Welcome back to the Setter’s Archive, where we explore the foundations of modern routesetting through classic wisdom. Here you’ll find setter essays originally published in The Art of Coursesetting and Fundamentals of Routesetting. We’re revisiting these stories in their original form because, while much has changed in the routesetting world in the last two decades, many core concepts remain the same. We hope these excerpts help you keep reflecting, learning, and growing professionally.
For more routesetting content, be sure to check out The Impact Driver podcast, Ask a Setter series, Truth Behind the Trade chapters, Behind the Wrench interviews and other routesetting-related articles on CBJ.
Intro by Holly Yu Tung Chen
In the early 2000s, youth climbing was still finding its foothold—long before national teams, training plans and tiny comp shoes were standard issue. At that time, most routes were set with adults in mind, and juniors were expected to adapt.
This essay comes from one of the early setters who not only recognized that gap but made it his mission to fill it—national routesetter and, later, iconic hold shaper Kevin Branford. It was a fitting essay from Kevin; as a five-time Junior National Champion, he understood intimately how routesetting for youth athletes differed from setting for adults. After his years as a competitor, Kevin joined the crews that had routeset for him, setting alongside pioneers like Tony Yaniro and Mike Pont for many National-level events, for both youth climbers and adults. Today he continues to routeset regularly, is a professional climbing coach, and is also a prolific hold shaper, with over 1000 designs in the marketplace.
Below you’ll find a deeply thoughtful reflection on the challenges and rewards of setting for young climbers—how body size, hand strength and movement literacy shape a route’s success, and how subtle tweaks (like hold orientation, foothold placement and zigzagging sequences) can make the difference between a route that excludes and one that empowers. Even today, as youth programs flourish and gym walls stretch higher, the core insights here remain as useful—and often overlooked—as ever.
Setting for the Junior Powerhouse
By Kevin Branford
I began competing at the age of thirteen, and from that time on, most all of the competitions that I participated in had routes set by the great setters of that period: Tony Yaniro and Mike Pont. At the time, there was no such thing as junior competitors—only adults. Subsequently, there was absolutely no emphasis put on setting routes for young climbers. It has only been in the past eight to ten years that there has been an ongoing improvement to this facet of the sport.
I took my first coursesetting clinic from Tony at the age of fourteen, and that was the beginning of my love for this aspect of the sport. I realized that setting routes was not only about spinning holds onto a climbing wall, but about creativity, deviousness, and the setter’s ability to design a route that tests each climber’s ability to read sequences, their overall fitness level, and their ability to formulate a strategy by which they envision climbing to the last hold. I have been fortunate through the years to have an ongoing tutelage from and friendship with Tony. Because of this, the joy of coursesetting has continuously been a large part of my life. My specialization, if you will, resides in setting routes for junior competitors.
My setting “internship” (for lack of a better term) in the junior circuit began at the JCCA Junior National Championships in Portland, Oregon, in 2000. At that time, I really started to focus my energy into learning what it takes to set a spectacular route for young competitors. Before I go over the challenges that come as a result of setting routes for juniors, I think it is necessary to describe the way I lay out an onsight route. Following that, I will go over what I think are some of the main challenges of setting for juniors: body size, hand size and strength. I will also give away some of my “secrets” about directional handholds and footholds, as well as the benefits of having a route that zigzags back and forth across a wall, instead of taking a direct straight-up-the-wall approach.
When I lay out a route for a competition, I consider a couple of very important things. First and foremost, I try to design a route that has fun and exciting moves. If a route has moves that are uninteresting, I would not want to climb on the route myself, much less put it up and tell young climbers to climb on it. Secondly, I take into consideration what the relative rating of the route must be, who will be climbing on it, and the overall size (height) and strength of the competitors. In a qualifying round, there can be multiple flashes of the route or routes, while in the Semi-Final round there should be only two to three flashes (if any), and the ideal situation for any routesetter is to have only one Bash of the Finals route, with the rest of the field falling successively lower on the route. In my opinion as a setter, it is best to design a Semi-Finals route that is close to the grade of the Finals route, so as to get the most accurate representation of the climbers’ ability. If the entire Finals group has flashed their Semi-Final route, there is not much technical information on which to base the Finals route grade.
The first eight to twelve moves of the route are designed to get every climber off the ground and going on the route, yet keep them challenged. Every climber must be able to do these moves unless a catastrophe happens. The subsequent moves should get gradually harder, and depending on the field of climbers, the route could either stay relatively straight forward or could get increasingly more confusing. I like to see a route that begins to spit people off in the mid-section and allows only a portion of the field to get to the upper sequence of moves. Now on to the unique issues that come with setting routes for junior competitors.
Body size poses a unique dilemma because of the fact that in many of the age categories represented by juniors, the kids are starting to grow. It is very possible to have a climber in the twelve to thirteen age category that is very small, and another that, for this group, is basically a giant. Knowing the size of the competitors is a large part of successfully putting up routes for juniors, but it is not the only criteria. Kids, by nature, can basically grasp onto any hold that is put on the wall in front of them. Taking this into consideration, any setter that is concentrating on juniors must have a good knowledge of movement and an even better repertoire of individual moves in their head. When I am setting for juniors, I try to concentrate on the direction that the holds are turned, and the footholds that are available for use (I will come back to this topic a bit later).
With a simple turn of a hold, and the addition of an extra foothold or two, a route can be transformed from a regular (adult type) route into a route attainable by juniors. Footholds are not the only answer to this challenge, but with an emphasis on having an ample number of footholds, and the proper spacing of correctly turned handholds, youth, both short and tall, have a better chance at climbing up the route.
Another great technique that I use is to put smaller, less positive holds in between possibly longer moves, in order to give the smaller climbers an extra choice in their route. If the holds are placed in such a way so as not to give the smaller climbers a large advantage, and not change the intended sequence of the route, then this can also be a useful tool in having a good route. Another challenge of setting routes for juniors is the fact that their hands are smaller, thus allowing them to stick three or even four fingers into a normally two-finger pocket. Worse yet is their ability to try and crimp the edge of the hold that is against the wall. The latter of the two is a bit more difficult to regulate, but it’s not a problem that can’t be remedied with a little sandpaper and Bondo®. Again, because there are a plethora of hold companies, and an almost endless number of handholds and footholds, there are nearly unlimited combinations of holds that can be used to set a great route.
One thing that absolutely must be taken into consideration when setting a route for juniors is to not use holds, such as large pinches, for categories that potentially have kids with small hands. In my opinion, it is best to avoid using these types of holds on most routes, especially in a competition setting. Routesetters should make every attempt to use a smaller pinch, or simply a different hold. For the older age groups, this may not be quite such a problem, but it is better to err on the side of caution when dealing with hand size.
Lastly comes the issue of strength. In my experience, most youth climbers develop unbelievable amounts of endurance before they ever develop power. Power is usually something that develops when the juniors reach the fourteen/fifteen age category and above. Difficulty competition climbing should not focus on power; rather it should be focused primarily on the climber’s ability to read route sequences, and their overall fitness. Obviously when routes are being laid out for the older categories (routes of 5.12 and harder), they are, by nature, going to have hard moves. What needs to be avoided is having a boulder problem or a crux move in the route. When I set routes for an onsight competition, I focus my efforts into making a route that flows from hold to hold up the wall, getting progressively harder. When I set for a redpoint comp, cruxes aren’t as much of an issue, but nonetheless (in my opinion), it is not about who can pull an insanely hard move or sequence of moves, but rather the climbers’ ability to tie the moves together.
Now I will expand a bit more on the topic of directional handholds and footholds. I think it is appropriate to begin by saying that this is probably one of the most valuable techniques that I have in my routesetting repertoire. Having the ability to place handholds on the wall so that they can only be used by a certain hand, or so that a foothold can only be utilized from one direction, gives any routesetter the ability to force the climbers to do a desired move. In this situation, if the climber gets the sequence backwards, ideally it will prevent them from advancing any further on the route. If the climber wishes to get higher on the route, they must reverse a sequence, and attempt to do the correct sequence to move through the “wall puzzle.”
In my judgment, a good directional handhold is one that can only be used, for instance, as a left hand undercling, or as a right hand gaston. One type of hold that makes forcing a sequence possible is a pocket. Pockets make it very difficult to match hands, as well as being a great sequence-forcing hold. It may be possible to match hands on the hold, but the move that must subsequently be executed still remains in the desired sequence for the route. In the same manner, a directional foothold is one that is only usable from a certain angle or direction. Footholds that a climber can utilize by standing directly on top of them are ones that I do not ordinarily choose to use.
One final topic that I think is necessary to address is sort of the “icing on the cake” for a quality junior competition route. I always make an effort to design a route that zigzags back and forth across the climbing wall. I do this for two reasons: The first reason is that designing a route that navigates side to side on a wall extends its length. Many modern climbing gyms have the height necessary to test endurance, but, in my opinion, the longer the route, the better. The second reason that I choose to zigzag routes side to side is that it creates moves that are very difficult to skip. When a route takes a direct line up a wall, a person’s height may allow them to skip moves. With sideways movement, moves are much more difficult to “cheat.”
Setting routes for juniors can be a challenging yet rewarding part of the sport. With this in mind, go out there and set some great routes, keeping in mind the height, hand size and strength of the climbers.
