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.