|
Valarc
Oct 23, 2007, 10:43 PM
Post #51 of 84
(3020 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 20, 2007
Posts: 1473
|
sidepull wrote: for contrast, please watch videos of bouldering competitions and note how often they use dynamic moves.
That's not a very fair comparison. Bouldering competitions are designed to require a large dose of dynamic movement. It's not some choice between static and dynamic for the competitor, it's the way the route was envisioned by the routesetter. Find a way to do those moves statically and I'd be mighty impressed.
|
|
|
|
|
mturner
Oct 23, 2007, 10:45 PM
Post #52 of 84
(3019 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2005
Posts: 980
|
ghisino wrote: mturner wrote: ghisino wrote: Skill level, but also contact strenght and body tension Jay!!! Contact strength and body tension are part of "skill level." so-so I do train a lot indeed, and I expecially train those two things campus boarding, but I find that thinking things that way might be misleading... getting phisically stronger doesn't automatically mean getting more skilled. Otherwise everyone could start his personal campus board obsession, get strong enough to do 1-4-7 on monos and 1-5-9 on two fingers, fly to frankenjura and send "action directe" in a matter of days... 
No I still think "skill level" covers all bases including strength, technique, and mental aspects of climbing. It's essentially having the whole package, all inclusive. You're talking about skill level like it's the same as technique, but I think technique is a subcategory of skill level. Skill is the "ability to do something well" which for climbing often requires a certain amount of strength, technique, mental capacity, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Oct 24, 2007, 3:15 AM
Post #53 of 84
(2991 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
mturner wrote: ghisino wrote: Skill level, but also contact strenght and body tension Jay!!! Contact strength and body tension are part of "skill level."
Thank you. I'm glad somebody gets it.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Oct 24, 2007, 3:19 AM
Post #54 of 84
(2987 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
sidepull wrote: To update, add: JT512 is right and a lot of people agree with him.
Please excuse me for a moment while I go have a heart attack.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Oct 24, 2007, 3:35 AM
Post #55 of 84
(2982 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
mturner wrote: ghisino wrote: mturner wrote: ghisino wrote: Skill level, but also contact strenght and body tension Jay!!! Contact strength and body tension are part of "skill level." so-so I do train a lot indeed, and I expecially train those two things campus boarding, but I find that thinking things that way might be misleading... getting phisically stronger doesn't automatically mean getting more skilled. Otherwise everyone could start his personal campus board obsession, get strong enough to do 1-4-7 on monos and 1-5-9 on two fingers, fly to frankenjura and send "action directe" in a matter of days... No I still think "skill level" covers all bases including strength, technique, and mental aspects of climbing. It's essentially having the whole package, all inclusive. You're talking about skill level like it's the same as technique, but I think technique is a subcategory of skill level. Skill is the "ability to do something well" which for climbing often requires a certain amount of strength, technique, mental capacity, etc.
I would say that sport-specific strength is a component of technique. In fact I would say that sport-specific strength is something of a misnomer, and that in a sport there is only technique-specific strength. For instance, dynoing is a technique. To dyno well (ie, to be skillful at dynoing) requires strength in certain muscles, timing, balance, etc. Heel hooking is a technique. To be good at heel hooking you need strength in certain muscles, intermuscular coordination, balance, etc. And so on. So, there is no strength-technique dichotomy. Strength is a component of technique.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
mturner
Oct 24, 2007, 4:29 AM
Post #56 of 84
(2973 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2005
Posts: 980
|
jt512 wrote: mturner wrote: ghisino wrote: mturner wrote: ghisino wrote: Skill level, but also contact strenght and body tension Jay!!! Contact strength and body tension are part of "skill level." so-so I do train a lot indeed, and I expecially train those two things campus boarding, but I find that thinking things that way might be misleading... getting phisically stronger doesn't automatically mean getting more skilled. Otherwise everyone could start his personal campus board obsession, get strong enough to do 1-4-7 on monos and 1-5-9 on two fingers, fly to frankenjura and send "action directe" in a matter of days... No I still think "skill level" covers all bases including strength, technique, and mental aspects of climbing. It's essentially having the whole package, all inclusive. You're talking about skill level like it's the same as technique, but I think technique is a subcategory of skill level. Skill is the "ability to do something well" which for climbing often requires a certain amount of strength, technique, mental capacity, etc. I would say that sport-specific strength is a component of technique. In fact I would say that sport-specific strength is something of a misnomer, and that in a sport there is only technique-specific strength. For instance, dynoing is a technique. To dyno well (ie, to be skillful at dynoing) requires strength in certain muscles, timing, balance, etc. Heel hooking is a technique. To be good at heel hooking you need strength in certain muscles, intermuscular coordination, balance, etc. And so on. So, there is no strength-technique dichotomy. Strength is a component of technique. Jay
nice catch Jay, you're on a roll.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Oct 24, 2007, 5:02 AM
Post #57 of 84
(2970 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
climb_eng wrote: Bullshit, Dynos are ususally done by climbers who lack good technique. They're a trick for egotistical strongmen, and nothing more. You hardly ever see Lynn Hill dyno.
Well, since I have actually climbed with Lynn Hill, I'll let you in on a little secret: Lynn is a master of dynamic climbing technique. Please tell me how your climbing experiences with Lynn led you to a different conclusion. Thanks in advance for the additional clarity.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
mturner
Oct 24, 2007, 5:41 AM
Post #58 of 84
(2963 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2005
Posts: 980
|
curt wrote: climb_eng wrote: Bullshit, Dynos are ususally done by climbers who lack good technique. They're a trick for egotistical strongmen, and nothing more. You hardly ever see Lynn Hill dyno. Well, since I have actually climbed with Lynn Hill, I'll let you in on a little secret: Lynn is a master of dynamic climbing technique. Please tell me how your climbing experiences with Lynn led you to a different conclusion. Thanks in advance for the additional clarity. Curt
haha, that makes me smile 
|
|
|
|
|
fulton
Oct 24, 2007, 5:49 AM
Post #59 of 84
(2962 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 26, 2004
Posts: 210
|
|
|
|
|
|
mxracer8
Oct 24, 2007, 7:33 AM
Post #60 of 84
(2947 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 20, 2007
Posts: 4
|
Dynos are cool and look impressive but will actually ware you out faster than a static move. you should try to work on your static moves first and build strength and that will make you a better climber all around. But all in all if your going for that Dynamic move just commit!
|
|
|
|
|
ghisino
Oct 24, 2007, 8:37 AM
Post #61 of 84
(2948 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 12, 2005
Posts: 249
|
jt512 wrote: mturner wrote: ghisino wrote: mturner wrote: ghisino wrote: Skill level, but also contact strenght and body tension Jay!!! Contact strength and body tension are part of "skill level." so-so I do train a lot indeed, and I expecially train those two things campus boarding, but I find that thinking things that way might be misleading... getting phisically stronger doesn't automatically mean getting more skilled. Otherwise everyone could start his personal campus board obsession, get strong enough to do 1-4-7 on monos and 1-5-9 on two fingers, fly to frankenjura and send "action directe" in a matter of days... No I still think "skill level" covers all bases including strength, technique, and mental aspects of climbing. It's essentially having the whole package, all inclusive. You're talking about skill level like it's the same as technique, but I think technique is a subcategory of skill level. Skill is the "ability to do something well" which for climbing often requires a certain amount of strength, technique, mental capacity, etc. I would say that sport-specific strength is a component of technique. In fact I would say that sport-specific strength is something of a misnomer, and that in a sport there is only technique-specific strength. For instance, dynoing is a technique. To dyno well (ie, to be skillful at dynoing) requires strength in certain muscles, timing, balance, etc. Heel hooking is a technique. To be good at heel hooking you need strength in certain muscles, intermuscular coordination, balance, etc. And so on. So, there is no strength-technique dichotomy. Strength is a component of technique. Jay
I understand what you guys say...
I look at it like a truth that's very powerful if fully understood and dangerous (for the unexperienced climber) if you get it wrong.
specific strenght makes some techniques possible.
but also :
-getting specific strenght doesn't mean you get specific technique.
-not getting some technique doesn't necessairily mean that you lack specific strenght. Ie I could have everything I need to dyno and still suck at it because I'm scared.
and :
-building specific strenght to improve some specific technique is often the fastest way around a problem/move/route, but not always.
Sometimes working out a different beta works better.
I've seen Dave Graham shooting an interesting interview about those things.
His main points were :
-You need to trust yourself and be free to try things that most people would find "wrong" sometimes. If everyone dynos it doesn't mean that you can't solve it statically with some clever footwork. And if you make it your own way and they tell you something, it's most likely something stupid ("Static beta is for sissies!")
-While you're developing your technique, you have to understand which specific strenght you need to make it better. Again it might not be what people expect : one armed pullups might be less important than strong shoulders and back, for example.
|
|
|
|
|
mturner
Oct 24, 2007, 2:45 PM
Post #62 of 84
(2924 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2005
Posts: 980
|
mxracer8 wrote: Dynos are cool and look impressive but will actually ware you out faster than a static move. you should try to work on your static moves first and build strength and that will make you a better climber all around. But all in all if your going for that Dynamic move just commit!
Have you even been paying attention?
|
|
|
|
|
mturner
Oct 24, 2007, 2:53 PM
Post #63 of 84
(2922 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2005
Posts: 980
|
ghisino wrote: -getting specific strenght doesn't mean you get specific technique. -not getting some technique doesn't necessairily mean that you lack specific strenght. Ie I could have everything I need to dyno and still suck at it because I'm scared.
If you had everything you needed to dyno you wouldn't be scared, that's part of the technique needed to perform the skill.
ghisino wrote: -building specific strenght to improve some specific technique is often the fastest way around a problem/move/route, but not always. Sometimes working out a different beta works better.
Working out a move using different beta requires a different skill, therefore a different technique is used.
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
Oct 24, 2007, 5:29 PM
Post #64 of 84
(2913 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
mturner wrote: ghisino wrote: -getting specific strenght doesn't mean you get specific technique. -not getting some technique doesn't necessairily mean that you lack specific strenght. Ie I could have everything I need to dyno and still suck at it because I'm scared. If you had everything you needed to dyno you wouldn't be scared, that's part of the technique needed to perform the skill. ghisino wrote: -building specific strenght to improve some specific technique is often the fastest way around a problem/move/route, but not always. Sometimes working out a different beta works better. Working out a move using different beta requires a different skill, therefore a different technique is used.
precisely!
|
|
|
|
|
ghisino
Oct 25, 2007, 7:32 PM
Post #65 of 84
(2867 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 12, 2005
Posts: 249
|
mturner wrote: ghisino wrote: -building specific strenght to improve some specific technique is often the fastest way around a problem/move/route, but not always. Sometimes working out a different beta works better. Working out a move using different beta requires a different skill, therefore a different technique is used.
yes, of course.
what's the problem with this?
some techniques are better than others?
Are we climbing a different boulder problem or route if we solve it in a totally different way from the established beta???
Do we care about sending the f*cking thing, or about doing it "the right way" ???
then, as far as training goes, one might think "I suck at dynos. They might be useful some time in my future. Let's improve them", and I totally agree with this.
But if one looks at it from the sending point of view, one should be open to different techniques and possibilities, and care about getting the most from his current potential.
Even if this means going static where everyone else dynos.
Or, on the contrary, dynoing where everyone else does some clever move that's way too complicated for you.
edit :
I can't understand training without a sending purpose, be it a specific route ("I want to climb la rambla"), or something more general ("next summer I'm going to céuse and I want to onsight everything". "I want to become an Indian Creek legend". "I want to pull the most spectacular dyno ever seen". "I want to climb a 5.13a that doesn't overhang" etc etc)
Becoming a better climber means sending your projects, or getting closer to them. It's simple.
Then I repeat in a different way :
training to get the established beta (=improving those specific skills and techniques) is often the fastest way.
But sometimes working out your own beta (=using different skills and techniques) might get the job done faster...
(This post was edited by ghisino on Oct 25, 2007, 7:44 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
mturner
Oct 25, 2007, 8:15 PM
Post #66 of 84
(2855 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2005
Posts: 980
|
ghisino wrote: But if one looks at it from the sending point of view, one should be open to different techniques and possibilities, and care about getting the most from his current potential. Even if this means going static where everyone else dynos. Or, on the contrary, dynoing where everyone else does some clever move that's way too complicated for you.
I guess I don't have so much of a problem with that, if it's the only way to do a problem for you. But if you can do it either way, why not do it the most efficient.
Sounds like you're almost saying the same thing, just thinking about it in a different way?
|
|
|
|
|
JackAttack
Oct 25, 2007, 9:38 PM
Post #67 of 84
(2844 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 24, 2007
Posts: 55
|
honestly, i don't see how you came to the conclusion that the poster is such a bad person. he/she actually seem very nice to me. you on the other hand seem like a real jerk. i agree with you somewhat, but ultimately it depends on the type of person. no it doesn't make sense to make every move into a dyno, but in many cases a very difficult static move could be made into a fairly easy dyno. But like i said earlier, it also depends on the person. if someone already has the body compostition to be able to do a dyno, then it makes more sense for them to dyno more often, and vice versa. either way its not gonna kill you to be able to do a dyno.
|
|
|
|
|
mturner
Oct 25, 2007, 10:10 PM
Post #68 of 84
(2832 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2005
Posts: 980
|
This has turned into a Jay lovefest.
|
|
|
|
|
mturner
Oct 26, 2007, 4:32 PM
Post #70 of 84
(2785 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2005
Posts: 980
|
ghisino wrote: JackAttack wrote: if someone already has the body compostition to be able to do a dyno, then it makes more sense for them to dyno more often, and vice versa@ mrturner read carefully these lines by jackattack. they explain my point. the "efficiency" of a certain technique (be it dynoing, drop-kneeing, whatever) is not an absolute thing, it depends on the situation and it depends on the climber
Somewhat agreed, but you still have to explore why they like a certain technique more, or think it is more efficient. I think some would argue that a climber with all the needed skills would choose to do a move dynamically because it saves energy. Alternatively, someone who lacks the technique necessary to dyno, of course will feel more confident about doing it static, but that doesn't make it more efficient energy-wise.
|
|
|
|
|
Go-Devil
Oct 31, 2007, 10:36 AM
Post #71 of 84
(2735 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2006
Posts: 46
|
ARE DYNOS ESSENTIAL TO BETTER CLIMBING ?
YES, The General style in climbing is still STATIC, people feel more comfy if they can check the hold first before hanging on it, now LOGIC, static moving requires more Power then dynamic moving, now whoever said something like "if you can't get em static, better quit climbing" is simply said an ASS, im still convinced that on 99% of all climbs, technique can easily compensate power, thts also why the strongest man in the world isnt the best climber in the world.... Now if you consider dynoing not a real technique but rather a cheat, SUCK IT, dyno's are allready required on most of the REALLY hard climbs, (just to mention the giant dyno on ES Pontas by sharma,) but also on easier climbs, mostly not necessary but they can save you some energy, even better they WILL save your energy. and possibly make the difference between a static failure and a dynamic send
Now some on-topic stuff.....
Dynos only work if you manage to be a 100%efficient, this doesnt mean you slap every dyno from the first time, this means tht you wont lose any energy, you'll make the move with just enough power to get it, no more no less,at first youll find yourself massively overshooting resulting in failure.
If you overshoot(too much power added) youll have to catch your fall on your arms, so the energy you generated requires energy back to compensate it, resulting in a double waiste, the waist of generating and compensating. Now undershooting is easier, you just added too less power and you wont come near the holds . (often result of fear) you are exactly on your dyno when you lunge for the hold and your dead-point ( point where upwards movement turns into downwards movement and you seem to be hanging still in the air for an eyeblink) is exactly so positioned tht you can grab your aim-holds without having to compensate your "fall", this way you have more control and obviously you can dyno to even smaller holds once you've mastered this, combined with mastering rapid and correct foot placement, on your dead-point, youll be amazed what problems you can effectively dyno for!
Another tip is: mind your stance, most people point their butt out resulting in your body mass coming partly out from under your hold, resulting in slipping off, so really try to make the hold as gentle as possible, try to prevent dangling and keep your whole body tensioned in the perfect position for grabbing and holding on ! (dont forget your feet !)
Last tip : Grab it and hold it, many people make a perfect flight and then all they do is touch the holds. just curl your fingers and hang on for the hell of it, youll be amazed what this change of mind does to your performance !
Have fun on your dynos, but dont pin your life on it, vary your climbs and bring elements from by example slab climbs into dynoing or dynoing in overhang and your general skill will definately raise !
|
|
|
|
|
elepita
Oct 31, 2007, 11:38 AM
Post #72 of 84
(2732 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 23, 2005
Posts: 160
|
Thank you all guys for your comments, I am sorry I did not reply sooner but I dont have a in front of the computer job (english teacher for proffesionals - in Spain) and I cannot check rockclimbing.com so often. I think dynos are very important too, that is why I asked. I am training to get better at them but it is hard bc I lack confidence. Thanks again and if you have more tips, keep them coming! Cheers from Spain and not to make you jealous but nice weather here and guess what? 4 day weekend ahead...hahaha! Besos a todos
|
|
|
|
|
Valarc
Oct 31, 2007, 2:44 PM
Post #73 of 84
(2712 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 20, 2007
Posts: 1473
|
Red, Green, AND Blue...
Majid, is that you?
Maybe we need some arrows telling you how far out your butt should stick?
|
|
|
|
|
Go-Devil
Oct 31, 2007, 2:54 PM
Post #74 of 84
(2709 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2006
Posts: 46
|
no im not majid, i know he has some nice arrow drawings, but i just colored my reply to distinguish it from all the other blabbering in here and try to actually answer the original question ..
MAjid's a legend
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Oct 31, 2007, 9:56 PM
Post #75 of 84
(2677 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
elepita wrote: Thank you all guys for your comments, I am sorry I did not reply sooner but I dont have a in front of the computer job (english teacher for proffesionals - in Spain) and I cannot check rockclimbing.com so often. [..] Thanks again and if you have more tips, keep them coming!
I have a tip: Don't admit that you are an English teacher in a sentence that is ungrammatical, poorly punctuated, and contains a misspelled word.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
|
