“Structuralism proposes that one may understand human culture by means of a structure […] that differs from concrete reality and from abstract ideas—a “third order” that mediates between the two.” From Deleuze’s “How Do We Recognise Structuralism?”

Anyone who has climbed for some time has undoubtedly had an interesting conversation with climbers and non-climbers alike: the topic of grades. Generally, the conversation asks what they are, who defines them and how do we know what they mean with some sort of disconnection to the interlying dynamics.

What usually starts as a tame conversation can eventually gets a bit more thoughtful as it continues wandering through the forest of metaphysics and thought-experiments. Say for example that I’m extremely short, do the same grades apply to me? A grade purist may recognize that although most grades may not reflect your particular abilities, generally there is a way around everything (try different beta, and so forth). Some will go as far as to say that climbing is more about averaging out the general population and that our individual weaknesses are averaged out by virtue of people agreeing on grades and styles. Some will break from the main narrative and say that grades are subjective (even though they usually don’t believe it).

What’s interesting with all of this, however, is that the whole idea of climbing and the progression of grades is user defined. As much as we’d like to believe that there is some objective truth to a boulder being graded a certain way, due to a plethora of counter-arguments we must resign that grades are objective. Having indoor vs. outdoor grades, areas that are soft, old-school grading and so forth proves that there is no objective grade or way to know the a priori grade-in-itself. Not having a benchmark where everyone agrees is a testament of this fact.

So what is the point of pointing out some of these obvious truths back-to-back? Here we could disconnect and just say that the point is that grades are all made up and that they aren’t real anyway. This would be an easy way to finish a fun article about how you should try your best no matter what or some other hashtag-worthy commentary. Instead we’ll delve a bit deeper into what post-modern thought calls structuralism.

Structuralism is a certain way of thinking about larger societal tendencies as part of a system instead of focusing on the individuals elements. For example, structural linguistics deals with how a language works as a whole instead of examining it’s elements. A structural linguist would ask, for example, if I point at a tree, do I mean “tree” or “forest” or “birch” or “branch” or “plant.” They would ask, how do you define words if the words need other words to define them? Basically, everything is interwoven in one big mesh that seems inseparable.

Back to grades and climbing.

When we examine grades as a singular point, it’s easy to think that strength or skill separates one person from one grade to the next. And yet, we just have not really considered the structure in which the climbing grades exist, i.e. the world of climbing.

Consider a chimney. Say it is a really big one. One that you need to either do the splits on or to do a full body span. On one side are your palms and on the other are your feet. Consider now that you are 5 foot 1 inches and your partner is 6 foot 8 inches. Now lets make the chimney a span of 3 inches beyond your reach but maybe a foot and a half shorter than your partner’s span. This climb is impossible for you. Even though it may be very difficult for your partner, they are able to climb it.

Now, I don’t want to say it’s a binary of can-climb and can’t-climb but this sort of dynamic exists to some extent in all routes. All people have different hand sizes, finger sizes and so forth. All routes may vary in difficulty due to body geometry.

What have been classically true, however, is that a certain type of climber has, for the most part, advanced the grades with their “objective” lens. A climber of around 5 ft 10 in (175 cm) has dominated what it means to climb grades to this point and in such we’ve defined our entire grading structure based on this.

And this isn’t something that is impossible to reason. Where people are generally the most surprised when it comes to body geometry is when taking a trip to Indian Creek for the first time. It becomes incredibly obvious that these are grades made for an average hand size of a typical climber. Smaller climbers (women, generally) are then better at the thin hands (usually graded higher) and worse at the fists (usually lower grades).

I’m not here to demonize men or people who are perfectly average for climbing or say that climbing should be a more inclusive sport. I just want to make that perfectly clear. That to me is a boring topic that most people have discussed ad nauseam.

What I do want to ask which is a more interesting question to me is has this limited our ability to see the edges of hard climbing? And how has it clouded our perspective in regards to top climbers?

The limits of hard climbing

Currently we have two top climbs vying for number one spot on the list of hardest climb. Silence by Ondra is rated 5.15d and Burden of Dreams by Nalle is V17. Both are not yet repeated at the time of writing this article. Nalle and Ondra have not yet reported to have tried each other’s routes.

However, I am unconvinced that either of these routes can objectively be classified as the hardest routes in their categories. Neither of them seem to have a second suitor standing in line to try the routes and neither may ever be repeated. However, this metric is extremely poor. Many top climbs, such as Fred’s Akira (15b), have not yet been repeated. We also all but discredit climbs that aren’t done by top climbers and reported on (No Kpote Only, another V17, doesn’t get much attention).

Adam Ondra himself has a piece on Planet Mountain about the routes he can’t climb. Most boil down to either not having the juice that particular day or “heinous crimps.” However, knowing Ondra and his body, I cannot really disassociate the thought of someone lighter and smaller coming by and flashing all these routes that he couldn’t do, using smaller hand size and weight ratio to pull on the minutiae.

Where this conversation takes us is that the realm of hard climbing is currently structurally defined and yet seems like it isn’t to those who report on it and practice it. Grades at these levels seem stochastic and user defined and yet those who climb the “top grades” seem objective in their judgement.

Let’s take a step back and say we could put a panel of people to measure and reason the grades of a boulder problem. Distance between holds, hold size, length, number of holds… Would we come up with the same ranking of climbs more or less? Now what if the task force were a group of people that hadn’t ever climbed but were explained the sport and its motivations: would there be other factors that would separate these climbs or would they still be regimented by heinous crimps and out-of-control dynos?

Here is where the limits of climbing become ever apparent. Everything is based on internal feeling, personal effort and thoughts of a single climber at the time of the ascent. To which certain body types are reinforced into thinking they know the progression is a function of the structures that entomb climbing. A strong top climber is told by media and the outside that this route is more difficult and that if they continue with pushing on their current axis that this will yield even more difficult problems.

Those who do not fit the mold of hard climbers are told a different thing. To climb like the structure that is surrounded by hard climbing and that this is the path to the objectively hardest routes.

What is interesting is that perhaps this means that women, smaller people, extremely tall people or differently bodies are constantly forced to conform to something that if they let go of could yield new and interesting problems that would maybe be the most difficult for them, objectively. It would maybe usher in a new age where grades were qualified in terms of other factors.

The bleed-over into the sport

Now sure, this may be a conversation for the top 1% of the climbing world. We can hope that people decide to start climbing their own problems and that they accept this as perhaps being easier or harder for any other person as not a downgrade and more of a divert-grade.

The hope would be that a whole new generation of climbing problems come out of breaking down some of the systematic barriers of climbing. Perhaps the recognition in climbing that certain styles are even different sports all together. Could aid-climbing be reborn as being fundamentally similar to free climbing (if the grades did start to line up with physicality and not objective danger).

I think that this may, however, have a tendency to limit us in terms of what it means to climb indoors and in competitions as well. Onward!

The comps

The world of competitions is an extremely strange thing. To come back to my panel of extremely detached persons trying to find the grade of a climb based on variables, this seems to me that this is exactly what is happening in modern competition setting, minus of course the objectivity. A panel of people with a certain amount of success at the dominant forms of climbing determine the problems that will be climbed. Having participated at the behind the veil of this, the problems are also set in terms of who the top talent at the comp will be.

Isn’t this the most obvious form of a structure perpetuating it’s own tendencies? We’re accepting that a certain style of climbing is difficult and that we want to push into that direction to test who is the best at it.

This is maybe where structuralism is completely apparent in conversation. We talk about the new age style of run-and-jumps over the old school style of power endurance and outdoor style climbing. A shift in the structure of competition climbing is moving certain elements into the limelight and shying away from others. Those who excel at one are incredibly frustrated at the other.

This, in fact is the obvious truth of it all in regards to competitions being trapped in the structures of the climbing world. Even having a male and a female category in a sport that doesn’t rely on strength or height, generally, is incredibly strange. There is a very real possibility, in my mind, that setting could evolve into a gender-less venture. We could have a sport that truly does not filter for sex if only we would accept the walls in which we exist (no pun intended).

But this is far off, in my view, and not something that would be easy to rectify. This goes all the way to the top, where top hold makers are making new holds that are specific to a certain hand size. Even the tools that route setters are given start with have a set of built in parameters that is part of this overarching structure! (Pinch size and pinch holds are often cited as one of the obvious examples).

The gyms we climb at, the crags we frequent

Continuing on from our last thought about the competition scene being set and perpetuated by a structure that is ever apparent, we see this now in general gym setting. The powerful overhanging routes tend to favor certain skill sets. The problems that give us trouble are considered weird or contrived. Gyms are generally run and set by the top individuals in the current structure of the sport. So, how can we really escape it?

Similarly to the crags, a very obvious group of climbers are developing new routes. They are choosing lines and creating. Routes that seem contrived get labeled as such and disregarded in guidebooks.

Our entire world is perpetuated by this intrinsic flow.

Pure Sport, the essence of climbing

Now, I don’t really think that there’s much to be done. I never thought that this article would be a call to arms in any real way. Climbing is going to continue to exist in its current form and will evolve and change probably mostly based on the top tier and the general population.

What I don’t think climbing will ever be, however, is the pure physical pursuit of something such as weight lifting. The extremely complex nature of this sport requires some structure that will be perpetuated to preserve the sport. Just as many complex sports are derived from basic movement, so is climbing.

Know that participating in rock climbing means to be steeped in a form of structuralism that can not be separated from it’s users, setters, route developers, top athletes or general population. Rock climbing’s structures extend to the gyms we build, the routes we grade and rate, the holds that are manufactured and the moves that are executed.

-CC