UKH

I’m guessing healthcare, family responsibilities, employment and infrastructure all played a major part.

A bit of a generalisation maybe, but I think many of the people who climb nowadays would not have been keen had they been around in those days, having a psychological makeup which may be more suited to physical performance but less suited to risk management. There still are plenty of climbers who are adept at high level risk management throughout their adult lives, but the proportion of such climbers now must be very much smaller than it used to be, as the diversity of climbing and of climbers is much wider now.

I've always been intrigued by the suggestion that climbing behaviour should expect to change with age and/or family responsibilities, as I've always considered it imperative that I don't kill or seriously hurt myself. Ensuring this happens is the same with or without family considerations. I'm aware of arguments to the contrary, focusing mainly on unforeseeable or uncontrollable risks, but outside of an Alpine or Greater Ranges environment I think such risks are usually perceived to be greater than they are in reality.

The way I see it, if you find yourself taking fewer risks as you get older, you've been making poor judgement calls before that! 

I was climbing in the 1960s. IMO no, not at all, saw loads of older / old people climbing, and not at all a "lot of people stop climbing at around the age of 25/26"

Having a rope and a couple of slings me me feel safe

I know a lot of people who were keen climbers in the 60s and haven't stopped yet!

I think the majority of people just stuck to easier things. From what I read, there was a strong sense - almost a moral imperative - that you should progress only gradually through the grades, and serve an apprenticeship. There are plenty of accounts of leading figures being precisely those who trod roughshod over that idea and jumped straight on VS routes others considered death on a stick.

Then gear came along, and there's also a funny sense in the accounts that a lot of recreational climbers were keen to try routes close to the cutting edge. But, I guess ethics in those days were different, and perhaps people who weren't quite good enough would yo-yo or frig past a hard move where they could. I may be wrong. Either way, they probably learnt quickly in the process! I think we also ignore the fact that top-roping routes goes way back to the beginning of climbing, supplanting it with this myth that in the old days routes were always climbed onsight. I imagine some of the harder routes - particularly on grit - were top-roped before daring leads with minimal gear that are not much different to headpoints today.

I think though that there are definitely people climbing now who wouldn't have climbed in the 1960s. Climbing has become broader, more inclusive and perhaps more varied (from some perspectives, at least). I'm doubt that gear was the major obstacle to some people's participation.

To be fair, I do see young guys making poor judgement calls quite frequently. I'm particularly thinking of some very stupid solos of inescapable limestone routes that are polished and sustained sandbags. Tongue firmly in cheek, but I blame Honnold. In my mind's eye, I see a lot of young men lecturing their poor friends and girlfriends about how they know what they're doing and how they're completely in control - when they're anything but.

I started climbing in 1967. Got to climb harder and harder as gear improved, hit a peak in my mid 30's then other commitments intruded. Started back to pushing harder about 10 years ago. Now in my 70's and frustrated that covid (I have stuck rigidly to the rules) has set me back a couple of years. I will be back and soon up to my latter standard. Many of the younger people I see at crags are physically much more capable than me, but are not really prepared to 'give it a go', opting for safer options. Apart from the new onset of 'soloists' that seem to have appeared and they, for some reason, appear to be content with trying stuff beyond their ability. (Needed to fish a couple off routes just before covid struck!) 

'The way I see it, if you find yourself taking fewer risks as you get older, you've been making poor judgement calls before that! '

I don't agree with this statement. If you decide not to climb in the Himalayas when you become a parent it doesn't mean you have been making bad decisions before. It simply means that you choose not to partake in the higher risks involved in high altitude mountaineering now that you have additional responsibilities. It is a personal choice. However I do acknowledge that you made some reference to this fact.

In addition, as you get older you have to adapt risk levels to what your body can actually do.

I fell off Cenotaph Corner in 1966 from about 50 feet and decked.  I suffered a fractured skull and ribs and realised that I was not immortal.  In fact I also realised that I had been arrogant, overly confident and reckless but my passion for climbing was such that I carried on but with considerably more care.

Al

I've met a few folk who were climbing then, doing stuff like Chemin de Fer (E5 6a), Carnivore (E2 5c) etc. Some of them drifted away then got back into it when the indoor walls opened up in the 90s and they could reconnect with people, that's probably a factor.

I'd agree with that. My comment was following the Alpine / Greater ranges exclusion of the previous paragraph, and I should probably have made that clearer.

That, to me, is part of the risk equation. You may find the only way to avoid higher risk is to lower the grade.

I think 'climbing in the 1960s' is perhaps too vague a category. Those of us starting out climbing in the 60s / early seventies have ridden just about every improvement in gear / protection / health / societal expectations there's been.  Just about every decline in faculty has been offset by better / lighter / easier options. 

I think the comparison should be with those who were in their more 'mature' years by the 1960s, who had perhaps started just before or after WW2. Not only were the risks greater for them, but the societal norms were very different. People got 'old' in their fifties and 'doing the right thing' by your family / career held far more sway. That's my Dad's era and now he's in his late 90s has already outlived his father and grandfather by 35 years. He felt enormous pressure to be 'old' by the time he turned 50. Playing bowls was almost inevitable by the time he was 60. He's very envious that my generation has escaped so much of that sort of nonsense. 

Yes - depends on what you term 'old'. My kids think they'll be 'old' when they're in their 30's and 40's...

Not necessarily for a few reasons:

1. we tend to get less well "bouncy" as we get older. Falling off can leave you with long recovery times compared to when you were younger

2. less flexible. I am very cautious about making moves likely to put my back/fingers/arm/ankles/etc out and the hernia doesn't help

3. Also people tend to get more risk averse as they get older. People become fearful of driving, going to the shops and such perhaps due to slower reaction times.

I think it depends on the person. Some modern routes have very little gear on them and so apart from shoe rubber advances in gear would not be a huge factor

My thoughts exactly - most of us who are still alive are out there

Chris

I recognised this quite recently. I was with my two lads (26/22) heading up into Cwm Bochlwyd  in September last year. It was about 19.00 and the intention was to bivvy and get a full day of climbing. In spite of (or because of?) a decent forecast, the weather rolled in, wind got up and it was soon tipping it down as darkness began to fall. The lads were loving it  - no reservation about continuing up the hill. This was adventure. Although I was very familiar with the terrain & knew that we were well equipped, I was nonetheless filled with a sense of impending doom...

Contrast this with 50 years earlier, and there I was, on roughly the same part of the mountain and without a care in the world. And it was much later in the year, colder and I was nowhere near as well geared-up. But I was loving it and the solitude meant greater intensity and fulfilment.

I see those as all included in the risk equation. If the consequences of a fall are more severe when you're older, the risk is greater. It isn't the idea that people need to climb lower grades (keeping the overall risk similar) that I'm doubting, it's the idea that they will want to take lower risks.

It's easy and very common to get risk and danger confused. The greater the danger (i.e. the severity of the potential outcome), the more mitigation is needed to keep the risk level similar.

But would you be if you only had the gear that the bloke in the photo has, as opposed to one of Jim Titts finest every 2mtrs.

When I look back on some of the stuff I did I readily admit that I would not do them now. I was always comfortable on anything the right side of vertical when I could use my feet but one of my boldest leads was a route called "The Klepht" on Arran.  I got commited on a steep off width crack beyond the point of no return with no gear and had no choice but to continue.  This was back in the day when the hardest grade in Scotland was VS.  I note with some interest that there are no ascents shown in the log book and that it gets E2 5c. Just writing about it is making my palms sweat

Al

Well I wouldn't - too nesh now, but quite a few of my mates are still at it in good style,

Chris

Check out the recent jam crack podcast with Bob Smith about Northumberland where I started climbing (badly). He talks about regularly jumping from 30ft up and about him and friends all have knee/ hip replacements!

That doesn't make sense to me. You roughly decide the level of risk acceptable to you at a given time in your life and act accordingly to try to stay within that risk level. A poor judgement call would be failing to stay within the level of risk you felt acceptable at that time, not in the acceptable level of risk itself.

I am certainly far more risk averse now in my fifties than I was in my twenties, but I don't think I made significantly poorer judgements in my twenties, even though I was happily doing stuff that I feel a bit nauseous just thinking about now.

It would be interesting to know what the 'retention rates' are for climbers in the various generations. I certainly know a good number of people who were active in the 1970s (and earlier) who are still keen today, but also know plenty (a majority) who gave up long ago.

Admittedly there's been a stragering increase in the numbers entering the climbing world in the years since, but do a greater percentage stick with it all their lives?

But would they be on the gear in the photo. I know people in their 60s leading some good E numbers, but thats on modern gear. What would they be on sighting on the gear in the photo?

I know some of the most committed climbers in the country, possibly know the same people as you, possibly you if you climb in Lancs, and out of the population of their age group they are a tiny tiny percentage, and most of the people they tell me about climbing in the 70s gave up long ago, mind that never stops them sticking their oar in when a bolt in Lancashire gets mentioned.

Didn't Joe Brown say he could climb "harder" routes in his fifties or sixties than in his prime?

but would he have on the gear from the 60s like the man in the photo is using?

IIRC, in an interview, he said he peaked at around E4, but only because the gear got better.

Edit having said that , there has probably been no better climber for getting up stuff despite wet or dirty rock.

No. I think that was the point.

Looking good for it 

Had a lovely chat with an old boy at Ilkley today. He said he’d been climbing 65 years and still was! 

IIRC ? ....  just looked it up. You learn something new every day.IMHO that is.

FFS

It was also the generation where smoking was the norm as well as a regular weekend session down the pub if others were anything like my father (born 1911). He was very active in his youth and played cricket into his 40's but then societal norms took over. However I was glad that he would take me to the Hawthorns & Edgbaston to watch the footy & cricket. I started climbing in the mid-sixties and can't really recall seeing that many older climbers. Tillman I know got into sailing in his later years but Shipton carried on his mountaineering, which I suspect is what the older climber gravitated towards then, or else doing easier routes. Climbing walls, increased levels of fitness among old climbers and better healthcare have all contributed to help us to keep going today.

I’ve been happily climbing since the 60’s and still actively participate. Yes my grading has lowered to accommodate the inevitable deterioration of getting older. My strength and recovery is nowhere near what it used to be. However having climbed with R. Edwards in the 60s with his old hemp rope and no protection I did muse why bother with a rope if only to provide company with the leader in the event of a grand tour! I’ve only tried to defy gravity once and no amount of protection would have helped. 
I read on these forums the advice given on getting started which I hasten to add I have no objection too and is all very sensible. But somehow it seems the sense of adventure and discovery has been lost but don’t know what’s replaced it. I still break out in a cold sweat if anyone states “don’t worry it’s only a Scottish VS”.  I’ve been sorely tempted to reply to queries about about how to get started with “nick your mother’s washing line and drill out your dad’s nuts! Hitch to wherever and climb something”. Climbing and mountaineering to my mind is a lifestyle and not a sport. As in all aspects of ageing  and lifestyles different priorities rear their heads and crop up unexpectedly and you change direction. The final chapter in Nan Shepherd’s ‘The living Mountain’ beautifully sums up the whole culmination of a lifetime in the hills.

I started climbing in the late 60's. Roped tied around waist, waist belays, slings as runners, etc.

I remember the first bit of gear I bought was a Moac (magic bit of kit!), which I had to thread on a sling & learn to tie the knots.

There was little teaching about how to climb, we all learnt by doing it, seconding and then leading easy climbs - an apprenticeship.

As the years went by I kept buying more kit, Masters boots &  EBs, Hexs, nuts on wire, lightweight krabs, and best of all harnesses, helmets & belay devices!

Later it was sticky rubber and camming devices.

Now I am in my 70's still hoping to go climbing this year.   yes, the grade has dropped (it was never very high) and I am weak but I still have the desire to feel the rock under my hands and that wonderful sense of movement when it all goes well. 

Never stop climbing!

Hiya Steve. I started rock climbing in Lancs quarries then Yorks limestone and Lakes during the Winter of 64/65 at the age of 19. I was lucky to have a couple of lads I'd known at school and were about a whole fortnight ahead in their experience. We missed the "mum's washing line" bit and knew we needed a 120 foot long Viking No3 or No 4 hawser laid nylon rope and be tied onto it via a 20 foot length of hemp waistline wrapped around, tied off with a reef knot and connected with a big steel screwgate crab. Sometimes, like the man in your photo, we tied on direct. I remember the first time I led Overhanging Bastion I was tied on direct to a worn, grey, stiff No 3 rope bought from a bloke in a pub for £2.00! 

Soon we learned to file the thread out of machine nuts and thread them on 'line'. They were only short-lived, for the first crude alloy wedges became available, but with all this you're right Steve - the consequences of a fall were potentially much more serious. However there was no need to stop climbing as we matured and got responsibilities since the technology grew with us and each new development allowed the maintenance of one's standard and even progression to some degree or another. In this way I kept on climbing and slowly improving, having my "purple patches" at 10 year intervals in my mid 20s, mid 30s, mid 40s and mid 50s - that's when I was quite definitely at my best.

I did have an intense period in my mid 60s having retired at 62 but it was more focused on travel and new places with longer climbs than on grades. I'm now 75 and keen as ever but locked down so is there still time for a mid 70s purple patch I wonder? I hope so and think Hard VS leads (off vertical ones!) might still be within my capabilities, but it's more about just being on the rock, preferably on mountain crags in traditional style, but I've also got pretty fond of easy sunny sport, especially of the multipitch kind.

Hi Martin.  That's a bit of a turn around for you I have to say.  I remember our trip to Morocco where you were in your element on the trad and a later trip to Kalymnos where you were distinctly unimpressed.

We should get together again.  Us old farts need to keep the youngsters on their toes.

Al

I hope you are both well, and possibly considering a trip to the Yorkshire Dales in June.
Now then lets cut to the chase, would you two be still climbing if you only had the gear of the man in the photo, bowline round the waste, a few slings but you are allowed rock shoes?
I hope I am looking as good as you at 75.

South Crag is still a bit like that now!

I've not climbed in 3 years due to an accident, followed by illness and then lockdown.  I've got hooked on mountain biking so I would need to be inspired by something outstanding to go climbing again.

Al

Hi Al. Yes we should climb together again - we got on OK in trips including our initial 'blind date' eh? And I don't want you altogether turning to the dark side that is cycling. In your reply to SteveX you declare excitement needed to get you back - not bolt clipping then!

I've been to The Dolomites 2ce in the last 3 years and found there are just SO many half day and full day moderate routes to go at which we ignored in our trips there in the 1970s when youthful exuberance had us looking higher. I'll let you know when next going. And of course there's my postponed twentieth Anti Atlas, Morocco trip to be reconvened. Or somewhere we've never been?

The irony is I broke my ankle on a sports climb

Morocco might just reignite the flame   Dolomites likewise.  Bregalia perhaps? I suspect I will be limited to VS's only though.

Al

Totally agree with this post. With dire protection, the commitment required to lead hard routes in the 1950s and 1960s meant that it was a young man's (and, in come cases, woman's) game. Once family and career came into it, the options were either drop your grade or give up.

Some Irish examples. In 1954 the two best climbers, Peter Kenny and Frank Winder (both in their twenties) did the first ascent of Spillikin Ridge. Although Frank Winder climbed for many more decades, Spillikin Ridge marked the end of their careers as leading climbers. Both went into highly demanding academic careers.

Next up was Betty Healey - active about 1956 to 1965, probably peaked around 1961, while only in her thirties. Got a demanding job and stopped. In 1961, her climbing partner, Padraig O'Halpin wrote, 'At 38 [his age, then] there can be few first ascents left.' He also had a demanding job.

Next up was Emmet Goulding. By the late 1960s, when he was only in his thirties, he was saying he was past it - despite huge ability. He continued but probably didn't view himself as a leading climber any more.

So many had died in WW2 that risking your life at climbing was maybe seem as not really compatible with being adult? And life was hard. As you rightly say, people got 'old' soon. My teachers at school were like little old men, despite being in their thirties, in some cases.

My generation was so fortunate in so many ways. Some of us will climb until we drop.

Mick

Oh I am sorry to hear that I had no idea. Would a trip to the Dales to meet me not be outstanding enough

Fred Beckey was in his late 40s by the end of the 1960s and he didn't stop climbing until 2017.

I plead the 5th

Al

Accepted

Started climbing in 1970 whilst in the Army(boy service) then carried on during my military career using quite minimalistic kit. On leaving I became a Saturation diver offshore and my climbing days stopped Two and a half years ago the bug kicked in again starting indoors and quickly getting out for sport then trad climbing. In all honesty loving it more now than ever. Still feel just as adventurous if not more but know my limitations... Sometimes. 😂

Joe Brown was in his 30s in the 60s (born 1930) and still very active. Not exactly ‘old’ but no longer in his 20s either. 

Hi Misha,

how are you keeping, well I hope, its been a tough lock down. Going back to the OP, what grade do you think you would be climbing now with the gear the guy in the photo is using and how important would modern gear have been in getting you to that level of confidence. How about this as a HVS https://thelccc.co.uk/gallery/album/archive/climbing EDIT 6 rows down, 3 columns across I do believe it is https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crags/cadshaw_rocks-1106/pagans_direct-3...

I'm not sure you can do that sort of retrospective second guessing. Back in 'the day' (whenever that was), the gear you owned wasn't the crap it appears from today's perspective. Quite the opposite - you knew it was cutting edge.

You didn't think perhaps I'll give this route (or day) a miss until someone invents curved nuts or goretex. You pulled on your Blacks Standard Anarak, looked down at your pink super tape sling with threaded Troll T-chock and thought "Who's the lucky boy - I can't imagine doing this back in the old days wearing tweeds and without all this modern kit".

Not sure if anyone has mentioned sticky rubber shoes. I can see that people got to the point of effectively soloing routes at VS - HVS - E1. It would require a lot of skill and bravery, especially getting to that level in the first place (it's easier to maintain than to progress, I think). However doing that in pretty poor footwear is what really impresses me. 

Surely sticky rubber shoes must be implicated along with cams as key factors in the increased longevity of many climbing careers?

Just wondering if someone climbs at a certain level of risk with poor footwear do they not then just climb at a harder but similar level of risk with better footwear? 

Possibly.

You mean  slack boots?

Started climbing in 1966 at age of 16, stopped about 2005 at age of 55 (very irregular as a result of working in the tv and film industries). Climbed at my best when 20, late 20s, mid-30s (best, E2). Didn't have much of a problem with very poor protection in late 60s (most climbs were adequately protected, but quite a few very poor.) But strangely enough, despite fact that I went straight on to serious on-sight leads from top-roping at Harrison's, it just didn't bother me. I think I got more scared later when protection got better. Weird.

It's called experience, Gordon. In our youth, ignorance was arguably our greatest strength. The gear was crap but it didn't matter because we felt invincible. Sure, the gear gets better but we're older, we no longer feel invincible. Then we start looking back and reviewing all those episodes when we could have - and, in some cases, should have - died. And we shudder. Deep inside, we shudder.

Mick

There is so much truth in what you just said.

Most of my my scary experiences have been when seconding or top-roping a route I've previously soloed or led on dodgy gear - "what the f**k were you thinking" often comes to mind 😁

You basically didn't want to fall off  in the 60's but today we are used to it because of training  for falling at the wall, and obviously much better gear, better runners, harnesses and belay plates. It was certainly bolder climbing in those days, but the fear factor was limited to a degree by not falling. Not really testing the gear, or really not risk testing it because secretly we knew most of it was probably crap. I fall off much more frequently today, but that's probably my incompetence, but luckily survive to talk about it. I can't for example recall all that much decent gear on White Slab on either the entry or the big pitch in 1973.

Very well put. I sometimes imagine that a climber, like a cat, has 9 lives, and have counted off a few to shudder at.

The 60's was actually a very opportune time to start climbing. Virtually the whole of the modern protection system was invented between about 1960 and 1978. The only exceptions were the karabiner and the piton, which had been around for donkeys' years and the greatest improvement of all, the arrival of nylon rope just after the war.

To list them:

Alloy krabs : 1961 (I think)

Descendeurs: 1961

Purpose made alloy nuts: 1963

Nylon tape slings: got here in 1965

Nuts on wire: 1968

Belay (Sticht) plate: 1970

Harnesses: early '70s

And finally, spring loaded cams (friends) in 1978.

Since then there have only been tweaks. Modern gear may be lighter and sweeter to use but krabs are still just krabs, slings are still just slings etc. etc. I've not included things like rock shoes since they're not strictly protection gear. Anyway, we sixties people were able to ride this wave. As we got more risk averse, the gear got better.

It's also worth mentioning that almost everyone in those days moved into climbing from hiking and hill-walking. We were used to looking out for ourselves on steep shitty ground. This gave us a degree of judgement which served us well and continues to do so. Many of us are enjoying climbing as much now as we were in those happy post-pill, pre-aids days.

Good point about the development of gear, and worth also bearing in mind that the average route grade in the 60s wasn’t hard (according to the UKC log books). HS in the 60s and MVS now. An interpretation might be that modern climbers are underperforming with available gear, and the climbers in the 60s were just about right.

It's worth bearing in mind that although the gear was available there were not many shops and communication wasn't like it was today so many of us were not aware of it. My first alloy nut was a MOAC but it must have been the late 60's before I got my hands on one and I was still using drilled out engineering nuts as late as late as 1968 if I recall.

Al

I think in the 60s it was a far more self selecting group than the climbers now (scrambling, hill walking, willing to take risks).  The same number of risk takers (even more) still get into climbing now (witness Alpine achievements or the hardest trad) but now they are outnumbered by more risk averse, less talented and lower confidence climbers who can now join in climbing, whereas before that wasn't an option.

So I think the best, most natural,  modern climbers do still 'perform', but the grade averages are lowered by the sheer number of relative punters (non judgemental term - I'm firmly in that camp).

My recollection is that  the gear we had was not qualitatively different from today's - apart from cams. There was the standard Moac, and then didn't a smaller model on wire come in?  Clog hexes were quite neat, and there was even a tiny brass one on wire that fitted perfectly before the crux of Tensor, also on Leg Slip! Then stoppers started to appear, I used one of those in earnest on Concrete Chimney in 1974, the same year I did White Slab.

Well Mick when I look back at my old photos there is not the massive rack that climbers have today. 3 or 4 slings and a few nuts, usually a couple of large hexes and moacs. If I had more than 6 runners on Cloggy Corner I would be surprised. Similar with Extol. Then I recall seeing a young Scottish lad going for Left Wall with about 50+ nuts. I was gobsmacked. Not really sure how he got off the ground!

Hi Al again, completely agree, the climbing gear mentioned might have existed but supply was spasmodic at best. 

In reply to Andy Long, it is generally considered the first true aluminium carabiners for climbing appeared in about 1947 commercially in France  (Pierre Allan).

Wired nuts were available at the end of the 1960's but they were generally not very good. Chouinard (mainly Tom Frost) designed and started selling wired nuts in 1972, polyhexecentrics followed in 1973, these items if available were very expensive in the UK.

In my view the big change in kit was the launch of Wild Country rocks, followed by the DMM wallnuts at the start of the 80's.

I started in the early 70's and climbed on a hawser laid rope tied in directly or into a Troll waist belt until about 1975/6.

 Tony & Sarah

To my mind, this is the key factor. Hill-walking, with crap gear and often in bad conditions, meant that you were making decisions in conditions of stress. (Assuming you survived), this was arguably the most effective foundation for trad climbing - which is problem solving - making decisions in conditions of stress.

On my second foray into hill-walking, I was 14. Out for 14 hours. Didn't see another soul. Got summit fever and didn't think of my return path. Realised I couldn't get back the way I'd gone. Missed a sneaky option. (Nowdays sneaky is hard-wired in.) Took a bold direct route (am still proud of this) but contoured too high and ended up traversing across the upper reaches of a 500 foot crag which wasn't marked on my map. Somehow made it. Navigated by eye and map (don't think I owned a compass) and got back to my starting point. Knew I really should have died on the crag. But I reviewed my mistakes, vowed never to make them again. It was a harsh school yet a very effective foundation for trad climbing.

Mick

I didn't know PA alloy krabs appeared in the 40s. Thanks for that. I do know that a faulty batch caused their discontinuation in the mid 60s and the collapse of the company. I also remember those clunky Scott alloy krabs, originally made, I believe, for the RAF.

To reply to the original post, I don't think many people in the past gave up climbing because of a growing realisation of the seriousness of what they were doing. That was apparent from the start and if you survived the first couple of years the chances were you'd developed enough nous to be safe. Those who've grown up in the cosseted world of indoor walls and bolt-tourism may be appalled at what went on, but that's just how it was, and if you didn't like it you didn't start in the first place. You always climbed with something in reserve. That said, leader falls were in fact very common in the 60s. 

People give up climbing for a variety of reasons. Probably the most common is career and family pressures. Having said that many such folk will still consider themselves climbers and may dabble in it over the years.

It's possible to simply get bored with it. That happened to me when I worked as a full-time instructor and was one of the reasons why I got out of the game. What was surprising was how quickly the passion came back once I was out in the world doing a "proper" job.

Again from my own experience, it's possible to be sidetracked into other activities. For me these were caving, diving and, importantly, and laugh if you want - amateur dramatics. The latter is as scary and addictive as climbing. The same mental and physical control. Plus you can't ab off if you screw up. You're unlikely to die literally on stage, but it certainly feels like it. Nonetheless I always kept climbing, no matter how sporadically.

There is another small group who often stop and eschew climbing completely. These are the ultra-competitive. People for whom being a climber is all about being the best climber. From what I've read over the years, Peter Harding and Pete Crew seem to be examples of this. Both, in their different eras and own way, fell prey to the casual genius of Joe Brown.  

Most of us who keep climbing are happy to be punters. I always was really. E4 tops. We adjust to our diminishing powers because being out on the rock, in beautiful scenery, with good friends, is less important than grade. The muscles may be weaker but the muscle memory - technique - is still there and the ability to compensate one with the other is a great measure of competence.  Undiminished are the cunning of rope-work and protection, route-finding and route-choice. One takes pleasure in competence per se - "This is me, this is what I do". 

I believe that Peter Harding still climbed. But your thesis still stands: Pete Crew, Pete Livesey, Ron Moseley, John Barker (little known but very strong Yorkshire climber). Maybe Jerry Moffat? If/when they couldn't be the best, they didn't seem to want to play.

Love '... fell prey to the casual genius of Joe Brown'!

Mick

Last paragraph: I should have written "...more important than grade..."

Aaaagh!

We all knew it was a simple mistake. 😉