The blogging sector of the climbing world is alight with varioustheories about whether or not Europeans are eating lunch on American rocks … or something like that.

After stumbling over this phrase that I’ve never understood, I managed to catch up with the gang and understand to the nut of the argument: the Europeans are essentially better than us, and the reasons why range from everything to their superior culture to the state of our own climbing media.

Because everyone is blogging about their own opinions on this pointless-but-fun-to-think-about matter, and because I have a pointless blog and fun opinions, I’ve decided to play, too, since this is a game that only costs two cents to join.

Euros like lunch … and they have eaten ours.

There is no question that, in general, Euros climb harder than we do. Still, it should be pointed out that the conventional wisdom that Euros climb harder than we do in the U.S. is based on a series of events that happened 20+ years ago. Basically, J.B Tribout came over and pissed all over Alan Watts’ projects and put up the first 5.14a and first 5.14c on God’s Soil. Then Patrick Edlinger smoked the field at Snowbird. A few years later, Wolfgang came along and stomped everyone’s brain to pieces by doing Action Directe, the world’s first 5.14d.

So, it was certainly true that at one point the Euros climbed harder than we did, but simply repeating these words over and over perpetuates a social construct that may not necessarily be true still–and it’s possible that it won’t in the future. Now that I think of it, it’s rather interesting that this age-old debate has suddenly resurfaced: It indicates that there’s at least some people who are beginning to believe it’s no longer true; that it has touched so many and inspired comments is certainly an indication that it is now probably only half true.

Still, the Euros sport climb more, train harder, have more free time, have better health insurance, have better access to more continuously steep rock–and above all, SPORT CLIMB MORE. As a result, they have less fears about getting on difficult routes. I know because I met this pudgy 20-year-old German kid in Rifle recently, and he wanted beta for Simply Read, a stout route that is sandbagged at 5.13d. He wasn’t trying to prove anything. He just wanted a good 8b to get on, because apparently in Europe, 8b’s are good second warm-ups.

Here, we read books like “How to Climb 5.12”–as if that’s the most difficult grade one can safely hope to achieve. Everyone has mental knots that limit what he or she believes is possible–but in America, these mental hang-ups seem to be about a full number grade lower.

The German kid did fairly well on Simply Read considering that he was using twin ropes (what?), and had no knee pads and no clue what kneebarring is. His appearance certainly belied his actual strength and talent, but that said, Simply Read totally kicked his ass! After a few attempts, he tried a neighboring 5.13b, which then kicked his ass too. This brings me to my next point:

Not all 8b’s are the same.

As sideline observers, we only have a stupid, superficial grade on which to judge and evaluate the merits of someone’s ascent. Somewhere in the aforehyperlinked (oh hell yeah, cool word!) blogs, I read about how lame it is to report on the nth ascent of routes at Rifle. The fact is, there are 5.13d’s at Rifle that still haven’t been flashed or onsighted. Living in Fear, Simply Read, Zulu. Considering that Living in Fear is basically 70 feet of V4, this is somewhat surprising (Dave Graham came very, very close … but he still fell–I’ll never forget hearing his ensuing tirade about how “bad tickmarks are always fucking me!”).

I’ve heard Spaniards say that some of the 5.13d’s in Rifle, such as Colinator, would be rated 5.14b/c in Spain.

I use Rifle as an example, but the point is larger than this area. Remember when Francois Legrand and Yuji Hirayama came over here with the bravado that they were going to take a piss on every single hard sport climb in America? Remember how they more or less failed to do even one of them? A lot of our limestone is steep, bouldery and cryptic compared to the more straightforward and two-dimensional pocket routes of Ceuse and the Frankenjura, or the chipped “8b’s” of Spain.

I believe that ultimately the Euros are still operating on a higher level–not just on sport, but in bouldering (because of comps/training mentality), trad (because they sport climb–Josune is now establishing 5.13c trad climbs not because she cut her teeth on Serenity Crack in Yosemite, but because she spent the last 15 years clipping bolts), alpine (because they have access to mountains). However, we should still remember that there are some really difficult routes here in the U.S. that, compared to ratings in Europe, are WAY sandbagged and that have continued to shut down, or at least slow down, Europe’s very best.

Still, Europe has much, much better rock. Unless all you want to do is climbing splitter granite cracks, then Europe is a far superior climbing venue compared to America. It has it all–accessible ice and alpine routes, accessible sport climbs of all grades, big walls, small blocks, perfect limestone, perfect granite, perfect sandstone. For the most part, we have corn.

Not the media’s fault

Within all this debate, there emerged a tangent about the Media’s role and how it has influenced the perceived relative shortcomings of top American climbers.

I don’t believe for one second that people train and work to achieve groundbreaking ascents in climbing in order to have videos made about them or to see pictures of themselves in climbing magazines. Nor do I believe that publishing photos of ascents that aren’t the most groundbreaking thing sinceAction Directe somehow fosters an American climbing culture that is content with lagging behind the Euros.

I do, however, believe that it’s true that there are many ascents, and many climbers, that are way over-hyped and not deserving of the attention they’ve received. But still, the burden for discernment should be placed on the reader. The NY Times won’t choose not to report on an earthquake in Indonesia simply because there have been bigger and more devastating earthquakes. Likewise, the Times will also miss reporting on certain significant events because the news never made it to their desks.

I feel like a magazine that simply shows/tells that someone did the 10th or 5th or whatever ascent of some boulder problem or route in this many tries–and who that person is and what they are like–is easily and mistakenly interpreted by the climbing community to mean “This magazine is saying this is the most important thing that has ever happened. EVER.” I sort of understand that interpretation because I remember what it was like to not work at a magazine and read articles and see photos about top climbers succeeding, and how those things influenced me. In fact I think many of my columns have tried to touch upon these frustrations in order to alleviate them.

That said, Rock and Ice, at least, no longer reports on this type of news about who did/sent this or that. Why? Because 1) No one cares (at least that’s what they tell us.) 2) The news is up online on every climber’s blog, or on 8a.nu, or elsewhere and so who wants to then read it in a magazine two months later? Unless the ascent comes with a riveting story that hasn’t been heard, and photos that no one has seen, we’re not interested in the ascent. The climbing community is very small and very diverse. Rock and Ice has the difficult task of trying to be an accurate and shining reflection of that community. I think we do a pretty good job of it–covering bouldering one month, sport climbing the next, throwing in alpine-climbing epics and stories, reviewing all types of gear–but inevitably people will see one story, even if it’s only 10 percent of the issue’s content, and act as though “[that] is all we cover.” There are many instances when we’ve received this type of feedback that can’t see the forest for the trees–but usually when we point this out (politely), people mellow out and feel better.

Ultimately, ground breaking ascents only come along every so often. If it was the media’s role and obligation to the climbing community to only report on so called ascents that matter, you’d only see content emerge once every 15 years.

Sponsorships

A bigger honeypot attracts more flies. In Europe, people get bigger paychecks from bigger companies. Leo Houlding is sponsored by Audi. The Huber brothers got tens of thousands of dollars from Adidas to go to Antarctica.

Here, people are lucky to get free shoes and have their trip expenses paid for. Is money the biggest missing ingredient in this puzzle of why the Euros climb harder than we do? I think it’s a little facile to say yes, but I certainly do believe money is a significant part of the equation.

It’s also true that sponsorships are far from meritocracies. There are people I know with big time sponsors and who can only climb 5.11 on a good day. Some of these people are good ambassadors of the company, attend events, etc. However, there are also people who have the trifecta dishonor of being shitty, self-centered and also they suck at climbing and how they are sponsored baffles me. Does this phenomenon affect standards? And how?

I think it does to some degree. Of course, if the people with only mediocre talents are the ones getting their lives paid for so that all they have to do is climb more, and the people who are most endowed genetically and mentally are still working at REI trying to get ropes on pro-deal, then I think that could be the reason standards here continue to lag.

I can’t comment on the European companies’ sponsorship choices–perhaps the Euro companies do a better job of sponsoring people who are more serious about climbing harder and they don’t sponsor people who are as interested in spending all their time playing Wii, smoking weed and getting crunk in the Magic Woods. I don’t really know.

Above all, I still don’t understand the idea that people should be paid to go climbing. I’m a bit turned off when I hear people continue to whine about not being paid enough to go climbing, especially when the vast majority of these people have well-endowed trust funds. I don’t think anyone should be paid to climb because I think it’s a waste of a company’s money. I know that if I were to give half my salary to a teenager just so he can smoke weed and take naps at the Dali boulder, I’d fire myself.

But I’m not in a position to tell anyone how to spend their money, or be an arbiter for which climber has more talent and deserves more sponsorship dollars. I also don’t think that climbing companies have any obligation whatsoever to help push climbing standards, nor do I think that they should be blamed if people online think Americans aren’t climbing as hard as the Euros are.

Ultimately, pushing standards comes down to an individual’s ability to do so.