and look at some? .14's are visibly, and common sensically (??) more difficult. Steeper, pretty much is synonymous with *less* friction, provided the holds stay the same size or get smaller. The *only* way I can see your logic applying is in the transistion from slab to dead vertical. It's possible that a hold would have more friction then, as you'd be standing (edging)on it, vs. smearing it. Past vertical, however, what you say makes zero sense. The greater the angle, the less friction and the harder it is to stay on the holds. Again, thing called gravity.
All of this is readily viewable when standing under these routes. If you think it's bullsh#t, then try posing your theory to guys that actually climb harder than .13 and see where you get. Regardless, I'd start stocking bananas.
|
|
TradIsGood
Trad climber
Gunks end of country
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2006 - 09:58pm PT
|
I will never climb near those numbers...
But it is easy to imagine that the numbers could continue to rise.
As Ed hints, there are physical limits. Coefficients of friction, gravity vectors, force vectors for both static and as mentioned above dynamic moves.
As you approach the physical limits, their will be some very small population of the superstar climbers. They may be taller, have significantly higher strength to weight ratios, a high proportion of fast twitch muscles, and endurance.
But very close to the physical limits, any given move or position will have a very high probability of failure (low margin for error). So not only will the superclimbers need all the physical attributes, but they will need to be able to control those attributes in a very precise way. And the more times they have to do so, the less likely they are to complete a route or sequence - even ignoring fatigue - which will reduce further the probability of success on any give move.
For example, if a sequence consists of 6 straight moves each with a 15% probability of failure, then the probability of success on the sequence is .85 ^ 6 or about 38%. Add 4 more moves and the probabilility is less than 20%.
Change the sequence to 10 moves that you can make on 4 out of 5 tries (20% chance of failure) and now superclimber only makes it 1 time out of 10.
|
|
Mungeclimber
Trad climber
one pass away from the big ditch
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 27, 2006 - 10:02pm PT
|
quite possibly my approach that I'm toying with is really just redefining the definitions of those grades. Let's be clear I don't climb at those grades, but from a theoretical point of view we can theorize that there is a limit, it has already been reached at some crag, somewhere, and that all other difficult climbs are essentially the same thing, but reconfigured and longer.
What is the single most difficult move on the planet?
Define that and we have a contender exemplar.
|
|
426
Sport climber
Buzzard Point, TN
|
|
|
Jul 28, 2006 - 02:47am PT
|
Keep extrapolatin'...you'll find that all moves are actually "4th classy"...
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Jul 28, 2006 - 03:42am PT
|
5.13, even some 5.14 moves...I can do that crap in my sleep! Mind over matter dudes..
The waking state is another story. The matter seems to matter more.
But it doesn't really matter cause climbing is always going to involve choosing how close to your limit you want to struggle so what difference does that limit make? For me, it's only a matter of what beautiful rocks are accessible or not at my grade. I'll cash in my training time for the other things in life
peace
Karl
|
|
Teth
climber
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
|
|
|
Jul 28, 2006 - 10:08am PT
|
It seems to me that the moves on a very hard boulder problem such as the Mandela (V13?) exceed the difficulty of moves on a 5.12 route, so the suggestion that a 5.13 route is just a succession of 5.12 moves does not seem to necessarily hold true. Maybe it just has a couple of V13 moves…or would that make it 5.14?
I would also speculate that the hardest route climbable by humans will likely never be successfully climbed. Say a route is so hard that every move on a route has a 1% chance of success for the best climber in the world, and the route has hundreds of moves. Then the chance of even the best climber in the world climbing it is about the same as one individual winning the lottery. However, although you can play the lottery for a lifetime, a climber can only make a limited number of attempts during the time they are at their peek condition. Thus it would be theoretically possible for the route to be climbed, yet very very unlikely that it ever would and thus that level of climbing would never be reached. Even if it was climbed, there is always the route where every move has a 0.9% chance of success…
Although there are things which can’t be climbed by humans, there will always be something which can be climbed by humans which is harder than what has already been climbed. As for me, I could not discern any holds on the Mandela the first time I looked at the problem. It took a couple months of bouldering on granite before I could return to the Mandela and actually be able to identify the holds.
Teth
|
|
scuffy b
climber
Chalet Neva-Care
|
|
|
Jul 28, 2006 - 11:24am PT
|
I think that arguing over the existence of 5.14 is very little
different in substance than arguing over the existence of 5.10
in 1961 or 5.11 in 1970.
Definitions of grade are meaningless.
If hot climbers are comparing all the 5.13 climbs they have done, and they think there is a big difference between the easiest 5.13s and the hardest 5.13s, they naturally will start
feeling the need to call things 5.14.
Size of holds, number of consecutive desperate moves, coefficient
of friction, steepness, these things don't necessarily mean a thing.
If I'm climbing all the 13s I try, and there are climbs I can't
do, what alternatives are there?
If there is a consensus of relative difficulty between a large number of climbs, drawing a line becomes useful.
You could say there's nothing harder than 5.11, but a big difference between easy 5.11 (New Dimensions) and hard 5.11 (Just Do It).
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 29, 2006 - 03:54am PT
|
If I take the grades reported in the magazines at face value, as well as the guide book information, then I can plot the trend of year of grade as a function of grade.
where the lines show the exponential growth of grades, a roughly 14 year grade doubling period...
The yellow line is a generalized logistics curve which shows a 9 year grade doubling period but with a maximum grade of 5.17d.
The logistics curve is used when initial exponential growth is followed by some competition which causes the growth to slow and stop. The "competition" in this case would be the number of climbers with the ability to climb hard grades.
Even with the limited growth in grade, the model predicts that we should be at about 5.16a by now... probably not... unless the bouldering grades are there... but 5.14 grades are about at the right time... I forget when 5.15 was claimed.
grade index YV year exponential logistic
5.4 1 1939 1924 1901
5.5 2 1937 1938 1936
5.6 3 1940 1946 1945
5.7 4 1948 1952 1951
5.8 5 1959 1956 1956
5.9 6 1962 1960 1959
5.10a 7 1966 1963 1962
5.10b 8 1968 1966 1965
5.10c 9 1970 1968 1967
5.10d 10 1970 1970 1969
5.11a 11 1974 1972 1971
5.11b 12 1973 1974 1973
5.11c 13 1974 1975 1975
5.11d 14 1978 1977 1977
5.12a 15 1979 1978 1978
5.12b 16 1977 1979 1980
5.12c 17 - 1981 1982
5.12d 18 - 1982 1983
5.13a 19 - 1983 1985
5.13b 20 - 1984 1986
5.13c 21 - 1985 1988
5.13d 22 - 1986 1989
5.14a 23 - 1987 1991
5.14b 24 - 1988 1992
5.14c 25 - 1988 1994
5.14d 26 - 1989 1996
5.15a 27 - 1990 1997
5.15b 28 - 1991 1999
5.15c 29 - 1991 2001
5.15d 30 - 1992 2003
5.16a 31 - 1993 2005
5.16b 32 - 1993 2008
5.16c 33 - 1994 2010
5.16d 34 - 1995 2013
5.17a 35 - 1995 2017
5.17b 36 - 1996 2022
5.17c 37 - 1996 2028
5.17d 38 - 1997 2039
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 29, 2006 - 12:12pm PT
|
what are the bouldering grades?
V0- 5.9
V0 5.10-
V0+ 5.10
V1 5.10+
V2 5.11-
V3 5.11+
V4-V6 5.12
V7-V9 5.13
V10-V13 5.14
V14+ 5.15+
how about the higher grades?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!