4 ms·

There's much more technology involved than Cochrane acknowledges. Alex didn't on-sight that climb: he practiced, over and over again, using ropes and gear that

by zopa 7y ago

There's much more technology involved than Cochrane acknowledges. Alex didn't on-sight that climb: he practiced, over and over again, using ropes and gear that have existed in their current form for 60 years at best. The same goes for how he got so good: he climbed with ropes and gear (well, sometimes), and learned from people who used gear nearly all the time. Much of that technology looks old, but isn't: ropes have been around a while, but modern climbing ropes stretch so as to drastically lower the peak forces on your protection. For example. Modern climbing exists in large part because we developed technology that lets you try to climb hard high stuff without dying. Now, you could also get good just by bouldering, staying close to the ground. But that's not how actual existing climbing developed: bouldering grew out of crag climbing, which grew out of mountaineering. It's a little silly to wonder why people weren't very good at a game we just invented, before we invented it. Another point. We don't actually know how good the best climbers were throughout history. There's a clear upward trajectory to 19th-century British mountaineering and its descendants. But how good were the best Incan climbers in 1350?

tomxor 7y ago
> Another point. We don't actually know how good the best climbers were throughout history. There's a clear upward trajectory to 19th-century British mountaineering and its descendants. But how good were the best Incan climbers in 1350? Even through the early 19th century climbers were much better than given credit for, part of this is also how grading shifts over time. I've experienced this first hand, climbed some old "HVS" routes (fairly easy grade) established in early 19th century in wales (UK), only to find them in the low extremes by modern standards, maybe E2/3 (no this wasn't mere sandbaging), on top of which they were using heavy gear, unsafe gear and mountain boots! I have much respect for forgotten pioneers of climbing, they were much tougher than they appeared on the face of their accomplishments. We all have little jokes in climbing when conditions make routes harder like rain, cold, dirt, birds whatever, "oh this bird shit turns it into a VS / E12 today".. it's silly, but when applied generally, it's true - every aspect that is different can make the same climb significantly harder or easier for others, those pioneers probably were climbing E9 for them.
- rurp 7y ago
  I learned out how to climb multi-pitch at Tahquitz, where the American grading system was first established. 5.9+ in that area is a terrifying grade. American grades were originally a closed system that topped out at 5.9. For a time climbers were climbing harder and harder routes, but rating them all 5.9. The system eventually got switched to be open ended, but grades are sticky and it definitely helps to know when a route was established in addition to what the guide book rating is.
  - tomxor 7y ago
    Yes it was the same for the British adjectival trad system, ES used to be the top grade (after HVS) and this grade is now divided into an open ended scale E1-E11... but I think this probably caused some hard climbs to be categorised as HVS in an attempt to differentiate from the _really_ hard climbs in ES at the time. It's worth checking the FA date around this grade in old crags for this reason, but even being aware in my case - it was surprising just how much harder they can be.
manfredo 7y ago
Pre-modern climbers were likely much worse, for a variety of factors. First of all, in agrarian societies only a small segment of the population (mostly nobles) had any significant amounts of free time to pursue activities unrelated to food production. So the population of climbers was much smaller. On top of that, nutrition in general was a lot worse. Most of the population lived on diets just enough to survive. And lastly, literacy and information transfer was highly limited so climbers would not be able to teach each other their techniques as effectively and couldn't google the best climbing places.
- landryraccoon 7y ago
  Pre modern climbers wouldn’t have been climbing for recreation, but for survival. For example these guys are definitely not nobles with too much time on their hands: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/07/honey-hunters-bees-climbing-nepal/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/07/honey-hu...
Fricken 7y ago
I was looking for the source, I can't find it, but there was a (I think 17th century) French monk was into climbing, and based on his diary entries and the local crags near the monastery they guessed he was pulling 5.13a, which, for climbers today usually it takes several years of dedicated training to get to that level.

by zopa 7y ago

tomxor 7y ago

> Another point. We don't actually know how good the best climbers were throughout history. There's a clear upward trajectory to 19th-century British mountaineering and its descendants. But how good were the best Incan climbers in 1350? Even through the early 19th century climbers were much better than given credit for, part of this is also how grading shifts over time. I've experienced this first hand, climbed some old "HVS" routes (fairly easy grade) established in early 19th century in wales (UK), only to find them in the low extremes by modern standards, maybe E2/3 (no this wasn't mere sandbaging), on top of which they were using heavy gear, unsafe gear and mountain boots! I have much respect for forgotten pioneers of climbing, they were much tougher than they appeared on the face of their accomplishments. We all have little jokes in climbing when conditions make routes harder like rain, cold, dirt, birds whatever, "oh this bird shit turns it into a VS / E12 today".. it's silly, but when applied generally, it's true - every aspect that is different can make the same climb significantly harder or easier for others, those pioneers probably were climbing E9 for them.

rurp 7y ago
I learned out how to climb multi-pitch at Tahquitz, where the American grading system was first established. 5.9+ in that area is a terrifying grade. American grades were originally a closed system that topped out at 5.9. For a time climbers were climbing harder and harder routes, but rating them all 5.9. The system eventually got switched to be open ended, but grades are sticky and it definitely helps to know when a route was established in addition to what the guide book rating is.
- tomxor 7y ago
  Yes it was the same for the British adjectival trad system, ES used to be the top grade (after HVS) and this grade is now divided into an open ended scale E1-E11... but I think this probably caused some hard climbs to be categorised as HVS in an attempt to differentiate from the _really_ hard climbs in ES at the time. It's worth checking the FA date around this grade in old crags for this reason, but even being aware in my case - it was surprising just how much harder they can be.

manfredo 7y ago

Pre-modern climbers were likely much worse, for a variety of factors. First of all, in agrarian societies only a small segment of the population (mostly nobles) had any significant amounts of free time to pursue activities unrelated to food production. So the population of climbers was much smaller. On top of that, nutrition in general was a lot worse. Most of the population lived on diets just enough to survive. And lastly, literacy and information transfer was highly limited so climbers would not be able to teach each other their techniques as effectively and couldn't google the best climbing places.

landryraccoon 7y ago
Pre modern climbers wouldn’t have been climbing for recreation, but for survival. For example these guys are definitely not nobles with too much time on their hands: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/07/honey-hunters-bees-climbing-nepal/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/07/honey-hu...

Fricken 7y ago

I was looking for the source, I can't find it, but there was a (I think 17th century) French monk was into climbing, and based on his diary entries and the local crags near the monastery they guessed he was pulling 5.13a, which, for climbers today usually it takes several years of dedicated training to get to that level.