I think about grades... a lot.
The idea of grades is quite interesting if we could expand on them a bit.
I'd like to run some experiments where you test a climbers overall strength along with weight, reach and experience.
It's interesting for me to watch a climber at the gym doing pull-ups, dips, campusing, dead hangs and compare them to another climber who has climbed the same amount of time but who does not spend the time training as above. Sometimes the non-trainer climbs harder grades.
Lets put it like this. If someone can do twice as much pull-ups, twice as much dips, is better at campusing but ends up climbing two grades lower, what is the reason?
Is climbing about grip strength? Does technique matter most?
Or is it a mental aspect that makes grades attainable for some and not others?
I know of climbers who can do one-arm pull-ups but haven't cracked double digits. Seems strange to me because I always felt like finger strength and lock off ability make for strong climbers.
The best climbers in the world are not necessarily the best athletes in the sport.
So what makes a strong climber?
My theory is muscle recruitment. The best use everything at once, they push their bodies to as close to one hundred percent as possible.
Chris Sharma Pachamama 9a+ from Campblog on Vimeo.