|
jt512
Aug 29, 2005, 11:46 PM
Post #26 of 31
(3335 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: I do know that people with a working knowledge of kinesiology and mechanics simply do not write or speak about movement the way you do on your web page. And 99.9% of 'em don't know a drop-knee from a Gaston, so I'm betting the relevance of their knowledge is tangential.
I'll take that bet.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Aug 30, 2005, 4:05 AM
Post #27 of 31
(3335 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: That's a scary link. I didn't look at all the "principles" but the first 4 or 5 are incorrect. The author does not understand mechanics or balance in climbing, so the principles end up being a very strange description of balance in face climbing. I would say they are NOT examples of the fundamentals of climbing. Really ? Wow. Most people I teach think they're pretty helpful. Oh well I've only been climbing a little while, so it's no surprise I got it all wrong. if youve only been climbing a little while, why are you teachin other people. |
|
|
|
|
fluxus
Aug 30, 2005, 7:13 AM
Post #28 of 31
(3335 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2003
Posts: 947
|
In reply to: And 99.9% of 'em don't know a drop-knee from a Gaston, so I'm betting the relevance of their knowledge is tangential.
How did a thread that started so well go so wrong?
You are right that many kinesiologists don't know the specifics of climbing, however if they were to see a climber in motion or watch a video clip they would be able to provide a more objective, informed, and accurate description of climbing movement than you present on you web page, because they understand the fundamental components of all human movement. The knowledge is anying but tangential.
The thing is, you are simply dismissing me, and throwing a few insults around, without addressing the substance of the issue at hand. In the immedate context that's fine, you certainly are free to respond any way you see fit.
On the other hand, I for one, am interested in raising the bar a few notches in terms of the quality and accuracy of imformation presented to the climbing comunity when it comes to movement and training etc.
You identify yourself as a teacher of climbing and I would hope that all of us who teach climbing would see it as essential to seek out the best, most objective, and scientifically rigorous information available, if for no other reason than to educate ourselves before we mis-educate others. A concern that your posts suggest you do not share.
What you write on your page is a good start but contains many significant errors. You don't need to feel embarrassed by that fact, or adknowledge it publically, nor do you have to take my word for it, the knowledge is out there you simply need to use it.
Do your students a favor and at some point, put the "I already know it all" attitude in check for a while and learn, really learn and apply to climbing some of the basic science pertaining to movement, balance, mechanics, qualatitive and quantitive observational methodology, etc. Your teaching will improve, your appriciation of climbing will grow, and you will be capable of real insights.
If you'd like a reading list I'd be glad to provide one. Or you can buy my book when it hits the shelf in October, read it as an introduction, and then read the 30+ texts listed in the refrences that specifically apply to movement. That is if you can be bothered.
I know, I know I really DO go on don't I? but I'm sure I've been "killing you" the entire time, so at least you're getting some entertainment value out of it. Anyway, feel free to keep calling me a fool. You are also more than welcome to keep suggesting that objective, accurate information is unnecessary in order to teach and understand climbing. Its your hole, dig it as deep as you like. :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
daithi
Aug 30, 2005, 10:19 AM
Post #29 of 31
(3335 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2005
Posts: 397
|
Fluxus, for my benefit could you explain what is exactly wrong with principles 1 -4 and why you think they are incorrect. From my perspective they seem to be applicable to certain moves but I probably wouldn't describe them as principles of all climbing movement (not too sure if the original author claimed this).
I think axioms for climbing movement are quite difficult due to the range of movements in face climbing and individuals thinking what works for them is best. Still I think it is a good idea for a thread and will be interested to read some more fundamentals!
|
|
|
|
|
jbak
Aug 30, 2005, 4:53 PM
Post #30 of 31
(3335 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2003
Posts: 63
|
In reply to: The thing is, you are simply dismissing me, and throwing a few insults around
well.....actually you started that tack, look at your first post. Later you insult my friends. (insulting my friends is MY job)
In reply to: I know, I know I really DO go on don't I? but I'm sure I've been "killing you" the entire time, so at least you're getting some entertainment value out of it.
Yeah it's entertaining. And lately you've adopted a more gentlemanly approach which I applaud. I don't really feel like arguing about it in detail. (After 30 years of climbing I find most climbing discussions to be boring.) I base my observations on my years of experience and face-to-face feedback from climbers I know. On the other hand (from my perspective) you are just an unknown voice from the virtual world speaking flowery words. So you will pardon me if I don't just jump on your bandwagon. I now officially check out of this discussion. If I see your book I'll take a look.
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Aug 30, 2005, 5:07 PM
Post #31 of 31
(3335 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
In reply to: That's a scary link. I didn't look at all the "principles" but the first 4 or 5 are incorrect. The author does not understand mechanics or balance in climbing, so the principles end up being a very strange description of balance in face climbing. I would say they are NOT examples of the fundamentals of climbing.
whats insulting about that post???? maybe the "scary" comment??
|
|
|
|
|
|
