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.