Lochaber folk: I'm doing a talk this Thursday evening in Fort William cinema about the thrills and spills of progressing from a pretty unremarkable climber for many years, to the first ascent of the hardest trad route in the world. tickets.highlandcinema.co.uk/movie/19857
not gonna lie i didnt like your videos at first but then i realised that part of me wanted me to be comfortable and stagnant and be told what to do. i wanted an easy answer or clear path which i now see is an illusion. i see the running theme in your videos is that there is no perfect answer for anybody and it's up to us to carve our own path. this has been a useful pointer for my mindset thank you
i think learning climbing technique is like learning to improvise music on an instrument! you soak up everything you can, every second of the day, practice avtively but also passively, always aware of the things that contribute to each decision, and you are a sponge that just takes it all in, and eventually learn to trust your subconcious to make the right choices at the right time, wether to represent your feelings, or to take the path of least resistance on a route or boulder! you are always inspiring, thank you for all the videos you put out!
I think these ideas are super fundamental to the learning process for any complex skill, in software engineering it's often referred to it as "Fail fast fail often" What you said about being somewhat isolated and not just looking to others or watching videos for a solution really resonated with me. I've spent a lot of time working on things by myself in the last few years and have come to appreciate how much more you can sometimes learn by having absolutely no set path given to you for how to learn a skill/ solve a particular problem. You really start to unlock new levels of creativity and unpack a lot of the "why" behind different approaches failing or succeeding.
Defintiely. At this point I've heard dozens of people who are elite in their field say the same thing about the learning process in their own slightly unique way. Some of my favourite books on this topic are "The Art of Learning" by Josh Waitzkin and "Peak" by Anders Ericsson. Dr. K of healthygamergg on UA-cam had a brilliant lecture on the topic of learning too but that's behind a membership paywall.
Thank you for your amazing insight Dave! As a climber and musician, your thoughts on how to intentionally cultivate habits for improving technique through experimentation are really powerful. Not to mention the significance of underestimating your ability in the long term, given the right practice and circumstance. Great stuff.
I've almost finished your new book! Thanks for writing another excellent addition to my growing climbing collection. Let me know if you ever come to climb in The Grampians (I know you avoid flying for environmental reasons), and I'm more than happy to show you round. I really enjoyed your book, thanks again
I only climb v11 so nowhere near Dave's ability but I'd consider myself strong. I've found climbing at your absolute limit is the best way to train technique. When you're at your strength limit you rely so much more heavily in technique since the move would be impossible otherwise where whereas when you're below your limit you can pull through with bad technique and rely solely on strength.
This is exactly how learning mathematics works. The more you use things that help you, the less you learn. You have to actually fire up your own brain to figure it out from scratch. I'm talking about advanced research-based math here, which is quite creative, much like climbing technique.
Upon reading Dave's book, exactly what he said happened to me: I identified with a sentence where he talks of how he obsessed about training and could push himself, sometimes to his detriment (over training) because he had such a strong drive. It made me realize, I am really average and not naturally gifted as a climber, but I have drive like that in spades, and so why did I ever write myself off as a potentially good climber? It's my own self belief that needs changed far more than finding the most cutting edge training plan. Reading Dave's book (along with following his channel for many years) has really helped me as a climber, but also as a person. Thanks, Dave!
Yes to imagination outside of climbing time, what a great point! I thought a lot in the shower about the placements and movement on a small project with non ideal placements and ground fall potential. That thinking and creativity was one part which contributed to me getting the red point. Although now it's the winter here, I'm now daydreaming about developing a roof crack. Maybe day dreaming is for the obsessive? Or is it (healthy) obsessiveness that is one ingredient that leads to improvement?
Thanks so much Dave - amazing and on point! Always enjoy your wisdom, but mostly the clear structured way how you bring it across very much. And oc I need your book ;)
I think one way to practically apply this is to approach every boulder problem and route like a competition and go for the flash or minimum attempts possible. Most people probably do this already to some extent, but it's still a good tip; especially for beginners. It also saves energy and skin if you make your attempts count!
Great video like always Dave. I thoroughly enjoyed your book as well. I'm curious, since you often refer to yourself as average (at least back when you started), how did you deal with comparisons between yourself and other climbers that were progressing faster than you? I would definitely watch that video with great interest
I have to agree with this. The amount that I learn from doing rope solo projecting on infrequently used routes where no one is around and I don't know the beta has helped me make massive technique improvements, as well as being comfortable that my beta can be vastly different than others. It may take me 30+ sessions to send something, most of which is beta experimentation by the end. The end result being all sorts of new skills and strengths.
I think another interesting thing to consider with setting goals and what average means is how that has changed over time. 40-50 years ago the cutting edge of climbing is what more or less is considered average today. Given, a lot has changed over that time and grades have inflated (as evidenced by the fact I can flash 5.11- at one crag and another crag I get shut down on 5.10a) but it still broadly holds true. Funnily enough, it seems like there has been grade deflation in the aid climbing scene though. The A4/A5 of yor now is often times closer to A3!
timing of force application is something I have never spent a minute on in a single of my climbing/training days. At least not consciously. holy hell I have something to try here
Dave I love your content and have learned so much from you but I do have qualm with your subtitle. The “average climber” is sport climbing around 6a-b, how many years did you stay plateaued at this level to consider yourself “average”. I reckon you blew right by this level.
@@climbermacleodwell I’m excited to read it and will be shortly. I think that the idea of being average is a moving target somewhat like the next level is once you’ve achieved your goal. If I’m climbing around the 12d/13a level surrounded by people climbing 5.14 I very may well consider myself “below average” but that would be disparaging to the people who are actually “average” compared to the community at large. As always I have great respect for you Dave, just think that you may be painting a ton of people as absolute garbage at climbing if you were just “average”.
@@climbermacleod Do you genuinely believe everyone undertaking climbing is genetically able/gifted to climb E11, 9c, 9A and it is solely down to their approach to training/climbing if they don't? If not, and you do acknowledge that genetics will have a big determination on where someone can max out, where do you see the approximate average grades to be for trad, sport, bouldering.....?
@@climbermacleod Would you consider yourself to have been average when you (i think) won Scottish Uni's bouldering champs (1999-2000 ish) with something like 192 points, having only dropped points by missing a dyno ?
Hi Dave, how can I get the book from Mexico? I've managed to get a couple of your other books through Amazon and Buscalibre but so far no luck with the newest one
Completely unrelated but could you make a video about your thoughts on apoB? It seems like this biomarker is portrayed in a similar fashion as cholesterol was 15 years ago. Love your vids! /esse
Good video and no doubt the book is a good read with lots of valuable information. I would, however, like to join the chorus of people commenting on the "average climber" subtitle. I don't doubt that it is true that Dave MacLeod was stuck at average grades for sometime and managed to change course. In this respect the subtitle of is valid. However, there is a second point which is that successful athletes have a tendency to attribute their success to their training and methods and underplay the genetic hand they were dealt. It is common to hear "I was genetically average, but I managed to attain a high level through hard work, clever training etc etc". This is rarely, if ever, true. As a general rule highly successful athletes have mutant level genetics in some respects. However, equally common is some sort of bias tends to make athletes falsely believe that they achieved success in spite of average genetics. Dave appears to fall into this camp as there are many statements in various articles, books and UA-cam videos in which Dave portrays himself as lacking the physical attributes that other elite climber possess and considering himself to be outperforming his physical attributes due to technique/tactics etc. Whereas, when the physical attributes were tested by Lattice this turned out not to be the case. In fact Dave had some of the highest finger strength and critical force numbers Lattice had ever tested. Yes the RFD was lowish but the overall picture was, if anything, of an athlete that is underperforming not outperforming their physical attributes. Obviously the physical attributes required years of training to obtain but in the world of elite sport when your three finger drag and critical force numbers are higher than other professionals who are genetically gifted and training their butts off then you have won some kind of genetic lottery. None of this makes this video or the book invalid since it appears that Dave was able to make changes that got him out of being stuck at a grade range which I understand was the point of the subtitle. Nor is it to suggest that Dave's success as a climber is mainly due to a good genetic hand. He clearly needed years of dedication too. A genetic gift for developing strong fingers is worthless if you don't figure out how to develop and use that potential. Nevertheless I don't think this was a good choice of a subtitle for the book where the author, like many other successful athletes, has trouble recognizing the exceptional physical gifts he has and the role they have played in him achieving elite performance.
Hard disagree. I couldn't get anywhere near those finger strength numbers until over a decade past the period covered in my book. Your point about others training their butts off underlines the point of the book. Most folk, like me, train their butts off with poor training choices.
@@climbermacleod I am not sure what you're disagreeing about. I am asserting that there are a lot of talented people fail to recognize the role talent had in their success. Instead they think that they are 'average' and got their results only because of hard work, clever training etc. This is a very common phenomenon which I assume you recognize in others. You appear, or at least have in the past, to be one of those people. In light of this I don't think the subtitle was the best choice. There are many many instances but if we go to for example the Lattice video which you put out you say at 3:19 (ua-cam.com/video/_EY3XA7e-pw/v-deo.html) "I think my finger strength should be okay but I don't think it's exceptional ... I think my technique and tactics is my best strength and that carries me". But the results carried a different story. The fact that this is years after the period covered by the book is not really relevant. The point is that as an athlete you, like thousands before and after you, were over attributing your success to tactics and technique. To your credit you recognized the mismatch between your perception and reality since the title the video is "Some surprises for me". As I said, I see the validity in explaining that you went from average to elite through a change in approach. And, I see that that change in approach can be valuable for others. So I don't question the validity of the book. But I question the choice of subtitle since a "weakness" you seem to have is not physical weakness but a weakness in failing to recognize that you were not "average" at least when it came to potential for development of the physical characteristics needed for elite climbing. Ironically, it may be that your beliefs that your success is down to good tactics/technique may have in fact held you back somewhat. I don't know how much stock someone can really place on a Lattice test but the results seem to further illustrate the point I think you book is making which is that people are held back by self-limiting beliefs. In your case that appears to have been that your physical gifts were not the same as other elite climbers. I mean you obviously cannot change the subtitle of the book now but I really think the message should have been, what I think (or at least hope) the book is about, which is not (at least I hope) not some bullshit message that an average person can climb the hardest climb in the UK if only they apply the right approach but instead (at least I hope) that it may be that you can achieve far more than you currently are if you change your approach. So it probably should have been "How a guy with the genetics to climb 9a+ got stuck at British Severe until he changed his approach".
The subtitle-average climber-makes more sense taken as ‘average approach’, ‘average aspirations’, and ‘average technique’ rather than just average grades. Commenters who focus just on how hard Dave climbed in his early years compared to their own or their community’s ‘average’ are missing the point: plenty of average people will climb hard grades but still fail to reach their potential.
I'd love to know if you think the young mutants getting to extreme grades quickly do so because they have applied, even without knowing it, what you describe here or not. If not, what does it say about the level they could reach if they did? Any guesses? 10a?
Most got good coaching early on. And with the pool of climbers getting larger; more climbers with " ideal" genetics and a good attitude towards coaching and self examination are in the pool.
@craigbritton1089 given the emphasis put everywhere on the physical markers, and given what I know of some high level french coaching, I suspend judgement. And would love to hear Dave's thoughts on this.
@@denislejeune9218 I have helped coached kids who have made the national team; and as the pool of youth has increased; the standards have gone up; not only in the number of high performers with strength and endurance; but the ability to respond well to being coached; the ability to rest/ recover well; and having a good mindset for staying focused and solve problems quickly in comps have become more important; and some with great natural ability just do not have the drive and/;or personality to do the work needed to stay at the most elite levels. I have seen youth who out climb others outdoors who do not out climb the same youth in comps; I think that Dave stressing that many more " average" climbers can become high level climbers is that there are many factors that help improve both physical markers and the psychological issues that can move climbers towards being an "expert" climber.
There are no 9c's here in America, and I am dedicating my life to climbing (trying to), so I suppose I will set my new goal as to become the new Adam Ondra lol. My current 5 year goal is 9a. I think anyone genetically average among the pool of those with no disabilities can climb 9a in their lifetime. I would like to do it by the time I am 27.
I love every single you put out Dave, I always have one question though: where did you get that Mountain Equipment hoodie? From the US and can’t find it anywhere online. Looks so comfy
I've almost finished your new book! Thanks for writing another excellent addition to my growing climbing collection. Let me know if you ever come to climb in The Grampians (I know you avoid flying for environmental reasons), and I'm more than happy to show you round. I really enjoyed your book, thanks again
Lochaber folk: I'm doing a talk this Thursday evening in Fort William cinema about the thrills and spills of progressing from a pretty unremarkable climber for many years, to the first ascent of the hardest trad route in the world. tickets.highlandcinema.co.uk/movie/19857
not gonna lie i didnt like your videos at first but then i realised that part of me wanted me to be comfortable and stagnant and be told what to do. i wanted an easy answer or clear path which i now see is an illusion. i see the running theme in your videos is that there is no perfect answer for anybody and it's up to us to carve our own path. this has been a useful pointer for my mindset thank you
Frankly, that's some good self reflection.
i think learning climbing technique is like learning to improvise music on an instrument! you soak up everything you can, every second of the day, practice avtively but also passively, always aware of the things that contribute to each decision, and you are a sponge that just takes it all in, and eventually learn to trust your subconcious to make the right choices at the right time, wether to represent your feelings, or to take the path of least resistance on a route or boulder! you are always inspiring, thank you for all the videos you put out!
100%. Just left my own comment about this too. I’m always thinking about the amazing parallels between music and climbing!
@@vigilancebrandonI never thought about climbing in the relation to music. But in relation to dance. I do like the music analogy though.
@@vigilancebrandon there are so many parallels, its crazy! and so fun to think about, because it really fuels the understanding of each other!
@@corbindallas3220 that makes aense for sure as well!!
Yes dance as well, for sure!
The sheer amount of time you spent climbing and your dedication to your passion was incredibly inspiring in your book, Dave!
I think these ideas are super fundamental to the learning process for any complex skill, in software engineering it's often referred to it as "Fail fast fail often"
What you said about being somewhat isolated and not just looking to others or watching videos for a solution really resonated with me. I've spent a lot of time working on things by myself in the last few years and have come to appreciate how much more you can sometimes learn by having absolutely no set path given to you for how to learn a skill/ solve a particular problem. You really start to unlock new levels of creativity and unpack a lot of the "why" behind different approaches failing or succeeding.
Defintiely. At this point I've heard dozens of people who are elite in their field say the same thing about the learning process in their own slightly unique way. Some of my favourite books on this topic are "The Art of Learning" by Josh Waitzkin and "Peak" by Anders Ericsson. Dr. K of healthygamergg on UA-cam had a brilliant lecture on the topic of learning too but that's behind a membership paywall.
Thank you for your amazing insight Dave! As a climber and musician, your thoughts on how to intentionally cultivate habits for improving technique through experimentation are really powerful. Not to mention the significance of underestimating your ability in the long term, given the right practice and circumstance. Great stuff.
I've almost finished your new book! Thanks for writing another excellent addition to my growing climbing collection. Let me know if you ever come to climb in The Grampians (I know you avoid flying for environmental reasons), and I'm more than happy to show you round.
I really enjoyed your book, thanks again
I only climb v11 so nowhere near Dave's ability but I'd consider myself strong. I've found climbing at your absolute limit is the best way to train technique. When you're at your strength limit you rely so much more heavily in technique since the move would be impossible otherwise where whereas when you're below your limit you can pull through with bad technique and rely solely on strength.
I have now read the first 4 chapters of the Book, it is so inspiring!
Same!
The book looks and feels great. Well done! 👏👏👏 Looking forward to reading.
This is exactly how learning mathematics works. The more you use things that help you, the less you learn. You have to actually fire up your own brain to figure it out from scratch. I'm talking about advanced research-based math here, which is quite creative, much like climbing technique.
True for mathematics at most levels to be honest
Upon reading Dave's book, exactly what he said happened to me: I identified with a sentence where he talks of how he obsessed about training and could push himself, sometimes to his detriment (over training) because he had such a strong drive. It made me realize, I am really average and not naturally gifted as a climber, but I have drive like that in spades, and so why did I ever write myself off as a potentially good climber? It's my own self belief that needs changed far more than finding the most cutting edge training plan. Reading Dave's book (along with following his channel for many years) has really helped me as a climber, but also as a person. Thanks, Dave!
Love your insights and concise explanations, thank you! Also cheers to your dialect/accent, so nice to listen to!
Yes to imagination outside of climbing time, what a great point! I thought a lot in the shower about the placements and movement on a small project with non ideal placements and ground fall potential. That thinking and creativity was one part which contributed to me getting the red point. Although now it's the winter here, I'm now daydreaming about developing a roof crack. Maybe day dreaming is for the obsessive? Or is it (healthy) obsessiveness that is one ingredient that leads to improvement?
Excellent video as my usual
Thanks so much Dave - amazing and on point!
Always enjoy your wisdom, but mostly the clear structured way how you bring it across very much.
And oc I need your book ;)
The book is brilliant Dave
Thx for all your good content, i sadly dont always understand everything since english is not my first language but i still appreciate it a lot❤❤
I think one way to practically apply this is to approach every boulder problem and route like a competition and go for the flash or minimum attempts possible. Most people probably do this already to some extent, but it's still a good tip; especially for beginners. It also saves energy and skin if you make your attempts count!
Playing the problems through in my head really helps me to9
Great video like always Dave. I thoroughly enjoyed your book as well. I'm curious, since you often refer to yourself as average (at least back when you started), how did you deal with comparisons between yourself and other climbers that were progressing faster than you? I would definitely watch that video with great interest
I have to agree with this. The amount that I learn from doing rope solo projecting on infrequently used routes where no one is around and I don't know the beta has helped me make massive technique improvements, as well as being comfortable that my beta can be vastly different than others. It may take me 30+ sessions to send something, most of which is beta experimentation by the end. The end result being all sorts of new skills and strengths.
I think another interesting thing to consider with setting goals and what average means is how that has changed over time. 40-50 years ago the cutting edge of climbing is what more or less is considered average today. Given, a lot has changed over that time and grades have inflated (as evidenced by the fact I can flash 5.11- at one crag and another crag I get shut down on 5.10a) but it still broadly holds true.
Funnily enough, it seems like there has been grade deflation in the aid climbing scene though. The A4/A5 of yor now is often times closer to A3!
Legend. Just legend.
timing of force application is something I have never spent a minute on in a single of my climbing/training days. At least not consciously. holy hell I have something to try here
Visualizing the moves on my proj in between climbing sessions while working and not getting work done.
Dang , you are talking to me Dave. 50 years of climbing and i am very average, but want to be much better. I have the book i shall read.
Dave I love your content and have learned so much from you but I do have qualm with your subtitle. The “average climber” is sport climbing around 6a-b, how many years did you stay plateaued at this level to consider yourself “average”. I reckon you blew right by this level.
Encountering folk making your assumption was one of the reasons I had to write it.
@@climbermacleodwell I’m excited to read it and will be shortly. I think that the idea of being average is a moving target somewhat like the next level is once you’ve achieved your goal. If I’m climbing around the 12d/13a level surrounded by people climbing 5.14 I very may well consider myself “below average” but that would be disparaging to the people who are actually “average” compared to the community at large. As always I have great respect for you Dave, just think that you may be painting a ton of people as absolute garbage at climbing if you were just “average”.
@@climbermacleod Do you genuinely believe everyone undertaking climbing is genetically able/gifted to climb E11, 9c, 9A and it is solely down to their approach to training/climbing if they don't? If not, and you do acknowledge that genetics will have a big determination on where someone can max out, where do you see the approximate average grades to be for trad, sport, bouldering.....?
@@climbermacleod Would you consider yourself to have been average when you (i think) won Scottish Uni's bouldering champs (1999-2000 ish) with something like 192 points, having only dropped points by missing a dyno ?
@@GeorgeLupton sounds pretty average to me right? 😅
It’s always nice when you don’t have signal and have to figure out beta on your own.
Hi Dave, how can I get the book from Mexico? I've managed to get a couple of your other books through Amazon and Buscalibre but so far no luck with the newest one
Completely unrelated but could you make a video about your thoughts on apoB? It seems like this biomarker is portrayed in a similar fashion as cholesterol was 15 years ago. Love your vids! /esse
Good video and no doubt the book is a good read with lots of valuable information. I would, however, like to join the chorus of people commenting on the "average climber" subtitle. I don't doubt that it is true that Dave MacLeod was stuck at average grades for sometime and managed to change course. In this respect the subtitle of is valid.
However, there is a second point which is that successful athletes have a tendency to attribute their success to their training and methods and underplay the genetic hand they were dealt. It is common to hear "I was genetically average, but I managed to attain a high level through hard work, clever training etc etc". This is rarely, if ever, true. As a general rule highly successful athletes have mutant level genetics in some respects. However, equally common is some sort of bias tends to make athletes falsely believe that they achieved success in spite of average genetics. Dave appears to fall into this camp as there are many statements in various articles, books and UA-cam videos in which Dave portrays himself as lacking the physical attributes that other elite climber possess and considering himself to be outperforming his physical attributes due to technique/tactics etc. Whereas, when the physical attributes were tested by Lattice this turned out not to be the case. In fact Dave had some of the highest finger strength and critical force numbers Lattice had ever tested. Yes the RFD was lowish but the overall picture was, if anything, of an athlete that is underperforming not outperforming their physical attributes. Obviously the physical attributes required years of training to obtain but in the world of elite sport when your three finger drag and critical force numbers are higher than other professionals who are genetically gifted and training their butts off then you have won some kind of genetic lottery.
None of this makes this video or the book invalid since it appears that Dave was able to make changes that got him out of being stuck at a grade range which I understand was the point of the subtitle. Nor is it to suggest that Dave's success as a climber is mainly due to a good genetic hand. He clearly needed years of dedication too. A genetic gift for developing strong fingers is worthless if you don't figure out how to develop and use that potential.
Nevertheless I don't think this was a good choice of a subtitle for the book where the author, like many other successful athletes, has trouble recognizing the exceptional physical gifts he has and the role they have played in him achieving elite performance.
Hard disagree. I couldn't get anywhere near those finger strength numbers until over a decade past the period covered in my book. Your point about others training their butts off underlines the point of the book. Most folk, like me, train their butts off with poor training choices.
@@climbermacleod I am not sure what you're disagreeing about.
I am asserting that there are a lot of talented people fail to recognize the role talent had in their success. Instead they think that they are 'average' and got their results only because of hard work, clever training etc. This is a very common phenomenon which I assume you recognize in others. You appear, or at least have in the past, to be one of those people. In light of this I don't think the subtitle was the best choice.
There are many many instances but if we go to for example the Lattice video which you put out you say at 3:19 (ua-cam.com/video/_EY3XA7e-pw/v-deo.html) "I think my finger strength should be okay but I don't think it's exceptional ... I think my technique and tactics is my best strength and that carries me". But the results carried a different story. The fact that this is years after the period covered by the book is not really relevant. The point is that as an athlete you, like thousands before and after you, were over attributing your success to tactics and technique. To your credit you recognized the mismatch between your perception and reality since the title the video is "Some surprises for me".
As I said, I see the validity in explaining that you went from average to elite through a change in approach. And, I see that that change in approach can be valuable for others. So I don't question the validity of the book. But I question the choice of subtitle since a "weakness" you seem to have is not physical weakness but a weakness in failing to recognize that you were not "average" at least when it came to potential for development of the physical characteristics needed for elite climbing. Ironically, it may be that your beliefs that your success is down to good tactics/technique may have in fact held you back somewhat. I don't know how much stock someone can really place on a Lattice test but the results seem to further illustrate the point I think you book is making which is that people are held back by self-limiting beliefs. In your case that appears to have been that your physical gifts were not the same as other elite climbers.
I mean you obviously cannot change the subtitle of the book now but I really think the message should have been, what I think (or at least hope) the book is about, which is not (at least I hope) not some bullshit message that an average person can climb the hardest climb in the UK if only they apply the right approach but instead (at least I hope) that it may be that you can achieve far more than you currently are if you change your approach. So it probably should have been "How a guy with the genetics to climb 9a+ got stuck at British Severe until he changed his approach".
Enjoyed the wee tour of Dumbarton in the background
Think I asked this on another video. When you call yourself "average" in the past, what sort of level was this?
Severe, which translates to about 4/5 on sport grades.
@@climbermacleod interesting thanks! Got the book sitting waiting to be read whenever I get through the (persistent) backlog 😁
will be a german translation of the book available?
Hi Dave, how do we buy your book in the states? Your website only has UK shipping options.
No we ship round the world. Just change the destination country on the checkout page.
The subtitle-average climber-makes more sense taken as ‘average approach’, ‘average aspirations’, and ‘average technique’ rather than just average grades. Commenters who focus just on how hard Dave climbed in his early years compared to their own or their community’s ‘average’ are missing the point: plenty of average people will climb hard grades but still fail to reach their potential.
I'd love to know if you think the young mutants getting to extreme grades quickly do so because they have applied, even without knowing it, what you describe here or not. If not, what does it say about the level they could reach if they did? Any guesses? 10a?
Most got good coaching early on. And with the pool of climbers getting larger; more climbers with " ideal" genetics and a good attitude towards coaching and self examination are in the pool.
@craigbritton1089 given the emphasis put everywhere on the physical markers, and given what I know of some high level french coaching, I suspend judgement. And would love to hear Dave's thoughts on this.
@@denislejeune9218 I have helped coached kids who have made the national team; and as the pool of youth has increased; the standards have gone up; not only in the number of high performers with strength and endurance; but the ability to respond well to being coached; the ability to rest/ recover well; and having a good mindset for staying focused and solve problems quickly in comps have become more important; and some with great natural ability just do not have the drive and/;or personality to do the work needed to stay at the most elite levels.
I have seen youth who out climb others outdoors who do not out climb the same youth in comps;
I think that Dave stressing that many more " average" climbers can become high level climbers is that there are many factors that help improve both physical markers and the psychological issues that can move climbers towards being an "expert" climber.
What does it mean, that Dave was an average climber?
Lol probably 5.13 is average for him
@@maldeventre He said Severe which is 4-5 sport and 5.6 in yank grades
There are no 9c's here in America, and I am dedicating my life to climbing (trying to), so I suppose I will set my new goal as to become the new Adam Ondra lol. My current 5 year goal is 9a. I think anyone genetically average among the pool of those with no disabilities can climb 9a in their lifetime. I would like to do it by the time I am 27.
I love every single you put out Dave, I always have one question though: where did you get that Mountain Equipment hoodie? From the US and can’t find it anywhere online. Looks so comfy
Not out yet I'm afraid. But should be in the pipeline.
The shipping to the US on your book is quite expensive. Could you work through a US based distributor to make this more affordable?
Black and white paperback edition on its way to Amazon soonish for the less expensive option.
@@climbermacleod Amazing thanks!
oh yeah, e9 is so average 😀Really good video btw so much more information dense than I was expecting
Probably average for people who dedicated their lives to getting better at climbing.
The "average" he was speaking about is apparently Severe (trad grading) which is 4-5 sport and 5.6 in yank grades
I've almost finished your new book! Thanks for writing another excellent addition to my growing climbing collection. Let me know if you ever come to climb in The Grampians (I know you avoid flying for environmental reasons), and I'm more than happy to show you round.
I really enjoyed your book, thanks again