Chris Lambert’s master’s degree study may be able to make rock climbing safer for us all. Lambert is using movement-analysis equipment, the same kind of equipment used for Gollum’s animation in the Lord of the Rings, to study the difficulty of a climb.

	Chris Lambert combines his studies in movement analysis with his love of rock climbing.

It all began when he was asked to take over the HSU Movement-Analysis Lab. The equipment was there, but no one knew, or cared to know, how to use it. This equipment includes camcorders, electronic timing systems, motion-analysis software and projection and monitor display tools. Lambert spent the next couple of years learning how it worked.

As an avid rock climber, he decided to try to incorporate the equipment into a study as well as into the curriculum.

“Climbing was typically a rogue sport for a long time,” Lambert said.

It’s become more mainstream over the last few years. Because of this surge in popularity, more injuries and deaths are associated with rock climbing now than in the past.

Lambert thinks this may be, in part, because of a rating system that has not been updated.

Currently, rock climbing in North America is rated by a point system called the Yosemite Decimal System. Walking on a sidewalk would have a rating of 1. Rock climbing is considered a 5. To indicate the difficulty of a climb, a decimal number between zero and 14 is assigned. 5.0 through 5.4 is considered a beginner level, 5.5 through 5.7 is intermediate, 5.8 through 5.10 is experienced, 5.11 through 5.12 is an expert-level climb. It is estimated that only 10% of the world’s top climbers can deal with this degree of difficulty; 5.13 through 5.14 is the elite level.

There are two things involved in deciding the difficulty: overhang and hold size. Overhang is considered to be a more strength-oriented, athletic path. As the name suggests, this is in reference to how much the rock juts out. Hold size is considered a technical path with balance and accuracy being emphasized. Hold size refers to the size of a climbing hold.

Lambert explained, “The current method assumes there is a correlation between the degree of overhang of the rock and the difficulty. It also assumes there is a similar correlation between the hold size and the difficulty. For example, a vertical rock wall with small climbing holds may get the same difficulty-rating as a 30-degree overhung wall with large climbing holds.”

This system doesn’t take into account, however, the specifics of that climb.

Lambert hopes that by using the movement-analysis equipment, he will show that the rating system needs to be based on the specifics of hold size and overhang. He anticipates that he’ll find evidence that will lead to a change in the rating system.

“Let’s make sure we aren’t sending people out there with a faulty rating system,” Lambert said.

For more information on HSU’s Movement Analysis Lab, visit http://www.humboldt.edu/~movement.