It made me imagine a pyramid.. Strength is the foundation (you cant hang on the wall withought it right?), endurance would be the middle.. and technique is the top. All have their place, none should be ignored.. all should be trained from the get go.

Climbing depends on many factors, some of them you mention in your post. I don't view them as a hierarchical system like you do with the pyramid. It's more like an N dimensional box where each side is one factor and the climbing ability is represented by the volume of the box. You become a better climber whichever aspect of climbing you improve. The fastest results can be attained by improving your weakest link. My $0.02.

Depends on the style of climbing. Some routes can't be brute forced no matter how much strength you have.

I have been experimenting with some targeted weight training sessions. I was not sure if it was a wise choice, given the amount of frowning on the subject. Other day i saw a new climber with allot of beef breeze his way to the top of a 20m f6c, and by no means a jug route.

It was quite a shock to me if I'm honest. F6c may not be insanely hard, but it is not easy. His technique was quite poor yet he still owned the route like it was a 4a. I was genuinely impressed.. And i usually look down on such climbers.

I'm obviously not suggesting hitting the weights and getting huge, but watching that guy blitz the route like that is making me challenge my current training ideals.

We constantly see the tip to climb, climb, climb.. always to work your technique. But i really am starting to question this as bad advice. I think that ignoring the brawn side of climbing (weights.. be it dead hangs and any other form) Just puts us on the opposite side of the extreme, that being lots of technique.. no notable strength.

It made me imagine a pyramid.. Strength is the foundation (you cant hang on the wall withought it right?), endurance would be the middle.. and technique is the top. All have their place, none should be ignored.. all should be trained from the get go.

Obviously the best way to increase technique is to climb.

The best way to do endurance.. is to climb too ofc.. while doing technique.

But strength? i think that is the exception.. it is looking to be the only aspect of climbing that is more beneficial and time efficient to be trained else where.

I do work as a climbing instructor. I see many new climbers.. and 99% of them can only climb the 5's or 6a/b if their really naturally good. The fact that this muscle man hammerd a 6c with poor technique is in my eyes an indication that climbing alone is infact the slowest way to improve.

So you base your entire opinion on one climb one person did to come to the conclusion that climbing is the slowest way to improve?

We constantly see the tip to climb, climb, climb.. always to work your technique.

It made me imagine a pyramid.. Strength is the foundation (you cant hang on the wall withought it right?), endurance would be the middle.. and technique is the top. All have their place, none should be ignored.. all should be trained from the get go.

But strength? i think that is the exception.. it is looking to be the only aspect of climbing that is more beneficial and time efficient to be trained else where.

How many routes do you come off of where your biceps feel fried? Your lats? Your triceps? Your traps? Your pecs?

Your observation of a person with "allot of beef" has nothing to do with the old "climb, climb, climb.. always work your technique"advice. The "climb, climb, climb" advice is given to beginners of generally good general fitness in comparison to using a hangboard. The strength from a hangboard is different than weight training strength.

This has to be a troll.

Maybe, but some of us advocate well structured climbing activities to develop all the different aspects of climbing, including muscular fitness.



I get why you might say this, but its simply not the case that the aspects of climbing can be categorized in this way. How much Kinesiology have you read? If you develop your background in Kinesiology it might help you refine you thinking here. Strength, endurance, and technique are not the best terms to use to think about how climbing works. Keep in mind that even though many climbers treat "strength" and "technique" as being different poles of a dichotomy, it is a false dichotomy to be sure. Functionally, in movement analysis it does no good to try to analyze movement using these terms.



Keep in mind that you don't really know that what you were observing is strength. No one just watching a climber could make such a judgement, we can't see enough with the unaided eye to understand what a climber is doing. In a technical sense casual observations tell us very little about what makes a climber successful on a given move or climb. You were just as easily seeing someone whose motor processing speed is faster than average, also climbing depends far more on intermuscluar coordination than it does the strength of individual muscles, you were also witnessing balance, timing, desire, etc etc etc. In a casual observation its impossible to pick apart what role each of these played in the climber's success.

How would you measure beneficial and time efficient? How do you measure strength in climbing?
These are questions for which there aren't really good answers in the climbing world. This is why I advocate training methods that can be quantified in terms of performance level, its something that can be measured with accuracy. Where as most descriptions of strength put forth by climbers leave us with nothing to quantify.

he clearly had good solid 4 arms

There's your answer right there - if he's got 4 arms he's clearly got a natural advantage over the rest of us.
Was it Vishnu by any chance?

Wow that is so funy, so original. You inspire me.

I know, i need to lighten up right?. ok.

Your telling me you have never been on a route where 4 arm/finger strength is not the deciding factor?.

And i never said the strength from hangbaord was the same as weight lifting strength.. Im aware of the differance. But none the less deadhangs can still fall under the same catigory as weighted training.. body being the weight.

You're telling me that you spent paragraphs talking about a muscular beginner, used the term weight training, and we were supposed to assume you meant hangboard?

How much time do you think this guy was spending on a hangboard throughout his weight lifting regiment? (That's not rhetorical. I'm genuinely curious to see if your answer is anything other than zero minutes, zero seconds.)

It made me imagine a pyramid.. Strength is the foundation (you cant hang on the wall withought it right?), endurance would be the middle.. and technique is the top. All have their place, none should be ignored.. all should be trained from the get go.

I realise my speling is bad, but i did mention deadhangs in the OP. That is ''targeted'' training after all.. along with traditional weights to target the larger muscle groups.

Well, your spelling doesn't really have much to do with the confusion. The confusion comes in where you look at a weight lifter, see him as a good beginner climber, and make the conclusion that deadhangs would be more effective than training technique. I will lay out my issues here:

1) It is very unlikely that the muscular beginner has done any kind of hangboard training in order to strengthen his forearms. Therefore, when you look at him and think that using a hangboard is more effective than increasing technique, we are confused because we don't see the connection. I mean, I'd argue that it's more often we see muscle-bound guys flail up a route, only to have their beginner, non-lifter girlfriend get up the route in better style.

2) The idea of movement training is that we decrease the amount of endurance/strength we require. Therefore, it is inherently easier on your tendons not only when you're training, but also when you're climbing in performance days. Your tendons will be unnecessarily seeing higher levels of stress as technique goes out the window. This, from a simply injury standpoint, suggests that beginners should stay away from putting movement training on a backburner.

3) The other aspect of movement training is that the gains we see from it come more quickly than gains from hangboarding. Of course, like any other investment, there is a point of diminishing returns. Everyone has their idea of where this is at, but I figure it's somewhere around V6/V7 or 5.12c/d. Sure, that's perhaps rather arbitrary, but it also helps me ensure that I will gradually introduce my tendons to higher levels of stress.

4) To expand on my #3 a bit more, just look at how stealing beta has helped your own climbing. A move or sequence can feel impossible, but then even just micro beta can make a move doable immediately after trying it. What would you prefer, two to four weeks of training on a hangboard, or having the technique background to come up with beta on your own?

My two favorite points so far.

A person with some training background can climb harder than a completely untrained person. Therefore lifting weights is better training for climbing than climbing.

Deadhangs with bodyweight is weighttraining, climbing and bouldering is not.

You are just reading what you want to read in order to make a sarcy post.

Over the past few year i really thought climbing ONLY was the best option to get better.. but i think i have seen enough now to know it is not. Atleast for me.

Did i say anything that was not correct?

Crux here, the key to training for me is always "for me"...you are getting some bad advice "for you" but maybe not for them....

I think that training with weights has been very beneficial for me, I train a lot of compound and plyometrics because I want explosiveness on hard cruxes.

I have done nothing but climb and climb more. My technique and so is good.. but my true raw physical ability is poor. I have put in so many hours aswell. I genuinly feel like their is a big hole in my over all climbing ability.. and it is that i did not sooner incorperate the likes of deadhangs, targeted weight training and campus boarding to my climbing plan. I only ever done such things when i could not make it to the wall. I think they should have allways been part of the plan now.

Did i say anything that was not correct?

In the bolded paragraph, the first sentence is untrue, or at least unfounded; and the second sentence, does not follow from the first, whether the first is true or not.

Jay

I'm fairly certain Rufsen meant to say something more like "Did I say anything that you did not claim?"

You're telling me that you spent paragraphs talking about a muscular beginner, used the term weight training, and we were supposed to assume you meant hangboard?

How much time do you think this guy was spending on a hangboard throughout his weight lifting regiment? (That's not rhetorical. I'm genuinely curious to see if your answer is anything other than zero minutes, zero seconds.)

It looked very clear to me that dave put in the better climb with better technique. Sharma looked like he was really lacking in comparison (even on the rest). However.. sharma got further regardless. I realise these are just 2 climbs.. but it clearly contridicted everything you guys are arguing for.. that technique rules highly above all else.

I agree i do not word things very well, and my spelling is poor. I also know that i assume people will understand what my point is withought good explination, mostly they do not.

What i am really trying to say, is that climbing ALONE ''could'' be only part of the picture (im aware i may be wrong). I also was a firm baleiver that to just climb and nothing more is all you need.

But (and not just from watching 1 single muscle guy climb) My opinion is starting to shift. I am still not happy to accept that climbing exclusively is enough to see the best gains in climbing (atleast for skinny people like me). It seems that most of you assume i mean ''dont climb.. do weights instead''.. that is not even close to what i mean.

I was thinking somthing along the lines of 2:1 ratio.. 2 climbing sessions to work on movement, endurance, problem solving etc.. to every 1 session to really target muscle groups like bicep, triceps, forarms (for mass to convert in climbing sessions) And ofc, deadhangs to target finger strength (amd lock offs same time). All designd to closely moniter the stess put on each individual aspect and ensure a even and good work out. Climbing and trying to do this takes so much longer, and your forarms are forced to be a part of the link during every phase of larger muscle groups (and finger strength training). Would that not result in an uneven workout of the muscle groups used in climbing?.. their is too much room for inconsistancy?. And, by ''evenly traind'' i mean that each aspect of muscle groups are taken to their own maximum capacity.. regardless of the fact that in real climbing most times, it is forarms/fingers that give out first. (although i can say on many occasions the lack of brute strength in other parts of the body has resulted in the 4arms/fingers having to take more of the slack).

To make this as simple as possible to get my point across.. here are 2 videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shRm5HNywTs&feature=channel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXXbfbTsuMo

Forget that these are 2 of the best climbers in the world, and just look at the climb's alone. It looked very clear to me that dave put in the better climb with better technique. Sharma looked like he was really lacking in comparison (even on the rest). However.. sharma got further regardless. I realise these are just 2 climbs.. but it clearly contridicted everything you guys are arguing for.. that technique rules highly above all else.

If however, dave had the muscle mass to excert more force (meaning he would have to use weight to spark increase) and then trained that mass to directly benifit climbing.. would his really good technique pluss the new found muscle mass trained to strength/endurance not make him excell even more?. I am not talking about a extreem amount of muscle gain, just to make that clear.

And why do you have to have a killfile jay, in a forum that is to discuss differant points of view?. Is it so hard for you to keep a open mind, instead of religeiosly baleiving what the ''experts'' tell you?. Can they never be wrong?.

This is the problem. You are interpreting what you are seeing to match what you want to hear. Instead of thinking that Dave, if he had more muscles would be better, why didn;t you think that if Sharma learned better technique that he would be the better climber? The point that everyone has made so far is not that weight training won't make any gains at all, but rather that climbing specific training is far more efficient at improving climbing that weight training. So unless you have perfected all the technique possible and are physically limited by your strength, ie you climbe 5.12+ or boulder V7+ then you are still limited by technique and should continue to climb to get better

climbing is and will always be the best training for climbing. An hour at the gym or crag will always produce more results than an hour pumping iron. Thats just the truth. You could waste all your time finding the specific workout that targets one muscle that you might use on any given route, or you could just go climb. Likewise we could spend more time arguing this irrelevant and highly individual point on the internet, or we could just go climb. ;) cheers.

Instead of thinking that Dave, if he had more muscles would be better, why didn;t you think that if Sharma learned better technique that he would be the better climber?

How modest of you to pronounce that Sharma has bad technique. You can give higher style points for Dave, but IMO it's much more likely that they both climb with a good technique that suits their bodies and strengths. It's just not common sense to say that the world best climber (maybe arguably) is so much stronger than all his competition (who also climb and train really hard) that he can get away with piss poor technique.

Over his entire histroy climbing? maybe he does maybe not. But in that single climb alone? it looked very obvius to me wich climber looked to be the more technical, and witch leand on physical proes. Both on the opposit end of the extreem? where would you place a climber who met in the middle?. Surely not an equal to the same as both ends?.. or for what porpose would it be to train technique, if power was the same?.

The returns on the investment of training movement diminish as you skill increases.

In theory this is the case, but in my years of observing climbers I would say that movement skills, even very basic skills such as foot placement are not ever learned once and for all. As climbers move into higher grades they seem to me to be continually re-fining older skills, "stress proofing" them at higher levels of movement intensity and refining their application, as well as learning new ones.

I will say that V10 boulderers are far better prepared for the learning they need to do, than the V2 bouldereres and the learning can take far less time for the more advanced climbers but I don't think we should imply that this process is of diminished importance since the margin of error in terms of timing, and balance keep getting smaller at the moves become more difficult.

In theory this is the case, but in my years of observing climbers I would say that movement skills, even very basic skills such as foot placement are not ever learned once and for all. As climbers move into higher grades they seem to me to be continually re-fining older skills, "stress proofing" them at higher levels of movement intensity and refining their application, as well as learning new ones.

I will say that V10 boulderers are far better prepared for the learning they need to do, than the V2 bouldereres and the learning can take far less time for the more advanced climbers but I don't think we should imply that this process is of diminished importance since the margin of error in terms of timing, and balance keep getting smaller at the moves become more difficult.

Ceebo,

Thanks for posting the videos, but I have to say they do nothing to advance your argument. One of the resons I asked you how much kinesiology you know is because one needs a sound observational methodology in order to be able to understand what one is seeing when watching other climbers. Side by side video comparisons can be an amazing tool if done correctly. However, you link to low quality videos takes from a poor observational position and then make substantial claims about what they show. To me this reflects a lack of understanding on your part. No amount of internet discussion can clear up this misunderstanding, you need to learn some science, something about motor control, and some kinesiology.

Nonetheless, let me restate the idea that strength VS technique is a false dichotomy. Even though climbers like to make this distinction, they can not really be seperated, and, in addition, they are low quality concepts for understanding movement.

Then let me ask you two questions:

1) How do you define technique?

2) In the video, why did Dave fall?

Well, their is no such thing as ''he has no technique'', since every single movement used no matter how sloppy, is a form of technique. How ever, i would define ''desired'' technique as being movement you learn from putting in years training. It slowly gives a larger and lager turbo boost to your physical ability, with an eventual limit or deminishing return to its impact.

I dont think it is a case of strength vs technique.. but more the 2 working together to increase performance. It would seem logical to assume that the more stregth you have, the more their is too boost with technique.

With that said, technique in a way is almost counter productive to strength increase. Since it makes climbing with the physical ability you have less demanding, it means climbing at the same level would produce less/no gains. That is obviusly a great result.. since it means to get physically stronger, you can climb somthing even harder.

That almost completely contridicts everything im arguing about. But, if you consider the actual time it takes to learn the basics of what we define as good technique.. it deminishes far befor strength building, since most times you can refine and engage a veriation of a certain climbing move on the fly. So clearly their is a huge gap between the rate strength/tendons etc improve over the rate of wich movement improves.. perhaps it is a gap that truely can only be closed by climbing all the time, or maybe their can be much quicker ways to build that strength?.

Most other sports have other forms of training to aid them in their desired field. Although climbing is far more varied in its movements.. surely their has to be other forms of training that can target and dramitically increase the rate of progression in areas needed for climbing.


As for why dave fell off, it looked to me like he did not build enough momentum to allow contact on the hold, why that happend (if true) I dont know.

Ceebo, where are you a climbing instructor?

Do you think that by the time someone has reached that level of fitness/skill that they can legitimately train movement and strength to maximize the gains from each one? (Think in comparison to a beginner that can't handle the volume/intensity involved in performance days, training strength days, and movement training days.)

Ceebo, where are you a climbing instructor?

For higher-end climbers, let's say those climbing V10/5.13+, are there any factors more common in limiting success than others? Or is it really all over the place

I've spend the most time helping them learn to gain control over their movement initiation, timing, and pacing. The other thing is that what limits them on a given move or climb is often not things like obvious sequencing errors. Its often things that lie below their perceptual threshold. They know that the move isn't working but its actually impossible for them to perceive why because they are doing just about everything right and the problem occurs very quickly, say 1/30 of a second.

Its a good question.

My experience suggests that climbers up to the 5.12 level are making al kinds of mistakes. The definition of a 5.10 climber seems to be someone who makes basic sequencing errors on just about every move.

By the time a climber gets to the V10 / 5.13+ level they have usually had a lot of bad habits beaten out of them but they can still have a lot to learn. Thinking about my experience with climbers at that level I would say they are still learning and refining movement just like everyone else, but they can do it faster. I've spend the most time helping them learn to gain control over their movement initiation, timing, and pacing. The other thing is that what limits them on a given move or climb is often not things like obvious sequencing errors. Its often things that lie below their perceptual threshold. They know that the move isn't working but its actually impossible for them to perceive why because they are doing just about everything right and the problem occurs very quickly, say 1/30 of a second.

Ceebo, where are you a climbing instructor?

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

Jay

I was asking myself the same question... Please don't say you teach movement.

I've been reading this discussion for a couple of days and while I don't consider myself qualified to address the primary concern, I will jump in to say that comments like csproul's are a distraction to the topic. Douglas asked some important questions. The useful focus should be on the answers the OP provided.

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.

Since you seem so intent on making asumtions of my teaching ability.. on the basis of questioning how we train, i will resort to the same pety level. Perhaps i should incorperate a 30 days to learn it block?. Although strangely.. my job is secure, hmm.

Or did you make this assumtion due to the fact that i have holes in my shoes around the big toe area?.. as a result of flag dragging?. Is this the worst possible flaw to have in a persons climbing weakness?.. as subtle as the error is?.

Infact why dont i just go 1 better since this topic is derailed so often by you egotisticle morons, and lower the standards even more..?? how about i assume that because i climb 3 entire grades higher than you.. that what you think means nothing? and you should infact just shut up because i am right and you are wrong?.

Or, are you just so ashamed that your little 30 days to kill it thing resulted in people making a mockery of you.. that from now on out, any given chance you get to try and make another person feel the same.. you take?.

I love the productivity of these forums.

Thanks for taking time to post. Your posts made this thread worth reading.

Ceebo, you asked a question. You received answers from many, many people. They were all in agreement. It is not your beliefs, but rather your unwillingness to listen to anything anyone else has said. Nobody has attacked you at all. We--at least I--have, however, become rather frustrated with the fact that you ask a question, but apparently had no interest in any answers except ones that would agree with what you think. You attacked Kartessa (not that she cares at all, I'm sure) way more than anyone has come at you.

It's fairly accurate that this thread hasn't been productive in the sense that it has done the opposite of confirming your opinion, which is is clearly the only reason you started it. We have, however, gotten some interesting information from one of the leading authors of climbing improvement books.

Sure, it doesn't help that your grammar and spelling aren't the greatest, but if you had reasonable arguments then you would not have received the feedback that you did. We can look past poor spelling/grammar to get to an important message, but when your arguments are hollow it makes it difficult for others.

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.

It seems to me that beef climbers usually fry-out pretty quick.

yeah they do. even the ones that actually have some decent technique burn out super fast.

O.K. well, I don't share the assumption that you begin with. At least I typically use a different conceptual framework to describe what is happening in movement.

Consider that:
Even video analysis does not allow us to observe strength at work in a move. Its a great tool for quantifying how a move develops in time and space, it also allows us to make really good estimates of the kind of balance at work in a move, and it can help us understand how a move is initiated but there is no commonly available observational technique that would allow us to observe "strength" in a climbing move. Bio-mechanical analysis helps us understand the forces at work in a move, such as how much force is being applied to each hand and foot hold, but I shudder at the difficulty of doing such an analysis of even a single move.Even a basic Kinesiological analysis of a climbing move is pretty tricky. Anyway, Its an interesting problem but its over my head. I admit too, that on a basic level I don't really buy the idea that moves fail because the climber lacks the strength. Its hard to imagine a climber who has the balance, timing, initiation, and path through space all dialed and is failing because he cannot generate enough force. Ah, see the problem in my last sentence is that balance, force, time and space are all tied together in movement, they can't really be pulled apart. And that is the big problem with climber's talking about technique and strength.


-Also, as far as technique goes, its a strange concept in the climbing world because climbers usually use it to refer to a limited number of elements of a move such as how well feet are placed on holds, or how smooth and controlled the climber looks. These things don't tell us anything about the structure of the move. Be that as it may, I don't know that I would call the moving of the right foot in the above example technique. What I was doing was responding to the rules of balance. One of which is that we can create greater stability by expanding the base of support in the direction that the COG is moving. So we expanded his base of support up and to the right, by a very small amount. I call that working within the mechanics of balance, I don't really call that kind of adjustment technique. As for trunk extension, I suppose it could be called technique, but keep in mind it was not a new technique that he needed to learn. He already knew how to do it, I just reminded him of it because it tends to improve body tension.

So here is something I should have mentioned in the example. The problem could not be perceived by the climber, but the remedies were readily available to us and based on knowledge of balance and timing. These are very general principles and are applicable to any move. There is a finite number of things to try to improve stability, you just need to know what they are.

Addressing your example of a using a hang board, I guess the thesis is that if his grasping hand were stronger, he could have completed the move despite the fact that his hips were falling away from the wall prior to hand contact. That sounds like a good thesis to a lot of climbers. But its problematic. It like saying there is no such thing as motor control. Also how long before climbers would need to be infinitely strong? With movement being as complex as it is, why would we try to use this one element to fix every problem? That's essentially what one would be saying, get the move close and then just let strength take over. We need to teach climbers to move correctly. I'm all for the use of hang boards for climbers who need supplemental training, but I don't see it as being capable of solving specific movement problems.

As for the climber, he did feel that the results of doing a number of video analysis sessions led to a generalizable approach to working on moves by essentially refining the level at which he attended to the details of his movement.


Anyway thanks for raising the questions, they addressed some good issues.

this thread is way too much to read. will someone please summarize what's been said here in 150 words or less?

this thread is way too much to read. will someone please summarize what's been said here in 150 words or less?

Strength isn't everything, and is less important than technique. That being said, getting stronger is never a bad thing and can only make you a better climber.

All things being equal, sure. But time spent training strength (with associated recovery time) may limit time spent training technique.