In theory this is the case, but in my years of observing climbers I would say that movement skills, even very basic skills such as foot placement are not ever learned once and for all. As climbers move into higher grades they seem to me to be continually re-fining older skills, "stress proofing" them at higher levels of movement intensity and refining their application, as well as learning new ones.

I will say that V10 boulderers are far better prepared for the learning they need to do, than the V2 bouldereres and the learning can take far less time for the more advanced climbers but I don't think we should imply that this process is of diminished importance since the margin of error in terms of timing, and balance keep getting smaller at the moves become more difficult.

In theory this is the case, but in my years of observing climbers I would say that movement skills, even very basic skills such as foot placement are not ever learned once and for all. As climbers move into higher grades they seem to me to be continually re-fining older skills, "stress proofing" them at higher levels of movement intensity and refining their application, as well as learning new ones.

I will say that V10 boulderers are far better prepared for the learning they need to do, than the V2 bouldereres and the learning can take far less time for the more advanced climbers but I don't think we should imply that this process is of diminished importance since the margin of error in terms of timing, and balance keep getting smaller at the moves become more difficult.

Ceebo,

Thanks for posting the videos, but I have to say they do nothing to advance your argument. One of the resons I asked you how much kinesiology you know is because one needs a sound observational methodology in order to be able to understand what one is seeing when watching other climbers. Side by side video comparisons can be an amazing tool if done correctly. However, you link to low quality videos takes from a poor observational position and then make substantial claims about what they show. To me this reflects a lack of understanding on your part. No amount of internet discussion can clear up this misunderstanding, you need to learn some science, something about motor control, and some kinesiology.

Nonetheless, let me restate the idea that strength VS technique is a false dichotomy. Even though climbers like to make this distinction, they can not really be seperated, and, in addition, they are low quality concepts for understanding movement.

Then let me ask you two questions:

1) How do you define technique?

2) In the video, why did Dave fall?

Well, their is no such thing as ''he has no technique'', since every single movement used no matter how sloppy, is a form of technique. How ever, i would define ''desired'' technique as being movement you learn from putting in years training. It slowly gives a larger and lager turbo boost to your physical ability, with an eventual limit or deminishing return to its impact.

I dont think it is a case of strength vs technique.. but more the 2 working together to increase performance. It would seem logical to assume that the more stregth you have, the more their is too boost with technique.

With that said, technique in a way is almost counter productive to strength increase. Since it makes climbing with the physical ability you have less demanding, it means climbing at the same level would produce less/no gains. That is obviusly a great result.. since it means to get physically stronger, you can climb somthing even harder.

That almost completely contridicts everything im arguing about. But, if you consider the actual time it takes to learn the basics of what we define as good technique.. it deminishes far befor strength building, since most times you can refine and engage a veriation of a certain climbing move on the fly. So clearly their is a huge gap between the rate strength/tendons etc improve over the rate of wich movement improves.. perhaps it is a gap that truely can only be closed by climbing all the time, or maybe their can be much quicker ways to build that strength?.

Most other sports have other forms of training to aid them in their desired field. Although climbing is far more varied in its movements.. surely their has to be other forms of training that can target and dramitically increase the rate of progression in areas needed for climbing.


As for why dave fell off, it looked to me like he did not build enough momentum to allow contact on the hold, why that happend (if true) I dont know.

Ceebo, where are you a climbing instructor?

Do you think that by the time someone has reached that level of fitness/skill that they can legitimately train movement and strength to maximize the gains from each one? (Think in comparison to a beginner that can't handle the volume/intensity involved in performance days, training strength days, and movement training days.)

Ceebo, where are you a climbing instructor?

For higher-end climbers, let's say those climbing V10/5.13+, are there any factors more common in limiting success than others? Or is it really all over the place

I've spend the most time helping them learn to gain control over their movement initiation, timing, and pacing. The other thing is that what limits them on a given move or climb is often not things like obvious sequencing errors. Its often things that lie below their perceptual threshold. They know that the move isn't working but its actually impossible for them to perceive why because they are doing just about everything right and the problem occurs very quickly, say 1/30 of a second.

Its a good question.

My experience suggests that climbers up to the 5.12 level are making al kinds of mistakes. The definition of a 5.10 climber seems to be someone who makes basic sequencing errors on just about every move.

By the time a climber gets to the V10 / 5.13+ level they have usually had a lot of bad habits beaten out of them but they can still have a lot to learn. Thinking about my experience with climbers at that level I would say they are still learning and refining movement just like everyone else, but they can do it faster. I've spend the most time helping them learn to gain control over their movement initiation, timing, and pacing. The other thing is that what limits them on a given move or climb is often not things like obvious sequencing errors. Its often things that lie below their perceptual threshold. They know that the move isn't working but its actually impossible for them to perceive why because they are doing just about everything right and the problem occurs very quickly, say 1/30 of a second.

Ceebo, where are you a climbing instructor?

So, if it is below their perceptual threshold, then how can they correct it?

Jay

I was asking myself the same question... Please don't say you teach movement.

I've been reading this discussion for a couple of days and while I don't consider myself qualified to address the primary concern, I will jump in to say that comments like csproul's are a distraction to the topic. Douglas asked some important questions. The useful focus should be on the answers the OP provided.

You already know the answer to this one, but I'll spray a little anyway.

If they are on their own they do what everyone else does, they know something is wrong so they continue to expirement just making slight changes in what they are doing until the point they either find something that works or give up and move on. Climbers are amazingly good intitutive learners and just by expirmenting they often come up with something that works.

As you know, in the coaching environment video analysis allows us to see these problems that occur in extremely shot periods of time. By video taping repeated attempts and then going through the section where the moves fail frame by frame we will be able to understand the structure of the move.

The most basic level of analysis for a single move is as follows:
1- define the base of support then:
2- define the type of balance present at the start position.
3- define the type of balance present as the move begins to fail.
3- analyze timing between hand contact with next hold and position or movement of the pelvis. does pelvis move downward or away from the rock prior to, or after contact is made?
4- how much movement is there?
5- Also draw the new base of support that will be created if the new hand hold is attained and define the type of balance that will be present if the move is successfully completed.
6- also try to determine how the move is being initiated.

I'm sure I've told you about my experience doing video analysis with Dan Mills before, but one session we did is such a clear example for me that I'll mention it again.

I was doing video analysis of him in the gym, he kept falling on this one V10 move. It was an extreme off-set balance move, a long move up and right on an overhanging wall from a sloper to a worse sloper. The video analysis showed that on every attempt his hips were starting to drop away from the wall about 2 video frames (2/30, or .066 of a second) before his hand made contact with the next hold. There was enough downward momentum and the hold was bad enough that he couldn't stick it. As the climber there was no way for him to figure out that this was going on. .066 of a second is just too short of a duration for the athlete to make an assessment of. Nor could an observer using the naked eye. To both it would just appear that the climber was falling as he reached the next hold. Going through the video frame by frame we were able to see this relationship happening, postulate that this was the problem and then suggest ways for him to prevent downward movement of the hips until his right hand was established on the next hold. We did this by repositioning his right foot on its hold and by having him attempt to consciously maintain trunk extention through the move. He was able to successfully complete the move severl times after making these adjustments.

Since you seem so intent on making asumtions of my teaching ability.. on the basis of questioning how we train, i will resort to the same pety level. Perhaps i should incorperate a 30 days to learn it block?. Although strangely.. my job is secure, hmm.

Or did you make this assumtion due to the fact that i have holes in my shoes around the big toe area?.. as a result of flag dragging?. Is this the worst possible flaw to have in a persons climbing weakness?.. as subtle as the error is?.

Infact why dont i just go 1 better since this topic is derailed so often by you egotisticle morons, and lower the standards even more..?? how about i assume that because i climb 3 entire grades higher than you.. that what you think means nothing? and you should infact just shut up because i am right and you are wrong?.

Or, are you just so ashamed that your little 30 days to kill it thing resulted in people making a mockery of you.. that from now on out, any given chance you get to try and make another person feel the same.. you take?.

I love the productivity of these forums.

Thanks for taking time to post. Your posts made this thread worth reading.

Ceebo, you asked a question. You received answers from many, many people. They were all in agreement. It is not your beliefs, but rather your unwillingness to listen to anything anyone else has said. Nobody has attacked you at all. We--at least I--have, however, become rather frustrated with the fact that you ask a question, but apparently had no interest in any answers except ones that would agree with what you think. You attacked Kartessa (not that she cares at all, I'm sure) way more than anyone has come at you.

It's fairly accurate that this thread hasn't been productive in the sense that it has done the opposite of confirming your opinion, which is is clearly the only reason you started it. We have, however, gotten some interesting information from one of the leading authors of climbing improvement books.

Sure, it doesn't help that your grammar and spelling aren't the greatest, but if you had reasonable arguments then you would not have received the feedback that you did. We can look past poor spelling/grammar to get to an important message, but when your arguments are hollow it makes it difficult for others.

You already know the answer to this one, but I'll spray a little anyway.

If they are on their own they do what everyone else does, they know something is wrong so they continue to expirement just making slight changes in what they are doing until the point they either find something that works or give up and move on. Climbers are amazingly good intitutive learners and just by expirmenting they often come up with something that works.

As you know, in the coaching environment video analysis allows us to see these problems that occur in extremely shot periods of time. By video taping repeated attempts and then going through the section where the moves fail frame by frame we will be able to understand the structure of the move.

The most basic level of analysis for a single move is as follows:
1- define the base of support then:
2- define the type of balance present at the start position.
3- define the type of balance present as the move begins to fail.
3- analyze timing between hand contact with next hold and position or movement of the pelvis. does pelvis move downward or away from the rock prior to, or after contact is made?
4- how much movement is there?
5- Also draw the new base of support that will be created if the new hand hold is attained and define the type of balance that will be present if the move is successfully completed.
6- also try to determine how the move is being initiated.

I'm sure I've told you about my experience doing video analysis with Dan Mills before, but one session we did is such a clear example for me that I'll mention it again.

I was doing video analysis of him in the gym, he kept falling on this one V10 move. It was an extreme off-set balance move, a long move up and right on an overhanging wall from a sloper to a worse sloper. The video analysis showed that on every attempt his hips were starting to drop away from the wall about 2 video frames (2/30, or .066 of a second) before his hand made contact with the next hold. There was enough downward momentum and the hold was bad enough that he couldn't stick it. As the climber there was no way for him to figure out that this was going on. .066 of a second is just too short of a duration for the athlete to make an assessment of. Nor could an observer using the naked eye. To both it would just appear that the climber was falling as he reached the next hold. Going through the video frame by frame we were able to see this relationship happening, postulate that this was the problem and then suggest ways for him to prevent downward movement of the hips until his right hand was established on the next hold. We did this by repositioning his right foot on its hold and by having him attempt to consciously maintain trunk extention through the move. He was able to successfully complete the move severl times after making these adjustments.

OK, I've thought about this a little bit now, and I'm curious about your thoughts on some things that have come across my mind.

First, I want to start out with the assumption that there are two ways to develop the ability to do a move that one cannot do:

a) Work on technique
b) Get stronger/Muscle through

You mention that the subtlety of a failed movement's shortcomings swells as climbers get better. Your example of videotaping a climber to find the falling hips 0.066 seconds before contact demonstrates this. Of course, it is unrealistic to analyze each route this way anytime someone gets stuck at their limit. Moreover, considering how highly specialized the movement adjustment was, it doesn't seem to offer much transfer (or do you believe it does?) to other routes in the future.

Now, we're all familiar with the fact that campusing/hangboarding, being an isometric stress for the fingers, strengthens just the angle used during the hang. Yet, given variety in angles used, do you think that this strengthening would be more useful since it can be "generalized" across unique cruxes, whereas 0.066 s changes in technique would be harder to generalize to future problems?

The last sentence depends on the conclusion you have about the "generalizeability" of high-end movement training, which is what my first question hopes to get at.

It seems to me that beef climbers usually fry-out pretty quick.

yeah they do. even the ones that actually have some decent technique burn out super fast.