This story, originally titled “What Happened to All the Dogs?” appeared in our 2024 print edition of Ascent. You can buy a copy of the magazine here.

“What happened to all the dogs?” asked the climbing coach and local gym owner.

I couldn’t help but laugh.

“I’m serious,” he said. “It seems like so many youth teams these days aren’t even serious about training anymore. Having fun is being prioritized over trying hard.”

His question echoed a sentiment my Southern parents love to voice. “Delaney,” they say, “did you ever get anything for free, or did you have to earn it?” There’s no need to answer; of all the things my folks gave me, the pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps ideology was one of the most salient. Climbing, for me, had always been about trying hard. It evokes something deep and primal. Getting stronger is an inherently self-destructive process, necessitating the breakdown of muscle fibers and supporting tissues, mind and spirit. From that destruction comes old meanings.

“Kids these days think everything should be for free,” they continue. “It’s like they don’t even know how to try hard anymore.”

When my parents make comments like this, I can’t help but think of the inhibition of trauma. Trauma from the pandemic. Trauma from the economy, the wars, the climate, the bigotry, the general hatred, the siloing of ideologies and thus people in general. Feelings of isolation and even helplessness. People will probably never be the same, and if there is any truth in these sentiments from the coach and my parents, it is because to try hard means to put your heart on the line for something. Perhaps we’ve seen too much destruction lately. Perhaps we’ve lost our will to tolerate further damage.

I answer my parents’ questions with another: “Doesn’t it seem like things are so much worse than they used to be?”

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Pandemic-induced burnout has incentivized some people to turn away from achievement culture. We’d had it up to here, tired of low wages, poor benefits, long hours, and the rising cost of living. Having been pushed too far, a line had to be drawn in the sand. Many Americans redefined what mattered, and the endless pursuit of excellence seemingly didn’t make the list, at least not in the way it used to.

Confidence, too, seems in short supply. Several publications indicate that COVID-19 fallout resulted in decreased self-efficacy among students, particularly those transitioning from high school to higher education. Other studies demonstrate an increase in fear and anxiety among adolescents. Still others show that among the same cohort, suicidal ideation increased. It’s fair to extrapolate that, now more than ever, kids want to feel safe and not pressured to leave their comfort zones.

Perhaps one of the best ways to understand culture is through the lens of art. Much has changed in recent years. AI is the obvious example, wherein idiosyncrasies are traded for coded anemia. There’s the shuttering and/or waves of layoffs in the news and literary industries; stories and depth traded for 60-second shorts or 280 characters. Words for noise. Technological advances coupled with social media have, in so many ways, resulted in lower-quality expressions of the human experience.

Are we, in the face of this epidemic of uncertainty, in the habit of exchanging long-term happiness for the short term? Are we, at times, settling to feel safe?

Increasingly, I’m seeing a concept discussed called the death of nuance, wherein people take overly simplistic stances to make a point. I’ll refrain from doing that here and be the first to admit that what’s happening in climbing is far more subtle and complicated than my line of thinking suggests. But something is happening.

Some pros simply won’t suggest grades anymore, likely due to the fear of starting an internet debate or putting a misplaced emphasis on their accomplishment. In the last year, as the editor of this magazine, many filmmakers asked me to write about their videos that “weren’t about the grades” and, in some cases, left them out completely. You don’t have to look hard to find hot take after hot take with titles like “Why Grades Don’t Matter.” Likewise, on Instagram, the sentiment is increasingly expressed. Routesetter and sponsored athlete Adeline Wright wrote: “Grades don’t matter … I really want to express climbing for the fun of it, so that no one hurts others’ feelings with grade-chasing gym culture.”

At Movement Climbing, Yoga & Fitness in Denver’s River North Arts District, a new mural reads, “Community Is Strength.” The multicolored letters are shaped like shoes and mountains, a harness and rope. The mural is bright and jovial, stretching about 15 feet across one of the main walls. On Instagram, the artist wrote, “POV: you are apart [sic] of an amazingly supportive rock climbing gym that values community and fun over sends and gains.”

How we think about the measures of our sport’s objectivity has seemingly fundamentally changed. It’s fair to acknowledge that this redistribution has, in some ways, helped our community expand and thrive. We are bigger, more diverse, and more welcoming than ever, partly because of this renewed focus. However, communal ethos isn’t incompatible with the uninhibited pursuance of better. Rather, chasing grades and strength breeds confidence and mental fortitude, which ultimately feeds back into a more robust community.

On the flip side, many pros continue to voice the importance of thoughtful grade discussion, including Will Bosi’s attempts to define the still-muddied difference between V16 and V17, or Alex Megos’s reluctant downgrading of Chris Sharma’s Sleeping Lion, or James Pearson’s meticulously outlined reasoning for grading Bon Voyage E12. It’s impossible to know which trend rose first: the anti-grade and fun-focused sentiment or the urgency to fine-tune and elevate the quantifiable accomplishments in our system.

The coach I spoke with has noticed this tension playing out among kids. Because it’s always been cool not to care, and perhaps because of where we are as a society, he fears that climbing isn’t going in the right direction. “I think there’s a lot of social pressure at play here,” he said. “I see kids who want to fight and try hard and, when they’re surrounded by so many others who aren’t interested, they’ll willfully water it down.”

Regulated expression, for the purpose of this discussion, is the idea that you can deploy paradoxical mentalities as circumstances demand. What we don’t want to happen is for the kids who are foaming at the mouth to push their limits to inadvertently be told that their passion, their intensity, is misplaced or unhealthy. Climbing both is and isn’t about the grades.

Of course, plenty of climbers out there have more than a dog in ’em. We have too many to count, and they range vastly in ability, gender, age, preferred discipline, and experience level. Think of Bayes Wilder, Beckett Hsin, or Maya Ene. They are our future. Brooke and Natalia are starlets on the World Cup stage. Michaela Kiersch, who has a PhD and has climbed 5.15a and V14, and Paige Claassen, who has climbed several 5.14d’s and is a mom, have shown us that yes, you can have it all. Daniel Woods, Shawn Raboutou, and all the other American boulderers have been opening lines and splitting tips for years. But effort and grade-oriented goals should not be the sole province of professional athletes; I want to see that effort destigmatized at every level of the sport.

Years ago, before my competitions, my dad used to tell me, “Give it some grrrrr!” The phrase was simple yet effective, helping me to denature those internal barriers that would have prevented access to raw willpower. Surrounded by other kids doing the same thing, I felt safe enough to try hard, safe enough to throw myself into climbing, and safe enough to care about it. I quickly learned that specificity matters when it comes to goal setting, so I, personally, used grades and comp results to measure my growth. This directionality isn’t for everyone, and that’s OK. But it changed my life. And I think it can do the same for the next generation of climbers.

To read more from Ascent, visit our table of contents here.

The post Why Are Some Climbers Proud to Not Try Hard? appeared first on Climbing.

When professional climber Kai Lightner partnered with Kevin Jorgeson’s 1Climb to secure a $100,000 donation from Adidas three years ago to build a climbing wall in College Park, Georgia, he aimed to provide climbing opportunities for underprivileged Black youth.

“As a Black kid coming up in climbing, I felt like the only way I got here was by the grace of God,” says Lightner. “I don’t want the next person who comes up behind me to come up in the sport by chance—I want it to be by circumstance.”

In January 2021, the donated climbing wall opened in the Tracey Wyatt Recreation Center, a free community center located on Godby Road, an urban area 10 miles south of Atlanta.

“That space was chosen not only because of its physical characteristics, but also its physical location,” says College Park Mayor Bianca Motley Broom. “Some of the kids who live on Godby have the least amount of access to recreational opportunities—and just opportunities in general.”

The wall was open intermittently in spring and summer 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic but saw regular use by fall, hosting various events like holiday gatherings and summer camps. According to College Park Rocks, a site created by local wall users, the wall has seen 15,000 visits.

“To say this program was a success is an understatement,” says Lightner. “The residents of College Park have spoken up in droves about how much of a valued asset they believe this wall is to the community.”

But, in April 2024, city officials began discussing removing the wall, citing safety concerns and underutilization. At a College Park City Council meeting on May 6, the councilmen and women voted to authorize the city manager to investigate the rock wall and remove it at his discretion. What ensued were months of confusing dialogue and communal outcry.

Despite initial votes to investigate the wall’s removal, community support and media attention pressured the council to reverse course. On June 7, the city council voted to keep the wall at the Tracey Wyatt Recreation Center, highlighting the community’s strong advocacy and the impact of grassroots mobilization.

Lightner says there would have been far-reaching implications if the wall came down. “It’s been a lot harder for [my nonprofit foundation] Climbing For Change to push larger scale projects, because, in general, as a culture, there’s been a pushback on DEI work,” he says. Establishing the wall at the Tracey Wyatt Recreation Center at no cost to the city was such a clear win. He just never anticipated he’d have to fight to keep it there.

Removing the Wall

Lightner started Climbing for Change in July 2020 to connect and uplift underserved minorities in the outdoor industry by fostering diversity, equity, and inclusion among athletes, industry leaders, and filmmakers. The wall was his first project.

Motley Broom, who was familiar with Lightner’s climbing success, wanted to help bring the sport to the area and helped expedite the city’s approval process for the wall.

“I’ve had the opportunity to see him develop as an international role model in the sport,” said Motley Broom. “So when he started Climbing for Change and spoke of his desire to bring climbing to underserved, under-resourced, and particularly communities of color, I said we’ve got a wall for you. We can make this happen. So he came to College Park, and we toured around with our staff to try to find the best place to ensure that kids who had no idea about the sport would have access.”

For Lightner, the uncertainty around the future of the climbing wall began on April 5, 2024, when he was copied on an email from Michelle Johnson, director of recreation and cultural arts of College Park, to Derek Slone, project manager at Eldorado Climbing. In the email, Johnson inquired how much it would cost to remove the rock wall at the recreation center and whether it was possible to relocate the wall.

Lightner was shocked and confused. He wrote back: “Is there a specific reason why you are exploring options for having the wall removed?” He asked if there were safety concerns, if kids had lost interest, or if there was anything he could do to help maintain the program.

Johnson directed Lightner to the interim city manager, Dr. Emmanuel Adediran, who did not reply to Lightner until Mayor Motley Broom directed him to do so. His eventual response was brief: The governing body will soon discuss the reason for the potential removal of the climbing wall, there have been no reported safety concerns, and the interest of kids in the sport has not been addressed with him.

Slone replied to Johnson that it was inadvisable to remove and relocate the wall, as it had been custom designed for the space in which it currently resides. Correcting for the “semi-destructive” nature of removal, plus the engineering and design work that would be necessary to retrofit it, would be cost prohibitive. Johnson still wanted a quote for the cost of removal. Slone sent an estimate for $42K.

Lightner flew to Atlanta shortly after discussions to remove the wall were initiated. He tried speaking with the councilmen and women regarding their concerns but says he was “met with silence.” Despite repeated efforts, Climbing also did not get a response from the councilmen and women, Tracie Arnold, Joe Carn, Jamelle McKenzie, and Roderick Gay; Michelle Johnson; Kameron Preston, director of communications and public information; and the interim city manager Dr. Adediran.

Over the ensuing month, Lightner continued trying to contact the councilmen and women, waiting to see if the issue would be brought to the floor in a city meeting. The day came about a month later, on May 6, at the College Park City Council meeting.

Councilwoman Arnold opened with motion to investigate the wall and grant the city manager and staff a budget of $60K to “take the best administrative action.” She opened the discussion on the wall with a statement.

“As some of you may remember, in late February, I participated in a walkthrough tour of the Tracey Wyatt Rec Center with the interim city manager and city staff,” she said. “It was during that time that we learned of staff’s pressing concerns of under utilization, safety, and deferred maintenance of the rock wall to the point where the wall has not been in use since last fall.”

Councilwoman Arnold added that the council should take immediate action if the wall posed a safety threat to its users. “I told the city manager ‘It is not up for discussion or debate,’” she said. Arnold outlined several other concerns: She had not received the waivers of the participants she had requested; the wall had not generated any revenue; the staff wasn’t professionally certified to oversee usage of the autobelays; and the number of users cited for the wall was incorrect—she was, in fact, on the list of users, and she’d never been on the wall.

However, Motley Broom quickly disputed her concerns. “There have been no safety issues with this wall,” she said. “That’s a fact. There have been no injuries on this wall.”

Johnson, director of recreation and cultural arts, confirmed the Mayor’s points and explained that the rock wall had not been open since January because the autobelays had been shipped to the manufacturer for regularly scheduled maintenance. Stone Summit, a large Atlanta climbing gym that partnered with the rec center to help manage the community wall, pays for those repairs. Stone Summit management also trained the staff to operate the wall safely (there are no professional certifications for autobelay training). The wall is in a public rec center, where day passes are free, hence the zero revenue. Johnson added that she could not send the waivers to Arnold because she couldn’t redact the personal information in 15,000 waivers within the requested time frame of one day.

“This seems like an opportunity to bury this,” said Motley Broom at the council meeting. She described how if the city manager were granted authorization to remove the wall at his discretion with $60,000, the public would never see the money again. The wall would simply come down. Motley Broom, who has neither a vote nor veto power, issued a few closing statements in defense of the wall before the councilmen and women moved to a vote.

“We have a responsibility to our kids. […] This is not about whose name is on the building. It’s about the kids that go in the building. […] It is shameful that we would be taking it away from them based upon innuendos, ego, and lies. But go ahead and do it. Go ahead and face the consequences of that. […] Putting it up somewhere else is not a viable option. And we all know that. We know this is smoke and mirrors. […] The wall needs to stay where it is. I hope that we have the courage to do that.”

Before the vote, Councilwoman McKenzie, who later publicly expressed her support for protecting the climbing wall, stepped out because she wasn’t feeling well. The remaining councilmen and women voted to authorize the city manager to make a decision regarding the wall’s removal.

When Motley Broom was asked in a later interview to expand on her comment about “whose name is on the building,” she said, “No one person should dictate access to opportunity for our kids, and it’s really disappointing that it’s shaping up that way.”

When asked to identify that person, Motley Broom said, “There’s a name on the building,” referring to Tracey Wyatt, who served as councilman for Ward III of College Park, where the rec center is located and for whom the building is named.

The Conception of the Climbing Wall at Tracey Wyatt Rec Center 

When the wall went in 2021, the Tracey Wyatt Rec Center was identified as the ideal candidate for the wall based on its height and accessibility. “I didn’t want this project to result in a donation to a city that requires memberships or poses logistical impediments,” says Lightner. “I wanted this to truly be a community project.”

Adidas’ $100,000 donation covered all the initial costs, while Stone Summit agreed to cover ongoing costs for maintenance, summer camps, and staff training. The city would pay $32 per year for an add-on insurance policy. Additionally, a sponsorship wall, which displayed the names of community members who donated to make the recreation center possible, was removed to make space for the rock wall. This seemingly innocuous tradeoff would later prove problematic.

“Once the wall was built, we helped keep the climbing wall functioning from a route setting standpoint, and the auto belay maintenance,” says Daniel Luke, former co-owner of Stone Summit (the gym was recently acquired by Central Rock Gym). The approximately 15-foot-long wall hosts six routes. “All in all, we’ve probably put in about $10,000 into the project. But we wouldn’t have gotten involved in the first place if it wasn’t something we believed in and hoped for the community. And so this is incredibly sad. What a waste, if something like that were to be taken away from the children of that area.”

Because the costs to remove and relocate the wall are high, Lightner also received a quote from Eldorado to construct a new wall. The $67K cost was almost exactly the $60K budgeted for removing the existing wall.

Although it’s still unclear how many users the wall has seen, there seems to be clear enthusiasm for the wall among College Park residents. During an April 15 council meeting, nine-year-old Mose James V, who goes by  Mosie, took to the podium. “Tonight, I’m supposed to be at my first day of practice for my school’s musical,” he began. But he was there to talk about the rock wall and how much climbing on it had meant to him.

In an open letter to the Mayor and Council, Dr. Shekita James, a resident of College Park, wrote, “The rock climbing wall at the Tracy Wyatt Recreation Center holds value for my family and our community. My son and his friends are engaged in climbing activities, and the wall has been a one of a kind experience in their lives.”

A petition on change.org was created to save the wall. More than 1,000 people signed the petition. One signee, Annabelle Slabbert, wrote, “There has been a clear and overwhelming show of support for the rock wall. Taking it down would be a blatant disregard for the community you stand to represent and protect. The community deserves better.”

Christina Barry-Simmons wrote, “The climbing wall is an important part of the community. Climbing teaches many skills and allows for people to connect with one another.”

Kerry Swift simply wrote, “For the kids.”

“Why was Tracey Wyatt CC’d?”

Lightner requested the email exchanges between the councilmen. What was said within them did not align with how things had been portrayed. They revealed that before Arnold had even requested the information she would later cite in her statement during the May 6 meeting as reasons for the wall’s possible removal, she had sent an email to Dr. Adediran. Within that email, she said: “Please inform your staff that the removal of the rock climbing wall is not up for debate or discussion. Please have it removed immediately. Thank you.” Copied on the email was Tracey Wyatt.

“Why,” asks Lightner, “would she say the wall’s removal was not up for discussion prior to having been given what she later claimed to be her reasoning? And why was Tracey Wyatt CC’d?”

Luke, the former co-founder of Stone Summit, echoed this confusion. “For professional reasons, I think that some people are not fully speaking out on what’s going on. I never really heard much more than this. There’s some political benefits involved with this. And so, you know, a lot of the puzzle pieces aren’t showing up for me.”

A bit of clarity came during the May 22 City Council meeting. The wall was brought back up via an unrelated discussion on the Gateway Center Arena security service. Before the meeting, Councilman Carn was handed a packet by a company representative. The Mayor called it out, asking why a council member would be handed something outside the procurement process. Arnold said she didn’t want to receive packets outside the proper procurement process, adding that she’s “too pretty to go to jail.”

After she said this, Councilman Gay tried to interrupt repeatedly. When Motley Broom granted that it was his turn to speak, he said, “I’m not going to continue to sit up here while one of our council persons wants to play high and almighty, and all it does is support hypocrisy,” he began. Then, he reversed his vote on the investigation of the climbing wall, saying that the wall shouldn’t come down simply because “somebody took somebody’s plaques off the wall.”

“Let’s back it up a little bit and talk about this rock wall. […] The point I’m trying to say, Ma’am (Arnold), is don’t sit up and start talking about jail and how good you look. Because if you want to be high, you want to be the most moral one up here, then stop playing a game about that wall.”

Gay suggested the real issue was that Tracey Wyatt’s plaques were removed from the sponsorship wall to make space for the rock wall, implying that Wyatt was using his influence to get the wall taken down as a personal vendetta.

Despite repeated attempts to reach Wyatt, Climbing has not been able to contact him.

The Motion to Keep the Wall

The final council meeting regarding the wall came late on Friday, June 7. Councilwoman Arnold opened the discussion. “At some point in time, because of the fact that we wanted the best thing, the right thing to uphold our fiduciary duty as a city council, [removing the wall] became political,” she said. “Now that it is political, we need to make sure we have the facts straight.” She said she sought to relocate the wall because her constituents in Ward III (where the wall is currently located) wanted something different. She referenced a survey, which allegedly showed that Godby residents did not intend to use the wall and instead wanted “jobs,” “extension services when it comes to utilizing the computer lab,” and “extension services for educational purposes.”

Councilman Gay also made a brief statement before making a motion to keep the wall at the Tracey Wyatt Recreation Center. “From a recreation point of view, the rock wall is a really low priority. It really is. It’s on the same level as the other attractions,” he said.“But because of the outrage from the city and the media, I’ve decided I’m going to have to make an unpopular decision so that we can move on and focus on other business with the city.” Gay’s motion was also to direct the remaining funds from the investigation into programming for the wall and safety.

When it came time to vote, Gay and McKenzie voted in favor of keeping the wall at the rec center, Arnold opposed it, and Carn abstained from it. The motion passed.

“This entire situation has been a rollercoaster, but I’m happy that members of College Park’s City Council voted with their conscience and did the right thing,” says Lightner. “None of this would have been possible without the adamant support of the climbing community. When we work together, our united voices can make a huge difference.”

The post How “Ego, Innuendos, and Lies” Almost Led to the Removal of a Beloved Community Climbing Wall appeared first on Climbing.

David Letterman joined Alex Honnold at the Perelman Performing Arts Center in New York City last Thursday for an interview in front of a live audience, discussing “scaling new heights, chasing your dreams, and never looking down.” But first, before all the tired metaphors, the two toproped at a local gym. Honnold offered up pointers while Letterman played up the awkward nature of checking someone’s knot (yes, David, we all have crotches) and ate M&Ms from a chalk bag. At 77, Letterman proved he’s as spritely as ever.

None of this is truly new to him, however.

While Honnold said he hoped to teach Letterman a bit of technique, he can’t be credited for a woman’s work: Letterman did a segment on climbing back in 1989 with Lynn Hill (before her paradigm-shattering ascent of the Nose but after becoming a three-time Arco Rockmaster champion). The TV host appeared in a dress shirt and tie, saying “These steps should be bigger!” Impressively, Hill coached Letterman up a short roof section before he said, “I don’t think so!” and let go.

Climbing, Hill pointed out at the time, came from mountaineering. Gym climbing was already a steep departure from its roots, and it has only further metamorphosed during Letterman’s 35 years away. Upon return, the ATC Letterman used was swapped for a Grigri, his tennis shoes swapped for gym rentals, the thin, strappy harness for a padded version. As Letterman’s latest segment demonstrates, climbing is no longer the strange oddity it once was; instead, it’s a relatively safe and fun pastime that can be enjoyed by all, including retirees and geriatrics. Sadly, like Letterman’s age, monthly gym memberships have more than doubled since the original segment with Hill aired ($135 per month at the gyms around NYC). It’s more expensive than skiing but still cheaper than golf!

Also Read:

• Jared Leto Toproped the Empire State Building

The post David Letterman Goes Climbing with Alex Honnold appeared first on Climbing.

Sam Watson, 18, broke the world record twice at the Wujiang World Cup this past week. During his first run in the qualification round, he clocked 4.85 seconds, beating the previous record of 4.90 set by Indonesia’s Veddriq Leonardo. During his second run of the day he established yet another record, running up the 50-foot wall in a mind-boggling 4.79 seconds.

Watson, from Texas, qualified for the Paris 2024 Olympic Games after winning the Pan-American Games last October.

Watson began climbing at age 5. He joined Team Texas and began participating in lead, bouldering, and speed competitions until, during the pandemic, he fell in love with speed climbing and devoted himself exclusively to the discipline. “During the pandemic, we weren’t really sure when competitions would be held, and (in the Dallas area) outdoor climbing is just not very accessible,” he says. “Since I wasn’t thinking about a project or a future competition, I was focused on how I actually wanted to get better. And I really love the process of training and getting better on the same route.” Watson adds it helped that he was surrounded by a great community of enthusiastic speed climbers. His results on the international stage have been good from the start: he finished fifth in his first World Cup season in 2022, then third in 2023.

Watson was already clocking record-breaking times in practice last year. In Wujiang, he says he actually climbed the fastest he’s ever climbed during a couple of his runs, but his reaction times were not his best, making the overall times slower. This, he adds, was somewhat intentional. A false start occurs if the competitor moves off the ground faster than 0.1 seconds after the final (go!) beep. In the event of a false start by a single competitor, the other competitor gets to re-do the race solo, effectively automatically winning (if both competitors false start, then both athletes will get to re-run the race). “Anything under .1 seconds is considered too fast for human’s reaction times,” explains Watson.

“I don’t want to risk a false start in competition by trying to beat my personal best practice times,” he says. “But in theory, if I got off the ground perfectly, then I would have gotten an even faster world record.”

Watson trains four to fives days per week (two days on, one day off), alternating between strength training and climbing. Matthew Maddison, USA Climbing’s speed team manager, designs Watson’s strength training program, while fellow speed climber Albert Ok guides Watson’s on-the-wall routine. Watson also works with a nutritionist and sports psychologist, in addition to drawing on expertise from other fellow competitors.

Watson is headed to Utah this summer to train full-time at the USA Climbing Training Center. He’ll begin his first semester at the University of Utah in the fall, where he plans to study supply chain management. “I’m excited for the next phase of life, but for the next couple months, my only focus is going to be the Olympics.” He adds:

“I think the Olympics will be a great platform for climbing and also for myself. I have sort of acknowledged that the Olympics are not really just about competing, and it would be kind of taking something away from the experience to say that it is; the Olympics are bigger than that. But of course, trying to win a gold medal is the goal!”

Watson finished the Wujiang World Cup in second after “a slight error” in the final race against China’s Peng Wu. The next Speed World Cup will take place in Salt Lake City from May 3–5.

Also Read

• Michaela Kiersch Just Sent Her Second 5.15a

The post American Sam Watson Sets Speed Climbing World Record appeared first on Climbing.

Michaela Kiersch has sent her second 5.15a, Víctima Perfecta, at the Raco de la Finestra crag in Margalef, Spain. She also made her first 5.14a onsight with Crimptonite, in Oliana.

Víctima Perfecta, a link-up connecting Victimes del Passat (5.14c) into Gancho Perfecto (5.14d/15a), was established by Spanish phenom (and notorious sandbagger) Ramón Julián Puigblanqué, who initially graded it 5.14c. Subsequent ascensionists Jorge Díaz-Rullo and Tom Bolger, however, have suggested 5.15a, and it would not be the first time one of Julián’s routes have seen a double upgrade; he suggested La Bongada, also in Margalef, was 5.14b, and several climbers later graded it 5.14d (it seems to have settled at c/d). Likewise, in 2021 Alex Megos repeated Mejorando Imagen, another FAd by Julián, and Megos recommended an upgrade from 14d to 5.15b; Díaz-Rullo seconded the decision.

Kiersch, who made the fourth ascent of Víctima Perfecta, noted that it felt comparatively harder than La Rambla—which she sent in February 2023—and it took her more attempts (about 20 total, as compared to about 10-15). With over 30 ascents, La Rambla is the most repeated 5.15a in the world, and many armchair enthusiasts have wondered if it’s just soft for the grade. Kiersch countered that she’s never heard climbers who’ve actually sent it make this remark. “It is, however, a relatively straightforward route that requires climbers to recover well,” she says. “But Víctima Perfecta is pure power-endurance.” It’s sustained, culminating in a V6 move before the chains. Kiersch fell on the last move repeatedly before finally sticking it after. The route was a battle with self-doubt, she says.

Kiersch has now been in Spain for five weeks. She’s hoping to tick another 5.15a, Joe Mama, in Oliana, before leaving this coming weekend. Should Kiersch send one more 5.15, she will rank alongside Margo Hayes as America’s most accomplished female sport climbers to date. By our reckoning, she is the only woman ever to have sent both a confirmed 5.15a and V14 (in 2022 she sent Hailstorm in Ogden, Utah, and New Baseline and Tigris Sit, both in Magic Wood).

Also Read:

• Can Climbing Chimneys Actually Be FUN?
• The Ultimate American Climbing Road Trip: 48 States in 15,000 Miles
• Why This Vest Will Always Be in My Climbing Pack

The post Michaela Kiersch Just Sent Her Second 5.15a appeared first on Climbing.

By the time Kai Lightner was in college, he’d already won 10 youth and two open National Championship titles, and he’d medaled in five Youth World Championships. He’d long established himself as one of America’s best climbers, a fact which came with a complicated network of obligations and overlapping travel and training schedules. While most of his peers puzzled over their futures careers, Lightner had one; but as his schedule filled up, he began to wonder just how tenable it was.

“I really wanted to embrace the full college experience, have friends, do extracurricular activities, and not have to focus on juggling a highly rigorous competition climbing career,” he says. Then, when Lightner was just a sophomore in college, the Black Lives Matter movement took off, and he started getting calls from outdoor industry leaders who wanted guidance.

“I realized that I just needed to step in and be the middleman,” he says. “That’s kind of what inspired me to start my nonprofit, Climbing For Change. But it was such a time-consuming job, and there was no space for me to put in the hours and the level of rigor that I needed to perform on rock or in competition. I needed to make a choice, and I chose the community. I was thinking then that the hard climbing part of my career was over; I just assumed it was. I didn’t even question it.”

Climbing For Change went on to be a blazing success, forming relationships with donors to offer funded grant programs to individuals and businesses. Within six months of conception, Climbing For Change had partnered with Kevin Jorgeson’s 1Climb to build a climbing wall in College Park. In a 2023 interview with this magazine, he described that endeavor as “God’s work. It was a lot of effort.”

It wasn’t until college ended that Lightner began to make his way back to training, projecting, and eventually, as he described it, hard climbing. Last December, we caught up with Lightner after he sent Life of Villains (5.14d), a line bolted by Joe Kinder in the Hurricave, in southwestern Utah. Three months later, in late February, Lightner made the FA of a variation of the same line, Death of Villains (5.15a). It was his hardest ascent to date, and he described the emotions that came with it as overwhelming.

“It meant that I’m not just back; I’m better than I was, I’m better than I’ve ever been,” he says.

Climbing caught up with Lightner to learn more about Death of Villains, his training, and what it took for him to access that “try hard” space again. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

****

The Interview

Climbing: What is DoV like?

Lightner: When Joe Kinder initially showed me LoV, he was telling me about a potential project called DoV. And when he showed me the route, I was amazed. I thought, “This looks so beautiful.” It goes directly through this huge arc—it’s like the Eye of Odin looking out into the valley. It’s the king line in the cave, and one of the best lines in America. So I was excited when he showed it to me, and then, years later, after I had done LoV, he said, “I’m thinking of coming back and trying this route; it’d be pretty cool if you were trying it with me.” I was happy that he let me in on that process.

Climbing: What’s the style of climbing?

Lightner: DoV shares the same start as LoV. About half way up, it splits off. You do the crux of LoV, stop at the break, and then continue on through the roof. It has really intense power endurance movement, and I had to do lots of heel hooks above my head. The last difficult move is a really low-percentage dead-point to a slot right at the edge of the lip. I don’t think I ever fell on it, but if I didn’t execute it perfectly, it made the next sequence impossible. Knowing that was waiting for me at the end made the process really nerve-racking, because even executing the move fresh was really challenging.

Climbing: How does the route break down?

Lightner: The route breaks down into three distinct parts. The intro section is about 60 feet of 5.13 climbing to a double jug rest. Most people use a kneebar to get a no-hands here, but I felt more comfortable resting on my arms. Then, the next section is the crux of LoV, which is a eight- or nine-move V10 boulder problem into another five-move V9 boulder separated by a one handed jug (one that my fingers never fit all the way into, sadly). Then, you reach a sideways rest on a large heel hook and two bad hand holds (an optional rest for LoV that people rarely use). After this, you enter the final section of the route, which starts with a V8 into the 180-degree roof that meets up with the final low-percentage V10 crux of Activator, another 5.14d in the cave. The climbing in this section is super futuristic, with lots of heel hooks above my head and feet cuts in the cave. One of the last moves of this section involve a low percentage dead point into a slot at the very end. If you waste too much energy hitting this slot, it’s nearly impossible to pull the last three moves before the victory jug. When you get to the victory jug, the only way to really rest is with an upside-down double toe-cam into a seam. It helps you recover enough for a final traverse to the chains.

Climbing: How many sessions did it take you?

Lightner: We were supposed to be there the entire month of February, but the first week and a half it rained, so we didn’t get there until the middle of February. So the duration of our trip was two and a half weeks. And I was able to squeeze in around nine sessions before I sent. I sent on my second attempt on the last climbable day before I had to leave.

The post Interview: Kai Lightner on Making the FA of ‘Death of Villains’ (5.15a) appeared first on Climbing.

The USA Climbing Team Trials and Paraclimbing National Championships took place this past week at Sportrock Rio in Gaithersburg, Maryland. The six days of action were filled with highs and lows, ending with complete National Team rosters for the pending World Cup and Paraclimbing seasons. (Replays of all final rounds are available on Outside Watch.)

The women’s Lead final round, however, has drummed up significant debate. Denver’s 19-year-old Adriene Akiko Clark made the high point—with a score of 38+—followed by Olivia Ma and Annie Sanders, who would have received scores of 36+ and 36, respectively. However, none of the women clipped the draw hanging near the 36th hold, and because the chief routesetter had ruled it impossible to make the clip after passing the 36th hold, all of the competitors’ scores were paused at hold 36. (Their scores would have resumed if they’d managed to complete the clip regardless of what hold they clipped from.) Due to a countback to semifinals, Akiko Clark was awarded the bronze, while Sanders took home gold and Ma was awarded silver.

No one was satisfied with the ruling; all three women considered boycotting the podium, but refrained from doing so to avoid repercussions. Sanders in particular risked getting a red card—which would have revoked her eligibility for the season as she’d already been yellow-carded earlier in the competition for forgetting her bib. After the competition she gave Akiko Clark her medal.

“Annie was probably crying the most,” says Ryan Arment, coach to Akiko Clark and longtime routesetter. “The honor all the women showed for the competition was really impressive.”

Akiko Clark lost out on a title as well as World Cup spots and funding; the third-place ranking put her into an alternate and unfunded position on the National Team. “I’ve been involved in USA climbing for about 15 years now,” says Arment. “I watch every competition, and I’m always the first to back up the routesetters and organizers. But in this case, I feel they really fucked it up. I feel compelled to say that in many other federations, this wouldn’t have been the ruling. They would have seen how it went down and would have ignored the routesetting assignment because it’s not practical. What happened at the trials was not a practical expression of competition.”

The Rules and Analysis

On Instagram, spectators widely questioned the decision. Several commenters asked why the 36th hold had not been demarcated with an X, which, according to USA Climbing rules, would have indicated it was the last possible clipping hold. But these criticisms fall short, because X’s are used only when safety is the primary concern. In this case, the ruling centered around the idea that competitors cannot skip clips.

Historically, a clip was deemed skipped if the lowest part of a climber’s body passed the draw, at which point their attempt was terminated. In 2020, the rule changed so that the competitor’s attempt was ended if they could no longer touch the draw with their hand. Most recently, in 2021 USA Climbing adapted its rules to align with those of the IFSC. Rule 7.11.2 (b)(iv) states that the “scoring of a competitor’s attempt will be paused at the last hold marked on the Topo from which the Chief Routesetter deems it possible to clip any unclipped Protection Point… unless or until the relevant Protection Point has been clipped.” In a sense, this latest iteration is the most flexible, as it allows competitors to find the correct position rather than get called down. In other words: if Akiko Clark, on hold 38, had managed to reach down and clip the draw at hold 36, she would have proved the routesetters wrong and her progress above hold 36 would have been counted. But since she didn’t clip, her score count was paused at hold 36.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Ryan Arment (@allez.ryan.venga)

It’s worth noting, however, that it was not immediately clear that competitors would have needed to clip from the 36th hold, and judging from each of their body positions, it would have been a very difficult clip to make. “Annie said that all of the girls who previewed with her—including Adriene and Olivia—read hold 40 as likely being the best hold to clip from,” says Jack Sanders, father of 16-year-old Annie. He added that they saw it was possible to clip sooner, say from hold 33, but clipping higher seemed like the most efficient option.

There is another rule—section 1.9.1 a—worth understanding. For clarity, it may be abbreviated as: “Notwithstanding other rules within this Rulebook, the USA Climbing CEO, in consultation with the Event Organizer and Jury President of the affected competition, has the authority and discretion to modify competition formats in circumstances where an error has occurred that, without the exercise of such discretion, would materially undermine the integrity of a round or the competition.” Because all the competitors read the route differently than the setter, some feel that the Jury President could have amended the stop hold to be 40 rather than 36.

“Those girls are extremely flexible,” says Arment. “The routesetter is a 170-pound, six-foot-tall man, not a 110-pound, five-foot-four female, right? I’ve worked with all those girls before and they’re constantly breaking beta. There’s no world in which I think the argument that they couldn’t have clipped from a higher position is really honoring the athletes; if anything, it is putting up unnecessary guards.”

Competitive climbing’s rule systems will always feel unfair to someone. The comp climbing world has, for example, accepted the current tops/zones style of scoring boulding in spite of its limitations. If, in a finals round, you had a competitor who topped two boulders and reached the last hold on each of the other two boulders, and another competitor who topped three boulders but couldn’t get off the ground on the fourth, then the second competitor would win. But if our scoring system for bouldering was based on holds-gained rather than tops and zones, then the first competitor would win. These structural decisions dictate results, but they also steer perceptions of what competition climbing is and how it works. When those two ideations clash, the platitude “rules are rules” stops serving us, because kids who feel cheated may give up on participating.

“The world is not black and white,” says Arment. “You have to accept that things are going to be complicated. And you have to allow emotion to influence your objective observations. In this case, the observation is that this rule doesn’t support what we all saw. And that’s causing everyone to feel that the score is incorrect. You need to weigh ‘How do I feel’ versus ‘What is the objective rule?’”

USA Climbing Jury President Mike Sprague spoke with Climbing, saying, “In any sport, it’s possible for scores and ranking that properly adhered to the rules to not reflect perceived performance. Those situations are unfortunate; however, it would be inappropriate to change or ignore rules during a competition in order to reward perceived performance. Officials are assigned the responsibility of implementing the rules in a fair, consistent, and unbiased manner. Weighing the opinion of coaches, competitors, and/or spectators higher than that of officials would contradict the idea of sport.

“If, for example, another climber had made the clip in question and fell after controlling hold 36, I don’t think we would be having this conversation. Our perception of performance would likely be different: Adriene climbed further, but she didn’t take the time and energy to make the clip like the other climber did.”

Climbing reached out to several IFSC judges to get their takes but has yet to hear back. This story will be updated if they weigh in.

***

The other rounds at the Team Trials went comparatively smoothly. In front of his hometown, Noah Bratschi won the men’s speed. Emma Hunt, who has already qualified for the Paris 2024 Games, set a new National Speed record with the time of 6.54 seconds, while Sophia Curcio took gold. In a surprising women’s Bouldering final, former National Champion Melina Costanza missed the podium, finishing in fifth place, while darkhorse Helen Gillet, from Cambridge, took first. On the men’s side, 16-year-old Hugo Hoyer took first place, followed by Dillon Countryman and Ben Hanna. In men’s Lead, 16-year-old Declan Osgood took first, followed by Hoyer and Hanna.

Former Paraclimbing World Cup gold medalist Brian Zarzuela took first place in Men’s AU2, as did Maureen “Mo” Beck. Another World Cup gold medalist, Benjamin Mayforth, took bronze in Men’s RP2. Veteran competitor Amy Mullins placed third in Women’s B3. Melissa Ruiz, who won the World Cup in Salt Lake City last year, took good Women’s RP1. The top three athletes from each category earned a spot on the National Paraclimbing Team.

Full results from the Trials and Paraclimbing National Championships can be found here and here.

Results and National Teams

Speed

Women’s Speed Podium: 

1. Sophia Curcio
2. Kaitlyn Bone
3. Liberty Runnels

Men’s Speed Podium: 

1. Noah Bratschi
2. Richard Li
3. Thomas Lin

2024 Speed National Team: 

Emma Hunt

Piper Kelly

Sophia Curcio

Kaitlyn Bone

Sam Watson

John Brosler

Zachary Hammer

Noah Bratschi

Lead

Women’s Lead Podium: 

1. Annie Sanders
2. Olivia Ma
3. Adriene Akiko Clark

Men’s Lead Podium: 

1. Declan Osgood
2. Hugo Hoyer
3. Ben Hanna

2024 Lead National Team: 

Kyra Condie

Melina Costanza

Kylie Cullen

Natalia Grossman

Brooke Raboutou

Annie Sanders

Colin Duffy

Jesse Grupper

Hugo Hoyer

Declan Osgood

Bouldering

Men’s Boulder Podium: 

1. Hugo Hoyer
2. Dillon Countryman
3. Ben Hanna

Women’s Boulder Podium:

1. Helen Gillett
2. Analise Van Hoang
3. Nekaia Sanders

2024 Boulder National Team: 

Kyra Condie

Melina Costanza

Kylie Cullen

Helen Gillett

Natalia Grossman

Brooke Raboutou

Annie Sanders

Dillon Countryman

Colin Duffy

Jesse Grupper

Hugo Hoyer

Paraclimbing

MB1

1. Eris Skenderi
2. Terry Hoddinott
3. Hussain Kadhem

MB2

1. Ahmad Seyar Rahimi
2. Kevin Chao

MB3

1. Chaz Misuraca
2. Andrew Martinez
3. Diego Kusnir

MAL1

1. Tanner Cislaw
2. Jake Frank
3. Carlos Quiles

MAL2

1. Ethan Zilz
2. Gavin Nix
3. Ronnie Dickson

MAU2

1. Brian Zarzuela
2. Trevor Smith
3. Matthew Lynch

MAU3

1. Shamus Boulianna
2. Braden Shoop
3. Derek Kenney

MRP1

1. Elliott Nguyen
2. Joshua Unterman
3. Sunny Yang

MRP2

1. Dennis Connors
2. Brayden Butler
3. Ben Mayforth

MRP3

1. Ian Gleason
2. Michael Prince
3. Daniel Medina

M Youth

1. Nathan Mckinley
2. Watson Armstrong

M Open1

1. Evan Coutts
2. Micahel Hoyt
3. Tim Evans

M Open2

1. Killian Rooney
2. Wayne Lin
3. Drew Coutts

WB1

1. Emeline Lakrout
2. Ashley Clburn
3. Leah Grosjean

WB2

1. Seneida Biendarra
2. Addie Hugen

WB3

1. Phoebe Barkan
2. Linn Poston
3. Amy Mullins

WAL1

1. Carlie Cook
2. Brittany Chadbourne

WAL2

1. Mary Tankersley
2. Cail Soria
3. Morgan Loomis

WAU2

1. Maureen Beck
2. Eleanor Rubin
3. Isabel Benvenuti

WAU3

1. Ashley Pritchard
2. Molly Ferris
3. Kali Pauling

WRP1

1. Melissa Ruiz
2. Hannah Zook
3. Olivia Conforti

WRP2

1. Emily Seelenfreund
2. Anna DeVries
3. Caroline Winstel

WRP3

1. Nat Vorel
2. Laura Heaton
3. Linsay Purcell

W Youth

1. Mei Krause
2. Audrey Chen

W Open1

1. Janice Petzold
2. Teresa Bennett
3. Alpine Bird

W Open2

1. Willow Wilcox
2. Michelle Patten
3. Sarah Bittermann

N Open

1. Eliana Wallak
2. Karin Haski

The post Controversial Call at USA Climbing Team Trials Sparks Debate appeared first on Climbing.

Last week, my old friend, Joe, called me up on the phone seeking training advice. He was once a 5.12 climber, he said, and he wanted to be one again. 

Easy, I said. Let’s meet to discuss.

I used to coach kids. And, I’ve been coached by many other coaches. I figured I knew a thing or two that could prove useful to Joe. But as I started to think about what exactly I could tell him, I encountered a few snags. I realized that a) My personal learnings were just that… personal to my climbing needs, and b) I wasn’t going to be able to tell him things he didn’t already know. From 4-by-4’s to campus exercises to footwork drills to doubles on the leadwall to blah blah blah. Joe had been in the game long enough to have already come across all that. Indeed, he was already doing most of those drills. So what was I going to say?

The neat thing about climbing is that, when it comes to training, there really is no right answer. We are all different climbers with different needs. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized some basic ideas do hold steady. Unfortunately, Joe wasn’t too thrilled about them. 

My Five Unpopular Training Ideas

1. Not Everything is Worth Your Time

Sessioning on commercial boulders will help you train for your outdoor pursuits to a point…. But yep, you guessed it: that double dyno coordination move basically doesn’t exist outdoors. And doing balancy slabs wasn’t going to help Joe on much he was likely to find in Rifle, his home crag. That is to say, commercial sets are fun, but minimally helpful if you’re training for outdoor goals. Joe wasn’t too psyched, since part of his usual training involved climbing on commercial sets with his friends. He wasn’t going to give that social time up, and to that I say fair enough. But if Joe, or you, dear reader, wants a really productive session, I say stick to the stuff that best mimics your goals and forget the rest. If you want to send Bumboy (V3) in Horse Pens 40, then try compression boulders on volumes. If your goal is Jade (V14) in Rocky Mountain National Park, I suggest you forego the commercial set entirely and hop on the MoonBoard or a steep, crimpy spray wall. Be discerning. Not everything is worth your time and energy.

2. Nix the Running and Other Activities 

Building on that, yoga, pilates, swimming, running, hiking, and that core class are not going to make you a better rock climber, and I’m not just saying this because I hate yoga. You’ve all heard it before, and for good reason: The best way to get better at climbing is by climbing. All the other stuff takes energy away from climbing. Don’t take this one from me, take it from Daniel Woods, who, speaking for himself and Shawn Raboutou, Jimmy Webb, and Felipe Camargo, made this joke during a Q&A at Movement Climbing and Fitness in Rino a few weeks ago. 

Q: Do you follow a specific training plan? And if so, is there any cross training with other sports or activities?

A: We’re all very intense swimmers. We swim a lot. Run a lot. Pilates. Yoga. [Laughs] I mean I guess we train. I’d say a lot of us train a lot just through climbing itself. Like, we’ll hit up spray walls. And we’ll design a bunch of really hard boulders on the spray walls to level up our finger strength and our body tension. We can also recreate moves that resemble those on our projects outside. So that’s probably the biggest tool that all of us use. And then obviously, I don’t know, we train core, fingers, do some bench and some curls. But for the most part, all of us just climb. We don’t have a written out program or anything that we follow.

3. Take a Rest Day or Two

If you don’t believe in rest days, you’re not climbing as hard as you could be. To reach your next level requires higher levels of exertion and … rest! You don’t get stronger by pummeling yourself into oblivion, barely eating or sleeping, and then doing it all over again the next day. Even if you’re the mutant-type who can sustain that, you’re not doing yourself any favors if your goal is to climb more difficult grades. You don’t get stronger solely from training, but when you recover from it. Call it skin farming if it makes you feel better, or blame the weather. Whatever you need to do to get through your rest day(s). 

In September 2021, Ashima Shiraishi had her best ever bouldering day after sending the aforementioned Jade, a multi-year project of hers, plus Riddles in the Park (V12), Golden Rows of Flows (V11), and Blood Money Stand (V10). In an interview afterward, she said: “Climbing in the park is physically grueling. You do a lot of hiking, a lot of walking on talus, and the climbing tends to be very physical. For most of the trip, I was on a schedule where I climbed one day and rested two days.” … Did you get that? Many climbers these days should take note, because it’s far more common to climb two days for every one rest day.

Bonus tip: If you’re tempted to get through your rest day via running, yoga, pilates, swimming, or some other activity, I urge you to refer to tip #2. Make your rest days restful! 

4. The Best Training Program is the One You Actually Do

You don’t need to pay for a coach or trainer, because the best training plan for you is the one that you stick to. If you’re willing to think critically about your needs and then do a little research, you can design an excellent training plan yourself and see results. The hard part, of course, is consistency. As Jonathan Siegrist wrote in Climbing in 2019, “If you are the type who tends to stop when the going gets tough or maybe skip that last burn of the day because it feels inconvenient, you have a lot to gain here.” In other words, you have to prioritize your training and all that entails: skipping a session here or a set there may very well be why you don’t send your project.

5. You Can’t Neglect Your Fingers

Finger training is largely undervalued. Take Joe for example: He was plenty familiar with standard hangboarding protocols, and yet he’d never done them. Why not? I asked. Joe had always just climbed. Or done other, more flashy stuff like pull-ups and bench press. But finger training, I’d argue, is the single most important thing you can do, especially if you’re pressed for time. It really doesn’t matter how big your biceps are if you can’t hold the holds. Pro climber Ned Feehally agrees; he titled his book Beastmaking: A fingers-first approach to becoming a better climber. “Finger strength is basically what sets people apart from others,” Feehally told me. “I think all the best climbers in the world have really strong fingers.” I advised Joe to start hangboarding once a week at minimum, and to do it before anything else (but after a good warm-up).

Also Read:

• Climbing Can’t Be Racist… Right?
• The Truth About Lying About Climbs
• Please Don’t Unclip and Downclimb After Missing a Rappel Anchor

The post My Unpopular Opinions About Training for Climbing appeared first on Climbing.

WARNING: The below video is graphic.

It’s not often you see videos as gruesome as this. We hesitate to recirculate it at all. Ultimately, however, we feel it is a grave reminder of the cost of negligence. Climbing can be a deadly sport, but most accidents are preventable with experience and good judgment. Checking your systems is an easy and critical part of preventing the worst; the hard part is doing it each and every single time you approach the wall.

Climber forgets to fasten safety rope then jumps off rock climbing wall. pic.twitter.com/f3AmfRibx0

— TheBestJesusChrist (@BestJesus415) February 5, 2024

The accident occurred last Friday, February 2. According to a report from the Daily Mail, the 22-year-old Polish climber has been training for competitions for several years. Following the fall, he was airlifted to the local hospital and is currently receiving treatment. He is, miraculously, expected to make a full recovery.

The climber obviously remembered to set up his camera. He also paused at the start of the route, likely playing the speed competition cues (Ready, Beep, Beep, Beep) in his head. Perhaps if he’d been less concerned with getting footage of himself, or less preoccupied with visualizing his competition routine, then he very likely would have realized his mistake. You have to wonder if he was thinking things like, “I want to look good in the video so I can show it to my friends,” or “This is going to be my PR!” or “This is my year to podium.” Clearly, he was not thinking, “What am I doing right now?”

I fear that in this increasingly preoccupied world, where social media has infiltrated our lives, where climbing as a sport has more clout than ever and, where, consequently, results/grades/rankings matter all the more, that accidents of this sort will become increasingly common. What’s sad is how oppositional all of the aforementioned is with the act of climbing itself. Even as we strive forward, we must maintain our humility.

Related Reading:

• Why I Lied About Rappelling Off the End of My Rope
• Complacency Kills! Here’s a Checklist for Staying Safe
• How Did Two Longtime Pro Climbers Forget to Tie Their Knots?
• Saved by a Trail Line! Lessons Learned from a Rappelling Mishap and a 150-foot Fall

The post Climber Falls 50 Feet After Failing to Clip in on Speed Route appeared first on Climbing.

If you’ve ever wanted to learn directly from the world’s best pro climbers, now you can. Altitude Climbing, founded by Magnus Midtbø and Till Gross, is launching courses by Adam Ondra, Daniel Woods, Hazel Findlay, Dave MacLeod, and Alex Megos. That’s just to start, Midtbø told Climbing, but they’re hoping to add more to the roster in the coming years.

Midtbø, 35, hardly needs introduction. With his 2.1 millions subscribers, Midtbø is best known these days as a climbing YouTube influencer, but he’s long been in the spotlight. Midtbø has sent up to 5.15b—Dani Andrada’s Ali Hulk Sit Extension, in Rodellar—and he was a regular World Cup finalist before he retired in 2017, when he opened his first climbing gym, Oslo Klatresenter. He has since opened a few more facilities, started an apparel and chalk company, and recently released his own climbing course, Bouldering Blueprint.

“Climbing gets more fun the better you get,” says Midtbø. “So we’re trying to help people get to a higher level and better understand climbing.”

Midtbø started Altitude Climbing after getting approached by Till Gross, a longtime climber and co-founder of Course Concierge, a platform through which bestselling authors, TED speakers, and influencers offer online courses. With a decade of experience in helping creators produce courses, Gross was keen to help Midtbø do the same. Altitude was officially launched earlier this year.

Ondra’s course ($199), which took a year and half to make and is composed of 45 videos across seven modules—totaling about 10 hours of content—released today. Climbing caught up with Midtbø and Gross to learn more about the platform, courses, and what’s to come. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

***

The Interview

Climbing: What made you want to release online courses?

Midtbø: I feel like there’s nothing like this around. There’s really no other courses on climbing, and I saw a demand for it. A lot of people have been asking on my YouTube channel how they can improve when they get into bouldering. And I had nowhere to send them. So that was my main motivation for starting Bouldering Blueprint. And it’s something that I would have liked to have had when I began climbing.

Climbing: Why not send them to platforms like Lattice?

Midtbø: I haven’t tried Lattice myself, so I don’t really know what it’s like. But I get the impression that it’s more for elite climbers, and that you have to be at a certain level to take those courses. There is a lot of beginner stuff that we all take for granted. So I feel that there’s not really an entry-level course out there. And now, as you know, bouldering has exploded, so maybe there wasn’t the demand for it when we started. But I think now huge groups of people climb between V2 and V5, and that didn’t really exist before. So I guess that was the main thing. Also, I never had a coach—I had to mostly teach myself all this stuff. Norway was not the best country to live in when it came to climbing, so I traveled a lot. I went to Innsbruck to train and learn from the best, and I trained with the Austrian team quite a bit. But there was a lot of experimenting when I started, and I didn’t have any answers. I made a lot of mistakes. And I definitely could have benefited from having a good coach.

Climbing: What were some of those early mistakes?

Midtbø: I mean, a lot. First, people told me that it’s all about volume. So you just have to do a lot of laps and mileage and not really try anything hard. They told me that if you don’t get pumped, you’re gonna move your threshold higher and higher. I kind of doubted that, and when I moved to Innsbruck, I quickly figured out that it’s actually not true: You have to do hard moves. And also the same for technique. You were supposed to climb slowly, like statically and in control the whole way, never cutting your feet. People like Chris Sharma did the opposite, and I was told that was the wrong way of climbing. But I think for my body type, it was a more efficient way of climbing. Now you see that everyone climbs like that.

I learned a lot from my training partners, like David Lama, in Innsbruck. Of course, not everyone has access to train with the best climbers in the world. So that’s why I thought it’d be good to share that information. And obviously, this first course, Bouldering Blueprint, was very entry level, but with Adam, and with other creators, we’re going to make more advanced courses. I feel like these other pros have all learned the same lessons as me from working with the best coaches in the world. And I think that can be transferred to all levels of climbing.

Climbing: It’s crazy how much what we know about training has changed. I was training with many of the same principles when I started out, and it just wasn’t that long ago. Did this changing landscape of training knowledge factor into why you wanted to start this now?

Midtbø: I had said no to a lot of people who approached me about making courses over the years. I didn’t just want to do it to make a quick buck. I wanted the course to actually be good. But when Till reached out, I felt like it was the right match, because he promised me that this was going to be something that I would be proud of. So that was the most important thing.

Climbing: What was the reasoning behind only choosing pro climbers to be the instructors rather than well known coaches?

Midtbø: I think the people that we chose for the first round were very deliberate. We chose Adam because, well, Adam is arguably the world’s best climber. And also, we had a feeling that Adam would be a very good coach. We went to the World Championship in Switzerland last year, and that’s when we sat down with Adam to talk to him about this. Initially, we just asked him, can we create a course with you? And would you be excited about this? At that point in time, we weren’t sure how well it was going to work. We were really asking ourselves, How well can we actually create online climbing courses that effectively teach people? But in the end, I think Adam delivered and did a really good job.

I think part of the reason why Adam is especially good is because he’s not stronger than the rest of the field. What makes him good is his technique. With the way he climbs, power comes second. He thinks that a lot of climbers are strong enough to climb way harder than him, but it’s just that they don’t have the right technique and the right tools. So I think there’s a lot to learn from that. With our team, I think we’re able to get the best out of Adam; you know, ask him the right questions and structure it in a way so that it’s easy for people to understand.

Hazel Findlay has of course made a lot of courses on her own. So she has a lot of experience doing that, and she’s an amazing coach. The same thing for Dave MacLeod, who’s also written books, and he has the most scientific approach to the whole thing. He wrote his scripts himself and is very much in charge of his own course.

We chose some of the world’s best climbers, but we also wanted to choose the people we thought were the best coaches among those world’s best climbers. Daniel Woods’s course is very different from the others, and it reflects his approach to projecting boulders. Most people who start bouldering will not fully understand the projecting process. They don’t know how to structure it, work through individual moves, or put them together. I think Woods is very inspiring to watch. So he’s very knowledgeable in many different ways.

Climbing: What has the process of workshopping the courses been like?

Gross: It’s a two-part process. On the one hand, we always ask the climbers, what is something they’re excited about teaching? What is something they want to pass on? Usually they instantly have a couple of things that they’re already excited about and that they feel they have unique knowledge in. So that’s the first part. But we also surveyed over 30,000 climbers to really understand what people struggle with, what people want to learn. Then we married those two parts and crafted them into a course topic.

Climbing: How many videos are in each course, how long are they, and do they come with homework?

Gross: It depends on the subject of the course. Some courses can be very short. Like if it’s on finger strength, you don’t need a long course for that. But then you have something like Adam’s course on lead climbing, and there are a bunch of different nuances that he’s learned over 25 years. It is a much more extensive course. So every course can vary tremendously in length and in depth. And it very much depends on what problem we’re trying to solve or what outcome we’re trying to get.

The supplemental material varies too. For example, in Magnus’s course, one of the big things that beginners often struggle with is that they’d go to the gym on their own and not know what to do. And then they’d bounce around from one boulder to the next, and when the session was done, it wasn’t fulfilling. So we saw that problem, and we said, let’s give them five different sessions that they can choose from so that their session is more structured. For Adam’s course, that’s not really needed, because the audience is more intermediate to advanced climbers. So that’s the reason why we added different things there.

Midtbø: Also, in every course we have volunteers at different levels. There’s men and women who are different sizes to help do all the demonstrations. Adam’s course used 10 volunteers.

Gross: Our teaching philosophy is three-pronged. First, it’s teach. So this is often direct videos of someone explaining something. The second thing is to demonstrate. And it’s like seeing them on the wall or showing them how to clip in, or whatever. The third part is coaching. This is not a perfect process, and we’re still dialing it in, but one thing we recognized is the need for having lots of different volunteers. Hopefully, if you’re watching the course, you have one or two or three people that kind of match your body type, your weight, your strengths and weaknesses. And then you can see the instructor, such as Adam, coaching the people through problems. Hopefully, you’ll identify the things you struggle with and can utilize the solution that Adam finds for the volunteers that you identify with.

Climbing: Will Altitude ever offer customized training plans?

Midtbø: Yeah, I think maybe in the future. That’s definitely something we’ll have in the back of our minds if it’s something people want.

Gross: Also, you brought up Lattice earlier. Lattice obviously is wonderful—they’re in many ways the gold standard, and Magnus just spoke to Tom Randall earlier this week. We’re looking to partner with other people when possible. So whether we do something on our own, or we partner with other people, I think we’re very open.

Climbing: What other things are in the future?

Midtbø: We might make more courses with some of the same people we’re already working with—with Adam, for example. But our main objective is just to lift up to the sport by having all these courses accessible to people. Hopefully, we’re just going to get better and better at the execution.

Gross: We’re also exploring the possibility of making courses for coaches to develop their own coaching skills.

Midtbø: Route setting courses could also be interesting, because there’s a lot of new gyms opening all the time. But there are not a lot of good route setters out there. Educating more route setters could benefit the sport in a massive way. As you know, the route setters are the most important part of any climbing gym. They’re like the chefs at a restaurant. I think it’s kind of strange that there isn’t any formal education when it comes to route setting. I think we could change that in the future, by having some of the greatest route setters teach.

Climbing: How will these courses be rolled out?

Gross: It depends on how fast we produce the courses and also what the appetite for new ones is. But I think the next course after Adam’s will be Hazel’s, then Alex Megos and Patrick, and then Daniel Woods. We’re shooting all those courses over the next couple of months. But we don’t want to rush those courses—we really want to take our time and perfect each one.

The post Magnus Midtbø Starts Online Coaching Platform With Some of the World’s Best Climbers appeared first on Climbing.

In 2022 at the annual Climbing Wall Association (CWA) Summit, USA Climbing’s CEO Marc Norman presented his vision to open a permanent national training center and event space in Salt Lake City, Utah, where a temporary facility already exists. The new space would be big—a projected 25,000 square feet of indoor terrain and 15,000 outdoor—making it ideal for hosting World Cups and other major competitions. The facility would also provide dedicated training spaces for athletes as well public access to sections of the gym. Day passes and memberships would be sold to help offset costs.

The plans must have felt lofty. Or faraway. And although it’s fair to say that they were not a secret, many gym owners—who are key stakeholders of USA Climbing—felt blindsided when USA Climbing secured funding for the training space this past year and things began to be set into motion. It wasn’t long before local and distant gym owners alike began rallying against the plans.

The “spat,” as one news organization referred to it, began with one of the country’s first climbing gyms, The Front Climbing Club, which was established in 1989 and now has three locations across Utah. Unbeknownst to them, the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency (RDA) had granted a property disposition for USA Climbing’s training center in the same year that they approved a $2 million loan for The Front’s expansion of its downtown facility. USA Climbing had furthermore been granted $15 million from the State for construction. The two gyms, which would each represent some of the nation’s biggest climbing facilities, would be mere blocks away from each other.

“We don’t think that USA Climbing as a nonprofit should start to compete with one of its major stakeholders, which is commercial climbing gyms,” Dustin Buckthal, owner and CEO of The Front, told Climbing. “Secondly, USAC hasn’t really proven to be adept at their core competency, and operating costs for a climbing gym, particularly of that size, is pretty complicated. We think they’re unaware of the difficulties of operating a climbing gym.” Buckthal also added that, because the facility would be so close to both The Front and the nearby Bouldering Project, he questions whether it will have the membership base to support the overhead.

“There’s a pretty strong consensus from gym owners that the business side of this just doesn’t make any sense, and USA Climbing is going to bankrupt [themselves].”

USA Climbing began speaking directly with The Front regarding their vision for the facility several years ago. Having hatched plans for the expansion, The Front proposed a partnership, giving USA Climbing the opportunity to collaborate on design. USA Climbing decided not to pursue the idea. “To host National Championships, World Cups, and World Championships at a reduced cost and with the spectator amounts we needed, it just didn’t fit,” says Norman.

On December 10, The Front sent a letter to USA Climbing’s Board of Directors, stating that while they support a permanent training center for the Team, they oppose a commercial facility. Should USA Climbing proceed, “we are suspending our support of USA Climbing events,” the letter stated.

The letter had a snowball effect. Two weeks later, the CWA hosted a video call to give gym owners the opportunity to voice their opinions. A week after that, many of the same participants, representing 22 companies with 75 facilities across the country, signed their names onto another letter to USA Climbing’s Board of Directors, further outlining reasons for their opposition to USA Climbing’s project. Like in The Front’s letter, this petition stated that they’d discontinue hosting USA Climbing events beyond pre-existing commitments.

“USA Climbing doesn’t seem to fully understand the existential crisis they’re facing,” says Jeffery Bowling, creative and business development director of Touchstone Climbing, which has 16 locations across California. “If they move forward on this, there is a strong possibility that in several years there will be lots of gyms which do not have USA Climbing teams.”

As the dispute quickly unfolded, the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency had a response of its own. On January 18, the organization paused the $2 million loan to The Front. Amanda Greenland, communications and outreach manager of the RDA, explained to Climbing, “The RDA was made aware of the concerns that The Front and other commercial climbing gyms had with the National Training Center on December 22, 10 days after the RDA Board granted approval of The Front’s loan request. In our minds, the two projects were never linked and were each evaluated independently of one another. While we are sensitive to The Front’s concerns and of course want them to succeed, representatives have since made statements that are counter to the positive picture of the industry that was painted in their loan application, forcing the RDA to pause and consider the issue further.”

Having already begun construction, The Front is currently in a precarious position. Justin Wyse, The Front’s Chief of Staff, noted that if the loan remains paused, they will be seriously impacted with what they can do with their space.

Discussions of the RDA’s ground lease to USA Climbing were also paused to give the USA Climbing Board of Directors the opportunity to engage with stakeholders and work towards an agreeable solution.

The Vision: A Pipeline for Success

The new facility is meant to serve as a focal point for American comp climbing, the American version of Austria’s Kletterzentrum Innsbruck (KI), which is arguably the world’s most famous gym. KI big and it’s beautiful, with sprawling indoor and outdoor walls. There’s ample space for spectators, and since opening in 2017, the facility has played host to dozens of international events. It houses up to 650 climbers at any given time, and is also the Austrian climbing team’s official performance center. Notably, the facility is government subsidized.

While the American facility will directly impact national team members, Norman hopes its scope will be far more reaching.

“I believe this will elevate the sport and its visibility nationwide,” he says. “Some may believe the facility is for elite athletes, but I also think it is as much for today’s and future youth to aspire to—it is their facility, providing them a facility for major events and a complete pipeline to achieve their dreams.”

As things stand, the plans for the space are to host not only competitions, but also events like youth summer or back-to-school camps and industry-focused courses to educate routesetters and coaches. Spaces open to the public would include training and bouldering terrain, lead, and speed walls, while team athletes would have their own spray walls, training boards, bouldering terrain, locker rooms, and nutrition and recovery spaces.

In their proposal to the RDA, USA Climbing outlined plans to hire 50 to 60 staff members to run the new facility, in addition to three more coaches. USA Climbing is hoping profits from the gym will feed back into the organization’s wider efforts; cumulative net revenue, accounting for 50-percent of the projected savings from events, is an estimated to be $7.28M by year 10.

The Concerns: Money and Transparency

While on the surface the project seemingly only impacts gym owners in Salt Lake City, gym owners around the country feel that USA Climbing is shouldering into their space.

“USA climbing is an organization that we’ve been partnered with for 20 years now,” says Jeffery Bowling. “We’ve hosted their competitions, which are always kind of a money loss for us, in the name of supporting kids climbing and supporting USA Climbing. It’s offensive that they have now decided to become a competitor.”

In their letter to the USA Climbing board, The Front echoed this sentiment, stating that many of the USA Climbing events the gym had hosted were at a loss. Furthermore, since 2018 the gym has provided annual free and reduced memberships to USAC staff and athletes—a $40,000 kickback in 2023 alone.

In an effort to increase accessibility, USA Climbing has stated that it plans to price memberships to be less than that of The Front’s. The Front voiced concern that this will further undercut their business.

“In order to get revenue sources, you have to have a large membership base. And that membership base is going to be directly coming from all of these other climbing gym competitors,” says Wyse. “Mark [Norman] seems to think that USA Climbing opening a commercial gym will create this massive new market that hasn’t previously existed in Salt Lake City. And that’s just false.”

Bowling underlines that the issue is not simply that the new facility could pull away members from gyms like The Front; it’s that they’re getting state funding to do so. “It seems like they’re using their status as the governing body to secure funding for a commercial gym in a way that US commercial providers could never use,” says Bowling.

When I asked him about Kletterzentrum Innsbruck’s subsidies, Bowling said: “The thing about Innsbruck is that all of the gyms in those European countries are government subsidized. Climbing gyms in the US are not government subsidized. We’re not supported by local alpine clubs or the government; we’re all privately owned. And I think that that’s the missing piece in their discussion.”

Adding to the tension is the fact that many gym owners found out about USA Climbing’s plans because of The Front’s letter. Norman admits to Climbing, “we had not made a public announcement, [but] we had been discussing the vision with many stakeholders in the climbing community.” These discussions took place before USA Climbing had secured any funding. “Once we did receive the funding, we received some advice that, in hindsight, I would not have followed.” The advice was not to tell the world about their plans until all or nearly all funding had been secured.

USA Climbing still needs to raise an additional $15 million.

Given the chance, Norman would have done things differently from the start. “All of our stakeholders, especially our gym partners, should have been involved in the development of this transformational project,” he says. “I regret that, and look forward to working with them to hopefully move the project forward.”

Looking Ahead

The RDA has said it is supportive of USA Climbing’s efforts to engage with the community, although their recent pause may put the chosen site location in jeopardy, especially if it drags on.

The Front’s loan likewise remains paused. On January 19, Dustin Buckthal replied to the RDA in a letter, stating his confusion over their decision to pause the loan. “I wish to express our concern that the loan’s status seems unexpectedly linked to our opposition to USA Climbing entering the commercial market, rather than the financial merit and community benefit of our expansion project that was unanimously approved,” he wrote.

Drawing the same connection, several news outlets have called the pause retaliatory. The RDA says it’s just “due diligence,” adding “we are assessing The Front’s loan documents before we move forward.”

Although there is no public forum, USA Climbing has set up a Gym Partner Task Force to begin the process of engaging with gym owners. Since the primary sticking point of USA Climbing’s plans has been the commercial aspect of the facility, Norman admits that they may ultimately roll that back following discussions with stakeholders and the RDA. The decision of how to proceed ultimately lies with the board.

RELATED: What You Need to Know About USA Climbing’s Transgender Athlete Participation Policy

The post USA Climbing Plans to Build a National Training Center. Gym Owners Are Pissed. appeared first on Climbing.

Each year we compile a tribute to the climbers who’ve passed away in the previous 12 months. This year’s list includes 45 climbers ranging in age from 18 to 96. Some of these climbers died of natural causes, at home or in hospitals, among relatives or friends. Others died from rockfall or avalanches, exposure or altitude-related illness. Several died free soloing, or when their gear ripped, or while participating in other mountain sports. 

Quite a few of these climbers were widely known for their on-the-wall accomplishments. They established new routes on Everest’s West Face and Scotland’s Ben Nevis; in Tahquitz and Yosemite and Cathedral Ledge; and among Colorado’s alpine boulderfields. They competed in World Cups and climbed some of the world’s hardest routes and boulders. Several were original Stonemasters and Stonemonkeys. One of them helped found Black Diamond. Another holds nearly two dozen speed records on El Cap and in Zion. A third lived for more than a decade in a Yosemite cave, free soloed the Steck-Salathé (5.10- 1,600 feet) more than 300 times, and made the first ski descent of Half Dome. One of them did the first ascent of the Steck-Salathé.

Yet while most of the climbers remembered here were more local in their name-recognition, they all played essential roles in their communities, their friend groups, and their families; they were climbing guides and physicists, teachers and students, musicians and EMTs and firefighters; they were essential threads in the wide and varied fabric of the climbing world.

Building this list was both a celebratory and a somber task, one that reminds us of our rich history, our strong community, and the dangers inherent in our sport. For those experiencing a loss, we recommend visiting the American Alpine Club’s Climbing Grief Fund. It’s an amazing resource. 

We acknowledge that, despite our best efforts, this list is almost certainly incomplete. In this matter, we ask for your understanding.

We also ask that you please be safe out there. 

—Delaney Miller, Anthony Walsh, and Steven Potter

The post Climbers We Lost in 2023 appeared first on Climbing.