The fourth article in a five part series on climbing psychology, written by Sam Davies of Dynamics Coaching. In this article, Sam explores skill adaptation and resilience, understanding how climbers respond to stress, setbacks, and changing conditions – and how we can optimally train our skills to enhance climbing confidence.
If you haven't yet read the other articles in this series, then you can find them via the series index in the right sidebar.
One Move at a Time: Training Confidence Without Scaring Yourself Stupid
Throughout this series, we've explored a range of psychological skills that help climbers build and sustain confidence. But a crucial question remains: How do these skills actually develop in practice, and how does real confidence take hold on the rock?
Confidence in climbing is not built through positive thinking or repeatedly throwing ourselves into overwhelming situations. It develops through carefully structured experiences on the rock, where movement and emotion must be regulated together in the presence of genuine uncertainty.
This article examines the conditions that best support improvement in physical ability, route-reading, confidence, and psychological resilience. At the centre of this process are two key ideas: operating within the "ugly-zone" and developing mental resilience (or even antifragility) through experience. Drawing on personal climbing examples, we'll look at how confidence actually develops. It doesn't come from avoiding fear, and it doesn't come from throwing yourself at fear recklessly. What works is learning to move with fear, one decision at a time (see articles on our website for further reading).
Finding Your Ugly-Zone
The ugly-zone describes the region of challenge where performance becomes unstable but learning potential is greatest (Davies et al., 2021). Too easy, and nothing changes; too hard, and performance collapses. Growth happens in the region in-between.
I first became aware of this through outdoor bouldering. Tall problems, with poor landings and insecure top-outs, quickly brought me to the edge of my comfort zone. My initial strategy was to push upward whenever fear appeared, assuming that scaring myself would build mental toughness. In practice, this had the opposite effect. Even without falling or getting hurt, repeated experiences of overwhelming fear gradually eroded my confidence.
Eventually, I changed my approach. The next time I found myself at the edge of my comfort zone, I stopped there for a while. In this position I monitored my mental state:
- If my comfort level continued to deteriorate, that meant I'd overdone it and needed to retreat to re-find my personal ugly-zone,
- If my comfort level remained stable then I was already within the ugly-zone, I would see how long I could hang out at that specific place, shaking out and soaking up the atmosphere,
- If through hanging out at that location my comfort level steadily improved, I would consider taking one more move and repeating the process.
Over time, this method increased my resilience, along with the awareness of where my personal ugly-zone lay. It improved my ability to judge the difficulty of a move, assess whether to commit or retreat, and, if required, how to down-climb safely. It also allowed me to progress up a series of highball boulders incrementally.
This approach transferred directly to trad climbing. I became better at recognising when I was becoming overwhelmed, and more capable of making safe, appropriate decisions under pressure. Confidence grew not from suppressing or overcoming fear, but from learning how to act effectively in its presence.
Linking Perception With Action
Climbing represents an activity in which uncertainty, risk, and consequence are inseparable from action. Whether leading bold trad, on-sighting complex terrain, or committing to a highball boulder, climbers must adapt movement while regulating emotion and maintaining decision quality under pressure.
Ecological Dynamics (ED) provides a useful framework for understanding this process (Davids et al., 2008; Seifert et al., 2017). Rather than being solely the result of internal programs or instructions in the brain, ED emphasises that human behaviour is emergent – arising from the continuous interaction between a person, the task, and the environment (Renshaw et al., 2022).
Perception–action coupling describes how movement is guided by real-time information from the environment (Button et al., 2021). Perception and action are deeply interconnected and continuously influence each other. In this framework, sensory information from the environment (perception) directly guides movement and behaviour (action), while actions, in turn, change what is perceived.
Key principles include:
- Direct perception of affordances (opportunities for movement) – Climbers perceive what actions are possible relative to their own capabilities. A crimp that's a useful hold for one climber can be meaningless to another (Gibson, 1979).
- Continuous coupling – The loop between perception and movement stays live and constant, which is what allows us adapt to fatigue or to a hold that turned out to be worse than it initially looked (Turvey et al., 1981).
- Attunement to specifying information – Experienced climbers quickly pick up critical cues such as subtle textures, hold alignments, or body positioning, rather than processing all available information (Davids et al., 2017).
- Degeneracy and adaptability – There's usually more than one way through a sequence, and it could change depending on factors such as ability, fatigue, and conditions. Expertise shows up as flexibility and adaptability, not as one perfect technique (Rein et al., 2010).
Under stress, attention can narrow and disrupt this coupling. Fear may reduce sensitivity to affordances and degrade movement decisions. What sets resilient climbers apart is that they maintain (or recover) perception-action coupling even when they're scared. The fear doesn't go away – they just continue to function effectively regardless of its presence.
My bouldering story is an example of this in action – pausing in the ugly-zone allowed me to tune into affordances and make better decisions under stress
Building Resilience Through Challenge
Modern sport psychology does not define resilience as toughness or immunity to stress, but as positive adaptation in the face of challenge (Den Hartigh et al., 2024; Fletcher & Sarkar, 2012). Yet positive adaptation to adversity represents the minimum goal. The true performance aim is enhancement in the face of adversity, where challenge leads to measurable improvement. This form of growth is often described as antifragility: the ability to become better through stressors, rather than merely withstand them. In evolutionary biology, this reflects the principle of biological hormesis, in which controlled exposure to stress acts as a stimulus for adaptation and improved athletic performance (Kiefer et al., 2018).
In climbing, stressors include run-outs, uncertain protection, fear of falling, unexpected difficulty, fatigue, and failure. Resilient functioning depends not on avoiding these stressors but on how they are interpreted and regulated.
Core mechanisms for building resilience:
- Challenge appraisal – seeing stress as information and opportunity rather than threat (Fletcher & Sarkar, 2012; Gupta et al., 2022). The racing heart before a hard on-sight or the gut-drop at an intimidating crux are data about engagement – climbers who read these sensations as information, rather than the final answer or evidence that they should give up, are more likely to make good decisions.
- Adaptive emotion regulation – managing fear, arousal, and frustration (Birrer & Morgan, 2010; Gupta et al., 2022). Avoiding emotions always ends up backfiring. Research into expressive suppression is consistent: it increases sympathetic nervous system activity, impairs working memory, degrades decision-making, and tends to exacerbate the very emotion you're trying to hide. Acknowledging the fear (yes, I'm scared, and I'm going to climb anyway) is counter-intuitively, more effective. The fear doesn't vanish, but it stops compounding.
- Realistic optimism and confidence (Fletcher & Sarkar, 2012). Forced positivity (e.g. this'll go first try) fails dramatically the moment reality pushes back. More robust is something like: this is at my limit, I might fall, and I've done the work to give myself a real chance. Genuine possibility of failure, with a genuine reason for confidence.
- Meta-cognitive skills such as planning, reflection, and self-talk (Rumbold et al., 2012). Planning involves route-reading from the ground and the tactics applied beforehand. Reflection is the five minutes afterwards that turns experience into learning, rather than repetition.
Resilience and antifragility are supported or undermined by social and environmental constraints, including climbing partner or coach behaviour, peer norms, and the motivational climate. Autonomy-supportive environments that normalise struggle and experimentation promote both resilience and learning, while threat-based climates increase rigidity and avoidance (Galli & Vealey, 2008; Gupta et al., 2022; Sarkar & Fletcher, 2014).
The ugly-zone approach I developed whilst bouldering ended up reflecting exactly the kind of environment that helps to build confidence, just with myself as the coach. I could regulate fear, make my own calls about how far to push, and reflect afterwards without the need for anyone's approval hanging over me.
Training That Transfers to the Rock
Effective mental skills training in climbing should be grounded in practice that is representative of performance, meaning that training environments contain the same specifying information, perceptual cues, and decision-making demands that climbers encounter in real climbing situations (Pinder et al., 2011). Representative Learning Design emphasises maintaining perception–action coupling so that performers learn to regulate attention, emotion, and movement in response to the same information present during performance. When practice tasks preserve these relationships (such as genuine exposure, route uncertainty, and consequence) they are more likely to support transfer to real climbing contexts (Krause et al., 2019).
Mental skills training is therefore most effective when embedded in authentic climbing contexts rather than taught in isolation. This also explains why purposeful fall practice is of limited benefit. Taking a planned fall from a bolt you've just clipped, with a belayer you trust, on a route you're not trying to send, removes almost everything that makes falling scary on the sharp-end. You've decided to fall. You know the gear is good. You're not pumped. You're not mid-sequence trying to work out whether the next move is possible. What fall practice does teach you is that the rope will catch you, the air isn't lethal, and how to fall safely – all genuinely useful, and worth doing. What it doesn't teach you is how to stay cool and keep making good decisions whilst scared and pumped above potentially marginal gear, sketchy runouts, or pulling really hard moves, because that situation isn't present in the practice. The capacities you need on a hard lead are trained in representative situations, not just by rehearsing the isolated physical act of letting go.
Representative learning environments might allow climbers to:
- Regulate fear while actually above protection,
- Make decisions under real uncertainty,
- Adapt behaviour with immediate feedback.
From an ecological perspective, this approach reshapes constraints on attention, arousal, and motivation so that new affordances become perceptible and usable. Over time, climbers develop adaptive expertise: being able to carry skills across to unfamiliar ground, handle fear, and keep making sensible calls when the terrain doesn't match anything they've previously practiced (Araújo et al., 2006).
My bouldering practice (pausing on highball problems and checking in with myself before deciding whether to commit) worked the same way. Although not identical to on-sight trad climbing, it shares the key ingredients: real route reading, real consequences, and self-regulation while genuinely exposed. This training approach preserved the key information and psychological demands of the intended performance environment.
Learning in the 'Ugly-Zone'
The challenge–performance curve offers a particularly useful lens for climbing (Davies et al., 2021). As task demands increase, performance initially improves, before becoming unstable in the so-called 'ugly-zone.' Coordination patterns begin to break down, errors increase, and confidence fluctuates. Yet this instability is precisely where learning occurs. If challenge exceeds coping capacity, performance collapses. If challenge is too low, adaptation stagnates. Effective learning environments therefore aim to keep climbers near their current individual challenge point.
Spending time practising in the ugly-zone is one of the most effective ways to develop stronger perception–action coupling. The ugly-zone refers to climbing situations that are challenging, uncomfortable, or unfamiliar. These conditions force climbers to explore the limits of their body and the environment, leading them to determine which actions are truly possible relative to their capabilities. Rather than relying on obvious or easy holds, climbers in the ugly-zone learn to detect subtle cues, such as slight changes in rock texture or micro-adjustments in body position, refining their ability to perceive critical information and directly act upon it.
Practising under these conditions also improves adaptability and flexibility. The body and mind are forced to continuously adjust to unexpected challenges, encouraging multiple movement solutions and a dynamic coordination between perception and action. Instead of repeating rigid, pre-planned sequences, climbers learn to respond in real time to the environment, exploiting alternative strategies to reach the same outcome.
Over time, this continuous interaction strengthens the perception–action loop, making movements more efficient, resilient, and responsive even under fatigue or uncertainty. Practically, time spent in the ugly-zone refines what a climber notices on the rock (specifying information, affordances) and the range of responses available to them based on this information (action, decisions).
Resilience and antifragility influence the size of your "ugly-zone," but so does your current mental state. Your personal ugly zone is not fixed, so it is important to first assess where you are psychologically on any given day. Greater resilience can expand the size of this zone and increase your capacity to remain effective within it for longer. Equally, there are some days when the most productive choice is to avoid entering the ugly-zone altogether – recognising when to step back and be gentle on yourself.
The outdoor bouldering approach described above represents a practical example of these principles in action: small, deliberate steps into the ugly-zone, providing appropriate levels of physical and mental challenge to be an effective training tool for on-sight trad climbing.
Confidence Is Purposefully Built, Not Found By Luck
Repeated exposure to the ugly-zone (combined with reflection and recovery) helps to re-calibrate risk perception over time, broaden the range of movement and decision options available to the climber, and supports the development of resilience. Carefully approaching discomfort through activities such as outdoor bouldering allows climbers to pause, assess their internal state, and choose whether to stabilise or retreat. This develops technical skills such as down-climbing and route-reading, while also promoting decision-making autonomy – anxiety becomes information rather than an enemy.
A few things the research suggests:
- Failure on a move is data, not a verdict.Falling off, backing off, or finding yourself shut down tells you where your ugly-zone sits today. It doesn't tell you whether you're a good climber. Climbers who conflate the two usually stop testing their limits, but this is exactly where learning happens.
- Vary the constraints on purpose. Slab one session, steep the next. Trad one weekend, highball the next. Unknown routes, wet rock, tired legs. Adaptive expertise comes from meeting shifting affordances, not from focusing on one style until it's easy and automatic.
- Choose your own intensity and then reflect on it honestly. Nobody else can tell you where your ugly-zone is on a given day – not your partner, your coach, or the guidebook grade. Pick a level, pay attention while you're in it, and rethink about it afterwards. Climbers who outsource this never develop the internal awareness that keeps them safe on the lead.
- Keep perception, movement, and emotion together in training. Reading holds, executing moves, and managing fear aren't separate systems on a route, so don't separate them in practice. Bolt-to-bolt fall practice, fingerboard sessions, and limit bouldering on safe mats all have their place, but none of them rehearse the things that actually breaks down on a bold or airy lead. These training activities can't be treated as a substitute for learning to regulate yourself while actually climbing above gear!
- Your ugly-zone moves with you. It's bigger on good days, smaller on tired or anxious ones, and occasionally it's not there at all. Reading that honestly is a skill in itself. Some days the strong move is a committing lead; some days it's top-roping and going home. Those who can tell the difference have longer, happier climbing careers, with fewer accidents
Skill, confidence, and resilience in climbing all develop from an ongoing relationship with a complex, variable environment that continually supplies new information to the climber. By embracing uncertainty within the ugly-zone, climbers do more than improve technique – they build the kind of judgement that holds up on a hard lead, or when things aren't going to plan. Confidence, in this sense, is something the climber earns through deliberate time spent in the ugly-zone. It does not arrive by removing fear; it arrives when the climber finds they can keep making good decisions despite it.
The final article in this series will pull together everything we've covered and tie it back to the broader question of building climbing confidence.
In our next and final article of this series, we will review and summarise what has been covered so far – linking each topic back to the development of greater climbing confidence.
References
Araújo, D., Davids, K., & Hristovski, R. (2006). The ecological dynamics of decision making in sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 7(6), 653–676.
Birrer, D., & Morgan, G. (2010). Psychological skills training as a way to enhance an athlete's performance in high-intensity sports. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 20(Suppl. 2), 78–87.
Button, C., Seifert, L., Chow, J. Y., Araújo, D., & Davids, K. (2021). Dynamics of skill acquisition: An ecological dynamics approach (2nd ed.). Human Kinetics.
Davids, K., Güllich, A., Shuttleworth, R., & Araújo, D. (2017). Understanding environmental and task constraints on talent development: Analysis of micro-structure of practice and macro-structure of development histories. In Routledge handbook of talent identification and development in sport (pp. 192-206). Routledge.
Davids, K., Button, C., & Bennett, S. (2008). Dynamics of skill acquisition: A constraints-led approach. Human Kinetics.
Davies, R. S., Davies, M. J., Groves, D., Davids, K., Brymer, E., Trench, A., Sykes, J. P., & Dentith, M. (2021). Learning and expertise in mineral exploration decision-making: An ecological dynamics perspective. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(18), 9752.
Den Hartigh, R. J., Meerhoff, L. R. A., Van Yperen, N. W., Neumann, N. D., Brauers, J. J., Frencken, W. G., ... & Brink, M. S. (2024). Resilience in sports: a multidisciplinary, dynamic, and personalized perspective. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 17(1), 564-586.
Fletcher, D., & Sarkar, M. (2012). A grounded theory of psychological resilience in Olympic champions. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13(5), 669–678.
Galli, N., & Vealey, R. S. (2008). 'Bouncing back' from adversity: Athletes' experiences of resilience. The Sport Psychologist, 22(3), 316–335.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin.
Gupta, S., & McCarthy, P. J. (2022). The sporting resilience model: A systematic review of resilience in sport performers. Frontiers in psychology, 13, 1003053.
Kiefer, A. W., Silva, P. L., Harrison, H. S., & Araújo, D. (2018). Antifragility in sport: Leveraging adversity to enhance performance. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 7(4), 342–350.
Krause, L., Farrow, D., Buszard, T., Pinder, R., & Reid, M. (2019). Application of representative learning design for assessment of common practice tasks in tennis. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 41, 36–45.
Pinder, R. A., Davids, K., Renshaw, I., & Araújo, D. (2011). Representative learning design and functionality of research and practice in sport. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 33(1), 146–155.
Rein, R., Davids, K., & Button, C. (2010). Adaptive and phase transition behavior in the performance of discrete multi-articular actions by degenerate neurobiological systems. Experimental Brain Research, 201(2), 307–322.
Renshaw, I., Davids, K., O'Sullivan, M., Maloney, M. A., Crowther, R., & McCosker, C. (2022). An ecological dynamics approach to motor learning in practice: Reframing the learning and performing relationship in high performance sport. Asian Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 2(1), 18–26.
Rumbold, J. L., Fletcher, D., & Daniels, K. (2012). A systematic review of stress management interventions with sport performers. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 1(3), 173–193.
Sarkar, M., & Fletcher, D. (2014). Psychological resilience in sport performers: A review of stressors and protective factors. Journal of Sports Sciences, 32(15), 1419–1434.
Seifert, L., Araújo, D., Komar, J., & Davids, K. (2017). Understanding constraints on sport performance from the complexity sciences paradigm: An ecological dynamics framework. Human Movement Science, 56, 178–180.
Turvey, M. T., Shaw, R. E., Reed, E. S. & Mace, W. M. (1981). Ecological laws of perceiving and acting: In reply to Fodor and Pylyshyn. Cognition, 9(3), 237-304.
