|
davidnn5
Jul 22, 2010, 1:38 AM
Post #26 of 35
(1783 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 8, 2009
Posts: 348
|
I've always been completely unfussed about the argument, but I think it's fallacious to say:
(a) hard trad is 5.9+ but hard sport is 5.12+ (?? too much sport where you live mate)
(b) trad climbers only climb slab or crack
|
|
|
|
|
styndall
Jul 22, 2010, 1:42 AM
Post #27 of 35
(1783 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 29, 2002
Posts: 2741
|
I'd like to quote the very first paragraph of The Self-Coached Climber. I hope Hague and Hunter don't mind.
In reply to: The defining conceptual model of climbing performance today is that the two most fundamental abilities a climber can possess are strength and technique. It's nearly impossible to be a climber without having been exposed to these ideas and developing an opinion about which is more important. The distinction in thought between strength and technique in the climbing community has become an ideological division, and the two concepts are not often used in their correct senses. The ideas of strength and technique undoubtedly form two poles in a philosophical debate about the nature of climbing, but these positions are both very general and built upon abstractions, resulting in a misrepresentation of climbing movement. |
|
|
|
|
silascl
Jul 22, 2010, 4:03 AM
Post #28 of 35
(1761 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 14, 2006
Posts: 225
|
davidnn5 wrote: I've always been completely unfussed about the argument, but I think it's fallacious to say: (a) hard trad is 5.9+ but hard sport is 5.12+ (?? too much sport where you live mate) (b) trad climbers only climb slab or crack
It was intended for comedy only.
I just liked onceahardman throwing in the rip at gym climbers for no good reason so I decided to turn it around.
|
|
|
|
|
Colinhoglund
Jul 22, 2010, 4:05 AM
Post #29 of 35
(1760 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 5, 2008
Posts: 338
|
I likes much ya!
I agree, I just think it's funny when hugely strong climbers can't climb something because of a lack of technique.
Ps. It's all good, at my level I get slain all the time ;).
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Jul 22, 2010, 11:00 AM
Post #30 of 35
(1735 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
silascl wrote: davidnn5 wrote: I've always been completely unfussed about the argument, but I think it's fallacious to say: (a) hard trad is 5.9+ but hard sport is 5.12+ (?? too much sport where you live mate) (b) trad climbers only climb slab or crack It was intended for comedy only. I just liked onceahardman throwing in the rip at gym climbers for no good reason so I decided to turn it around.
I started climbing before any gyms existed (except home woodies and Bachar ladders).
I cut my own climbing teeth on limestone, noted for face climbing, crimping, and pockets.
The first time I traveled to a crack climbing area (Cathedral Ledge) I struggled mightily, getting horribly pumped on a pretty simple handcrack.
It was not so much a rip at gym climbers, as a rip on one-dimensional climbers who don't climb on enough different kinds of rock.
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Jul 22, 2010, 2:22 PM
Post #31 of 35
(1711 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
silascl wrote: It was intended for comedy only. I just liked onceahardman throwing in the rip at gym climbers for no good reason so I decided to turn it around.
I dunno, the other night a customer said she was thinking about driving to Calgary (dunno why) and wanted to know if there was any climbing along the way. The first one that came to mind was Devils Tower. Now, this woman is pretty skilled in the gym, I see her leading 12s with a fair degree of regularity. So when she said "never heard of it" I had to take a long breath and remember that she's mostly a gym climber.
|
|
|
|
|
ceebo
Jul 22, 2010, 2:56 PM
Post #32 of 35
(1696 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 9, 2009
Posts: 862
|
Colinhoglund wrote: Once and Dave, I have to agree. I am by no means a great climber in the grand scheme of things, but imo technique rules. I have easily stemmed/jammed/sidepulled my way up stuff that stronger climbers have hauled them selves up on pure power alone. It's always funny to see the look on the face of someone who climbs a grade or more harder, when I cruise what they grunted through when it was below their grade. Silascl, I may never be strong enough to climb 5.X, but I take pride in that I can climb 5.z consistently. In my books I'm more proud of that then what my hardest climbs are. Not an attack, just my 2¢ worth.
You probably dont realise the irony here. If by means of magic you woke up with 3x the physical ability, yet the same good technique you propose you have, what would you be climbing?.
If those climbers you mention do get any technique they will be flying, and vice verser for you. Perhaps its a case of knowing your own ability and knowing if you need to work on technique or raw brawn, instead of just tunnel vision into 1 aspect of it and hoping its enough.
Btw, it does sound like you are underselling yourself.. i dont really accept all these cop outs of ''its not possible'' people either tried hard enough, or they didnt. I seen a guy must have been about 55-60.. climbing a 8a. I seen a women with half a false leg climbing 7b o0.. If you dont push you dont get better.
(This post was edited by ceebo on Jul 22, 2010, 3:11 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
davidnn5
Jul 22, 2010, 10:24 PM
Post #33 of 35
(1663 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 8, 2009
Posts: 348
|
You must consider whether being good is more important than enjoying yourself. In your case, it seems to be.
In other words, is fun more fun if it's on a harder route? Would the majority of people select the hardest route they ever climbed as the most fun?
Your goal of pushing yourself to be a 5.xx climber doesn't make someone's goal of being a solid 5.x climber less valid. Arguably, the second guy will be more fun to climb with 
|
|
|
|
|
ceebo
Jul 23, 2010, 11:37 PM
Post #34 of 35
(1607 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 9, 2009
Posts: 862
|
davidnn5 wrote: You must consider whether being good is more important than enjoying yourself. In your case, it seems to be. In other words, is fun more fun if it's on a harder route? Would the majority of people select the hardest route they ever climbed as the most fun? Your goal of pushing yourself to be a 5.xx climber doesn't make someone's goal of being a solid 5.x climber less valid. Arguably, the second guy will be more fun to climb with
I was talking about the idea of technique having deminishing returns, it had nothing to do with who is having the most fun nor making 5.x guy less valid.
Although i would really like to know why you think somebody trying to better their grade are not fun to climb with?. Thats a bit of a wild statement i have to say. If progression is a bad thing then why climb anything more than 5.1. A solid 5.1 climber must be more fun than billy conoly, surely.
|
|
|
|
|
hafilax
Jul 24, 2010, 12:04 AM
Post #35 of 35
(1596 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 12, 2007
Posts: 3025
|
You can improve your technique, strength and endurance by climbing but you can only improve a few aspects of your strength with a hangboard. Unless these strengths are glaring weaknesses then training by climbing should be a more efficient use of your training time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
