The Ultimate Guide to Climbing Performance Tests
How do you measure climbing fitness? A comprehensive review of 25 studies reveals the landscape of climbing-specific tests - what works, what's reliable, and what actually predicts performance.
The Challenge of Testing Climbers
Unlike many sports, climbing lacks standardized testing protocols. The review found wide variation in how researchers test climbers, making comparisons across studies difficult. Here's what we know about each category.
Endurance Tests
Bent-Arm Hang The climber hangs from a bar with bent arms, chin above bar level, until failure.
What we know:
- Time to fatigue correlates moderately with climbing ability (correlation around 0.5-0.8)
- Simple to administer, no special equipment
- Reliability is moderate (about 89% consistency between tests)
- Tests arm strength more than finger strength
Finger Hang (Dead Hang) The climber hangs with straight arms from a ledge or rung until failure.
What we know:
- Stronger correlation with climbing ability than bent-arm hang (correlation around 0.66-0.76)
- Hold depth varies by study (10-30mm typically)
- Half-crimp grip most commonly tested
- More climbing-specific than bent-arm hang
Intermittent Finger Tests Repeated contractions with brief rest periods until failure. Common protocols include 8 seconds on and 2 seconds off, 7 seconds on and 3 seconds off, or 5 seconds on and 5 seconds off. Force thresholds typically range from 40-80% of maximum.
What we know:
- Nine different work-rest combinations used across studies
- Reliability around 89% when tested
- Mimics actual climbing muscle use patterns
- No consensus on optimal protocol
Climbing-Specific Tests Actual climbing to failure on standardized walls or routes.
What we know:
- Most sport-specific but harder to standardize
- Treadwall tests show very high reliability (correlation 0.99)
- Includes technique component
Strength Tests
Handheld Dynamometer Standard grip strength measurement device.
What we know:
- Very weak correlation with climbing ability (around 0.10-0.11)
- Can distinguish climbers from non-climbers
- Reliability is high (90-95%)
- Not specific enough for advanced assessment
Table-Mounted Dynamometer Force measurement with fixed elbow position at 90 degrees using climbing holds.
What we know:
- Moderate correlation with performance (around 0.45-0.74)
- Half-crimp grip most common
- Isolates finger flexor contribution
- More specific than handheld dynamometers
Fingerboard Tests Maximum added weight during dead-hang from specific hold depth.
What we know:
- High reliability (96%)
- Strong correlation with climbing ability (around 0.71-0.73)
- 11-20mm ledge depth typically used
- Very climbing-specific
Rate of Force Development (RFD) How quickly you can generate force, not just peak force.
What we know:
- Can distinguish between skill levels
- More variable than peak force measurements
- Best measured at 200ms or 95% of peak
- May be especially relevant for dynamic moves
Power Tests
Campus Board Explosive upward movements on rungs.
What we know:
- Able to distinguish between skill levels
- One-arm pulling power correlates with bouldering
- Limited reliability data available
Countermovement Jump Vertical jump to assess lower body power.
What we know:
- Weak relationship to climbing performance
- May be relevant for competition start moves
Key Findings from the Review
Most Reliable Tests Fingerboard maximum strength (96% reliability), Treadwall climbing (99% correlation between sessions), and Dead-hang maximum with half-crimp grip.
Best Performance Predictors Finger hang endurance (correlation 0.66-0.76), Fingerboard maximum strength (correlation 0.71-0.73), and Intermittent forearm endurance.
Tests with Limited Evidence Many protocols lack both reliability AND validity data. Dynamic strength tests are underrepresented. Discipline-specific tests (lead vs boulder) don't exist.
Recommendations for Testing
For General Assessment, use a combination approach including fingerboard maximum hang (half-crimp, 20mm edge), intermittent endurance test (standardized protocol), and actual climbing test (standardized route/boulder).
For Tracking Progress, test consistently with identical equipment, grip position, edge depth, and environmental conditions. Test at similar times of day and with consistent rest days.
For Research Quality, choose protocols with established reliability. Document hold depth, grip position, and climber characteristics thoroughly.
What's Missing
The review identified critical gaps:
- Dynamic tests - Most tests are isometric, but climbing involves dynamic movement
- Discipline-specific protocols - Lead and boulder have different demands but use the same tests
- Validity studies - Many tests lack evidence they actually predict climbing improvement
- Standardization - Same tests performed differently across studies
Practical Takeaways
- Simple tests work - Fingerboard max and finger hang endurance are both reliable and predictive
- Standardize your testing - Consistency matters more than choosing the "perfect" test
- Use multiple measures - Strength and endurance tests capture different capacities
- Document everything - Hold depth, grip position, and protocol details are essential
Based on: Stien N, Saeterbakken AH and Andersen V (2022) Tests and Procedures for Measuring Endurance, Strength, and Power in Climbing - A Mini-Review. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living