Forums: Climbing Information: Technique & Training: Re: [DouglasHunter] Ignoring muscle?: Edit Log




spikeddem


Feb 12, 2011, 6:38 PM

Views: 6098

Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319

Re: [DouglasHunter] Ignoring muscle?
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  

DouglasHunter wrote:
jt512 wrote:

So, if it is below their perceptual threshold, then how can they correct it?

Jay

You already know the answer to this one, but I'll spray a little anyway.

If they are on their own they do what everyone else does, they know something is wrong so they continue to expirement just making slight changes in what they are doing until the point they either find something that works or give up and move on. Climbers are amazingly good intitutive learners and just by expirmenting they often come up with something that works.

As you know, in the coaching environment video analysis allows us to see these problems that occur in extremely shot periods of time. By video taping repeated attempts and then going through the section where the moves fail frame by frame we will be able to understand the structure of the move.

The most basic level of analysis for a single move is as follows:
1- define the base of support then:
2- define the type of balance present at the start position.
3- define the type of balance present as the move begins to fail.
3- analyze timing between hand contact with next hold and position or movement of the pelvis. does pelvis move downward or away from the rock prior to, or after contact is made?
4- how much movement is there?
5- Also draw the new base of support that will be created if the new hand hold is attained and define the type of balance that will be present if the move is successfully completed.
6- also try to determine how the move is being initiated.

I'm sure I've told you about my experience doing video analysis with Dan Mills before, but one session we did is such a clear example for me that I'll mention it again.

I was doing video analysis of him in the gym, he kept falling on this one V10 move. It was an extreme off-set balance move, a long move up and right on an overhanging wall from a sloper to a worse sloper. The video analysis showed that on every attempt his hips were starting to drop away from the wall about 2 video frames (2/30, or .066 of a second) before his hand made contact with the next hold. There was enough downward momentum and the hold was bad enough that he couldn't stick it. As the climber there was no way for him to figure out that this was going on. .066 of a second is just too short of a duration for the athlete to make an assessment of. Nor could an observer using the naked eye. To both it would just appear that the climber was falling as he reached the next hold. Going through the video frame by frame we were able to see this relationship happening, postulate that this was the problem and then suggest ways for him to prevent downward movement of the hips until his right hand was established on the next hold. We did this by repositioning his right foot on its hold and by having him attempt to consciously maintain trunk extention through the move. He was able to successfully complete the move severl times after making these adjustments.

OK, I've thought about this a little bit now, and I'm curious about your thoughts on some things that have come across my mind.

First, I want to start out with the assumption that there are two ways to develop the ability to do a move that one cannot do:

a) Work on technique
b) Get stronger/Muscle through

You mention that the subtlety of a failed movement's shortcomings swells as climbers get better. Your example of videotaping a climber to find the falling hips 0.066 seconds before contact demonstrates this. Of course, it is unrealistic to analyze each route this way anytime someone gets stuck at their limit. Moreover, considering how highly specialized the movement adjustment was, it doesn't seem to offer much transfer (or do you believe it does?) to other routes in the future.

Now, we're all familiar with the fact that campusing/hangboarding, being an isometric stress for the fingers, strengthens just the angle used during the hang. Yet, given variety in angles used, do you think that this strengthening would be more useful since it can be "generalized" across unique cruxes, whereas 0.066 s changes in technique would be harder to generalize to future problems?

The last sentence depends on the conclusion you have about the "generalizeability" of high-end movement training, which is what my first question hopes to get at.

Thanks. And I'm interested in hearing anyone else's thoughts on this too. My thoughts are total conjecture, so it'd be nice to hear some others' thoughts.


(This post was edited by spikeddem on Feb 12, 2011, 6:41 PM)



Edit Log:
Post edited by spikeddem () on Feb 12, 2011, 6:40 PM
Post edited by spikeddem () on Feb 12, 2011, 6:41 PM


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?