|
|
|
|
olderic
Jan 17, 2012, 2:48 PM
Post #101 of 151
(14386 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2003
Posts: 1539
|
curt wrote: Well, anybody who was actually around and saw the two interact would know that Tom drove Chris pretty hard--maybe too hard, except that in retrospect he seems to have benefitted from the "coaching." I think it takes fairly intense coaching, by the way, to get a 4 year-old to lead a 5.10 trad climb on gear. I have no personal knowledge of TC, but to imply that CL was not coached intensely by his father is completely wacko. Curt
Oh I was around all right. Sane Diego Bouldering contest in the early 90's. Various PBC's after that. I saw all the interactions. Surprising that CL is still at it although there was a prolonged break. Maybe you can make an Andre Agassiz analogy.
I think in the context of this thread a coach is someone who has some credibility - someone who has some knowledge of the mechanics of the sport and can give useful instruction on specific ways to improve. It's also someone who understands the macro and micro cycles of training, endurance vs power how to peak for an event and so on. Not just some one with a "give me more" mentality (unless you are coaching the O line...)
TC's Dad was (is) a guide and just took TC along on some pretty ambitious adventures from a pretty young age. No doubt in my mind which is better for the kid.
|
|
|
|
|
olderic
Jan 17, 2012, 3:28 PM
Post #103 of 151
(14373 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2003
Posts: 1539
|
camhead wrote: Ok, don't know about Tom Lindner, but Caldwell's dad was not just a guide, but also a former Mr. Colorado bodybuilder. I would say that he fits your criteria of a "coach."
Yeah you ate right about that. He had competition chops. But - surely you aren't assuming that because someone is good at doing something that they are good or qualifed at instructing/teaching/coaching it? "If you can't do, teach". Especially something that isn't even the same. But I'm sure MC could have given TC advise about preparing for a comp - except that TC never really went far along that path.
Any parent will attempt to give his kids advice - that's normal. Doesn't make him a "coach".
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jan 17, 2012, 4:55 PM
Post #104 of 151
(14345 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
olderic wrote: curt wrote: Well, anybody who was actually around and saw the two interact would know that Tom drove Chris pretty hard--maybe too hard, except that in retrospect he seems to have benefitted from the "coaching." I think it takes fairly intense coaching, by the way, to get a 4 year-old to lead a 5.10 trad climb on gear. I have no personal knowledge of TC, but to imply that CL was not coached intensely by his father is completely wacko. Curt Oh I was around all right. Sane Diego Bouldering contest in the early 90's. Various PBC's after that. I saw all the interactions. Surprising that CL is still at it although there was a prolonged break. Maybe you can make an Andre Agassiz analogy. I think in the context of this thread a coach is someone who has some credibility - someone who has some knowledge of the mechanics of the sport and can give useful instruction on specific ways to improve. It's also someone who understands the macro and micro cycles of training, endurance vs power how to peak for an event and so on. Not just some one with a "give me more" mentality (unless you are coaching the O line...)
TC's Dad was (is) a guide and just took TC along on some pretty ambitious adventures from a pretty young age. No doubt in my mind which is better for the kid.
How deep do you intend to dig that hole you're in? Tom Lindner was the United States national gymnastics champion on the high bar in 1972 when he was at Southern Illinois University. He is quite obviously intimately familiar with the coaching of movement and also with advanced training methods.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jan 17, 2012, 4:58 PM
Post #105 of 151
(14343 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
JoeNYC wrote: jt512 wrote: JoeNYC wrote: Claiming that there is a best or better way to get good clearly is impossible right now because we have no evidence. I think that the people who have the most refined technique are mostly the ones that care about it the most. That's mostly one of the most ironic juxtapositions I've mostly ever seen. Jay I said "I think", was that too difficult to understand? Should I have said "I believe" instead?
You think there's no evidence, so you have an opinion based on no evidence. I get it.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Jan 17, 2012, 5:02 PM
Post #106 of 151
(14339 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
curt wrote: olderic wrote: curt wrote: Well, anybody who was actually around and saw the two interact would know that Tom drove Chris pretty hard--maybe too hard, except that in retrospect he seems to have benefitted from the "coaching." I think it takes fairly intense coaching, by the way, to get a 4 year-old to lead a 5.10 trad climb on gear. I have no personal knowledge of TC, but to imply that CL was not coached intensely by his father is completely wacko. Curt Oh I was around all right. Sane Diego Bouldering contest in the early 90's. Various PBC's after that. I saw all the interactions. Surprising that CL is still at it although there was a prolonged break. Maybe you can make an Andre Agassiz analogy. I think in the context of this thread a coach is someone who has some credibility - someone who has some knowledge of the mechanics of the sport and can give useful instruction on specific ways to improve. It's also someone who understands the macro and micro cycles of training, endurance vs power how to peak for an event and so on. Not just some one with a "give me more" mentality (unless you are coaching the O line...)
TC's Dad was (is) a guide and just took TC along on some pretty ambitious adventures from a pretty young age. No doubt in my mind which is better for the kid. How deep do you intend to dig that hole you're in? Tom Lindner was the United States national gymnastics champion on the high bar in 1972 when he was at Southern Illinois University. He is quite obviously intimately familiar with the coaching of movement and also with advanced training methods. Curt
Heh, I did not know that. To review, I'm pretty sure that the evidence we've presented regarding Caldwell, Lindner, and Eric Hörst for that matter (though I haven't brought him up) is pretty convincing that they "coached" their kids.
If olderic is not buying it, that is his problem, and his own irrational ideological baggage, which was cemented into place well before the arguments in this forum were laid out.
I'm done.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jan 17, 2012, 5:16 PM
Post #107 of 151
(14337 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
curt wrote: olderic wrote: curt wrote: Well, anybody who was actually around and saw the two interact would know that Tom drove Chris pretty hard--maybe too hard, except that in retrospect he seems to have benefitted from the "coaching." I think it takes fairly intense coaching, by the way, to get a 4 year-old to lead a 5.10 trad climb on gear. I have no personal knowledge of TC, but to imply that CL was not coached intensely by his father is completely wacko. Curt Oh I was around all right. Sane Diego Bouldering contest in the early 90's. Various PBC's after that. I saw all the interactions. Surprising that CL is still at it although there was a prolonged break. Maybe you can make an Andre Agassiz analogy. I think in the context of this thread a coach is someone who has some credibility - someone who has some knowledge of the mechanics of the sport and can give useful instruction on specific ways to improve. It's also someone who understands the macro and micro cycles of training, endurance vs power how to peak for an event and so on. Not just some one with a "give me more" mentality (unless you are coaching the O line...)
TC's Dad was (is) a guide and just took TC along on some pretty ambitious adventures from a pretty young age. No doubt in my mind which is better for the kid. How deep do you intend to dig that hole you're in? Tom Lindner was the United States national gymnastics champion on the high bar in 1972 when he was at Southern Illinois University. He is quite obviously intimately familiar with the coaching of movement and also with advanced training methods. Curt
Tom was also a member of the 1972 US Olympic Gymnastics Team, but, as I understand it, he quit before the games due to a disagreement with a coach.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Jan 23, 2012, 7:03 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
olderic
Jan 17, 2012, 5:55 PM
Post #108 of 151
(14313 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2003
Posts: 1539
|
curt wrote: How deep do you intend to dig that hole you're in? Tom Lindner was the United States national gymnastics champion on the high bar in 1972 when he was at Southern Illinois University. He is quite obviously intimately familiar with the coaching of movement and also with advanced training methods. Curt
I guess I have to keep digging as long as you keep shoveling the crap that because you are good at something you are qualified to coach it.
|
|
|
|
|
csproul
Jan 17, 2012, 6:11 PM
Post #109 of 151
(14299 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2004
Posts: 1769
|
olderic wrote: curt wrote: How deep do you intend to dig that hole you're in? Tom Lindner was the United States national gymnastics champion on the high bar in 1972 when he was at Southern Illinois University. He is quite obviously intimately familiar with the coaching of movement and also with advanced training methods. Curt I guess I have to keep digging as long as you keep shoveling the crap that because you are good at something you are qualified to coach it.  ! I once was told by a fairly prominent cycling coach that a bad training plan/coach was probably better than no plan/coach. I'm not sure how true that might be for climbers, but I thought it to be somewhat true for bicycles racers. At least with a bad plan, you can look at your results and dissect what didn't work.
|
|
|
|
|
JoeNYC
Jan 17, 2012, 9:49 PM
Post #110 of 151
(14242 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2011
Posts: 26
|
jt512 wrote: JoeNYC wrote: jt512 wrote: JoeNYC wrote: Claiming that there is a best or better way to get good clearly is impossible right now because we have no evidence. I think that the people who have the most refined technique are mostly the ones that care about it the most. That's mostly one of the most ironic juxtapositions I've mostly ever seen. Jay I said "I think", was that too difficult to understand? Should I have said "I believe" instead? You think there's no evidence, so you have an opinion based on no evidence. I get it. Jay
Finally.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jan 17, 2012, 10:10 PM
Post #111 of 151
(14237 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
olderic wrote: curt wrote: How deep do you intend to dig that hole you're in? Tom Lindner was the United States national gymnastics champion on the high bar in 1972 when he was at Southern Illinois University. He is quite obviously intimately familiar with the coaching of movement and also with advanced training methods. Curt I guess I have to keep digging as long as you keep shoveling the crap that because you are good at something you are qualified to coach it.
Well, camhead certainly hit the nail on the head:
camhead wrote: To review, I'm pretty sure that the evidence we've presented regarding Caldwell, Lindner, and Eric Hörst for that matter (though I haven't brought him up) is pretty convincing that they "coached" their kids. If olderic is not buying it, that is his problem, and his own irrational ideological baggage, which was cemented into place well before the arguments in this forum were laid out.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
ceebo
Jan 23, 2012, 2:19 PM
Post #112 of 151
(14099 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 9, 2009
Posts: 862
|
Put in allot of time on easy/mid level climbing. Try new ways of completing old moves. Watch others complete same climbs and pay close attention to their footwork. Try it their way a few times, then decide if it was better or not. Watch youtube climbing vids.. alllot of them. Try work out what you think the climber is going to do next before he has done it.
Harder climbing is good too. Learning technique on easy shit then expecting to be able to use it at limit is complete bolix. While under stress its so easy to slip into bad technique.. start over gripping etc etc. You learn that control by doing more hard climbing. Cant ignore that.
*Good mix of easy/mid level climbing trying to do things differant all the time. Don't be shy on hard climbing at least once a week. Watch others climbing when you are resting.. and stay focused on what they are doing differant.
(This post was edited by ceebo on Jan 23, 2012, 2:21 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jan 28, 2012, 1:16 AM
Post #114 of 151
(13948 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
Newsflash: 5.14 climbers hire coaches. Too bad they didn't read this thread. Then, they would have known that movement is learned by yourself through motivation. Oh, wait, the coaches found defects in the climbers' movement and fitness that they were unaware of. Must have been a lack of motivation. After all, how much motivation could they possibly have if they can't even climb mid-5.14.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Jan 28, 2012, 5:57 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
danhague
Feb 23, 2012, 8:15 PM
Post #116 of 151
(13705 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 21, 2009
Posts: 5
|
j_ung wrote: I didn't really begin to learn this stuff until well into my climbing life in the mid-90s, when I starting working at Sportrock in Alexandria, VA. Working under guys ... Dan Hague and employing instructional programs based on Goddard and Neumann's work and later Douglas Hunter's... I guess I was lucky. Not only did I have ample opportunity to study movement from masters, I was getting paid to do it as part of my job. I have no freaking idea how other people learn this stuff. I certainly felt inadequate as a teacher most of the time—like the subject was so immense that it was impossible to convey any single aspect of it in a handful of 2-hour clinics. I dunno. Maybe that means I never really learned any of it.
Thanks for the plug, Jay. Let's be clear about learning climbing movement; it ain't easy or quick. After teaching climbing movement to hundreds of climbers and scores of instructors from beginner to advanced and co-authoring a book on the topic I can tell you that people generally want these skills to be easily acquired through simple, systematic instruction. But learning movement just doesn't work that way.
First, if you've been climbing for any length of time you have developed strong tendencies toward preferred movement patterns whether you recognize them or not. They are difficult to replace with better or more efficient movement because the new skills will invariably feel more difficult. We all gravitate to things we do and like best. This is why I believe it's best to have an instructor that can get you to try different skills in the right way.
Second, learning movement takes patience and experimentation. You've got to consciously make yourself turn or flag or use quiet feet or improve the quality of your balance and then evaluate the result. It's an iterative process of experimentation, practice and application. That takes time and effort that almost all climbers would rather use to try to send their latest project rather than work on dreary movement skills.
Third, imitation is not really an effective means of learning movement. As I said, most climbers lean on their strengths so if you see climber A using his heel in a certain way it may or may not be appropriate. Good climbers have strong tendencies too so be careful who and how you choose to mimic.
Enough said. A good instructor and an open mind will go a long way toward helping you acquire sound movement skills.
|
|
|
|
|
mojomonkey
Feb 23, 2012, 8:52 PM
Post #117 of 151
(13692 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2006
Posts: 869
|
olderic wrote: But climbing isn't that complicated - any reasonably intelligent person should be able to figure out how if they are motivated.
Running isn't that complicated either - children figure it out naturally. That doesn't mean coaching won't help them be better runners.
bearbreeder wrote: one of my partners has been climbing for ~3 years, rarely goes into the gym, doesnt have a coach, and doesnt have SCC ... and hes done up to 5.12+ last year ... he just climbs as often and hard as he can everytime he goes out
Your point? Perhaps with a coach or better training he'd be climbing 5.13+. I'd guess he would have made faster gains and be climbing at a higher level if he didn't "climbs as often and hard as he can everytime he goes out" - as I understand from other sports with longer histories of training research, periodization helps athletes peak at a higher level.
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
Feb 23, 2012, 10:22 PM
Post #118 of 151
(13662 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
cracklover wrote: lena_chita wrote: jt512 wrote: unsunken wrote: j_ung wrote: JoeNYC wrote: In reply to: So you think that climbing with friends and sharing beta is as effective a way to learn to climb well as working with a coach, or, in the absence of a coach, using a book and DVD authored by two professional coaches. Let's see how your opinion about learning to climb well compares with how people learn to perform well in other sports, and, for that matter, human endeavors other than sports.... In reply to: ...What do people who want to become mathematicians do: study math on their own, or enroll in mathematics programs in college, where they receive formal training from professional mathematicians, and then go on to graduate programs, where they are personally mentored by an expert in their field? I think you are asking a strange question. In order to me a mathematician all you have to do is study math. Albert Einstein, Thomas Edison, Michael Faraday, Srinivasa Ramanujan, GW Leibnitz and many, many more, (including one I just noticed, Sean Parker, the napster/facebook guy), got good at their vocations because the studied it on their own. It's called autodidacticism, look it up if you think everybody who did anything good was taught it. The same goes for sports, Michael Jordan did not get good because his coaches were better at NC than the other guys, he got good because he was insane; he practiced any chance he got. In order to teach at a university or play in the NBA nowadays, yes, you need to go to school because, likely, you aren't going to get noticed any other way. Asking how (most?) people get to be what they want, that is, arguing that the common path chosen by people to get what they want as the best way to get it is silly. The majority isn't the answer either. Your response is a combination, i believe, of affirming the consequent and ad populum. What i suspiciously left out was supposed to be obvious: climbing with your friends and being dedicated to get better. I said that there were no right or wrong ways in climbing because people get equally good at thing with very different methods, but what stays the same is the motivation, which is why I added the friends (because I think friends help me stay motivated). Do you really think that being taught is a substitute for actually wanting to get better? I don't. Much as i love to climb, I know there are people out there who love it more and practice better, and as a result are better than me. So, I'm curious, was Wolfgang G. going at it the wrong way because he didn't have a coach? You must think that he would be better with one, right, haha, or if he read the SCC? As you said....bullshit I don't agree with jt512 that there are only 2 ways to learn this stuff. But I do I think there's a very good chance Wolfgang Gullich would have been even better with a qualified coach or by reading SCC. This comment reminded me of an article I'd read about a surgeon getting a coach to see if he'd improve. The answer was yes, and suggests that it's probably the case for almost any skill. Every skill except climbing. Climbin' with da brahs is jus' as good. Know why? Cuz da brahs got mad pedagogical skillz. Jay I think you have to be realistic. The article that JoeNYC quoted (very interesting read, btw!) takes the definition of a "coach" rather liberally. For example, Perlman's "coach" in the story is not an actual qualified and certified coach. It is his wife, who has musical training, sure, but not any coaching qualifications, per se. This is not really any different that climbing with friends who happen to be good climbers with a good eye towards movement, and who are willing to offer you comments and suggestions for improvement. I think there is evolution happening in climbing. Pretty much every young up-and-coming elite climber that you hear about these days has started the same way: discovered climbing at a relatively young age sort-of accidently, loved it, started going to the climbing gym, joined the climbing team, was coached, attended the comp circuit, etc. etc. But if you look back several decades ago, the story would be very different. The story would be along the lines of "we didn't know what the heck we were doing, we just went out and we climbed and somehow managed to live through every stupid thing we tried, and learned in the process." Climbing is still very young sport. Outside of youth climbing team circuit, finding an actual REAL coach would be nearly impossible for an average guy who starts climbing as an adult, and unaffordable for a lot of people who can find one. So by necessity most climbers have to rely on their friends for most of their learning. And yes, books are a good resource, and SCC instructional DVD is very helpful, but that still doesn't address the fact that once you are out on the actual climb trying to apply that flagging, or backstep, or whatever, the observer offering you advice along the lines of "try to get your left foot higher before you start rocking over" or "it looks like you are stopping yourself halfway through the move and losing momentum" is going to be invaluable. I dunno, I keep scratching my head over this thread. It is as if most of you never learned how to listen to your own body. You need a coach, or a book, or a buddy to tell you what you're doing wrong. I'm reminded of how when I was a total n00b climbing with other n00bs, everyone around me wanted beta to figure out how to do a climb, and I wanted to figure it out for myself. Not because I was stubborn (although that may be) but because I was learning skills that I did not want to short-circuit; the skills around listening to the interplay between body and rock, and learning how to adjust to find the balance required in the moment. Now I'm no rock-star, and never will be, but I've learned a shit-ton of good technique this way. For how weak I am (just ask Curt!) I climb pretty damn well. Just sayin', the short shrift being given to really paying attention to what you're doing, and finding intelligent ways to experiment on-route, is notable. GO
That's like saying you should learn math all on your own. Works well for brilliant people like Newton but for your average practitioner the process is vastly accelerated by tutelage combined with self study.
|
|
|
|
|
bearbreeder
Feb 25, 2012, 10:15 AM
Post #119 of 151
(13611 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2009
Posts: 1960
|
mojomonkey wrote: olderic wrote: But climbing isn't that complicated - any reasonably intelligent person should be able to figure out how if they are motivated. Running isn't that complicated either - children figure it out naturally. That doesn't mean coaching won't help them be better runners. bearbreeder wrote: one of my partners has been climbing for ~3 years, rarely goes into the gym, doesnt have a coach, and doesnt have SCC ... and hes done up to 5.12+ last year ... he just climbs as often and hard as he can everytime he goes out Your point? Perhaps with a coach or better training he'd be climbing 5.13+. I'd guess he would have made faster gains and be climbing at a higher level if he didn't "climbs as often and hard as he can everytime he goes out" - as I understand from other sports with longer histories of training research, periodization helps athletes peak at a higher level.
my point is simply is that the SCC or a coach is not the ONLY way as someone here indicated ...
im not discounting the value of good books or a good coach ...
but the most important thing IMO you can do is to go out and climb with people better than you as often as you can ...
you need to have the desire to climb and the opportunity .... then work from there
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Feb 27, 2012, 4:00 PM
Post #120 of 151
(13553 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
shockabuku wrote: cracklover wrote: lena_chita wrote: jt512 wrote: unsunken wrote: j_ung wrote: JoeNYC wrote: In reply to: So you think that climbing with friends and sharing beta is as effective a way to learn to climb well as working with a coach, or, in the absence of a coach, using a book and DVD authored by two professional coaches. Let's see how your opinion about learning to climb well compares with how people learn to perform well in other sports, and, for that matter, human endeavors other than sports.... In reply to: ...What do people who want to become mathematicians do: study math on their own, or enroll in mathematics programs in college, where they receive formal training from professional mathematicians, and then go on to graduate programs, where they are personally mentored by an expert in their field? I think you are asking a strange question. In order to me a mathematician all you have to do is study math. Albert Einstein, Thomas Edison, Michael Faraday, Srinivasa Ramanujan, GW Leibnitz and many, many more, (including one I just noticed, Sean Parker, the napster/facebook guy), got good at their vocations because the studied it on their own. It's called autodidacticism, look it up if you think everybody who did anything good was taught it. The same goes for sports, Michael Jordan did not get good because his coaches were better at NC than the other guys, he got good because he was insane; he practiced any chance he got. In order to teach at a university or play in the NBA nowadays, yes, you need to go to school because, likely, you aren't going to get noticed any other way. Asking how (most?) people get to be what they want, that is, arguing that the common path chosen by people to get what they want as the best way to get it is silly. The majority isn't the answer either. Your response is a combination, i believe, of affirming the consequent and ad populum. What i suspiciously left out was supposed to be obvious: climbing with your friends and being dedicated to get better. I said that there were no right or wrong ways in climbing because people get equally good at thing with very different methods, but what stays the same is the motivation, which is why I added the friends (because I think friends help me stay motivated). Do you really think that being taught is a substitute for actually wanting to get better? I don't. Much as i love to climb, I know there are people out there who love it more and practice better, and as a result are better than me. So, I'm curious, was Wolfgang G. going at it the wrong way because he didn't have a coach? You must think that he would be better with one, right, haha, or if he read the SCC? As you said....bullshit I don't agree with jt512 that there are only 2 ways to learn this stuff. But I do I think there's a very good chance Wolfgang Gullich would have been even better with a qualified coach or by reading SCC. This comment reminded me of an article I'd read about a surgeon getting a coach to see if he'd improve. The answer was yes, and suggests that it's probably the case for almost any skill. Every skill except climbing. Climbin' with da brahs is jus' as good. Know why? Cuz da brahs got mad pedagogical skillz. Jay I think you have to be realistic. The article that JoeNYC quoted (very interesting read, btw!) takes the definition of a "coach" rather liberally. For example, Perlman's "coach" in the story is not an actual qualified and certified coach. It is his wife, who has musical training, sure, but not any coaching qualifications, per se. This is not really any different that climbing with friends who happen to be good climbers with a good eye towards movement, and who are willing to offer you comments and suggestions for improvement. I think there is evolution happening in climbing. Pretty much every young up-and-coming elite climber that you hear about these days has started the same way: discovered climbing at a relatively young age sort-of accidently, loved it, started going to the climbing gym, joined the climbing team, was coached, attended the comp circuit, etc. etc. But if you look back several decades ago, the story would be very different. The story would be along the lines of "we didn't know what the heck we were doing, we just went out and we climbed and somehow managed to live through every stupid thing we tried, and learned in the process." Climbing is still very young sport. Outside of youth climbing team circuit, finding an actual REAL coach would be nearly impossible for an average guy who starts climbing as an adult, and unaffordable for a lot of people who can find one. So by necessity most climbers have to rely on their friends for most of their learning. And yes, books are a good resource, and SCC instructional DVD is very helpful, but that still doesn't address the fact that once you are out on the actual climb trying to apply that flagging, or backstep, or whatever, the observer offering you advice along the lines of "try to get your left foot higher before you start rocking over" or "it looks like you are stopping yourself halfway through the move and losing momentum" is going to be invaluable. I dunno, I keep scratching my head over this thread. It is as if most of you never learned how to listen to your own body. You need a coach, or a book, or a buddy to tell you what you're doing wrong. I'm reminded of how when I was a total n00b climbing with other n00bs, everyone around me wanted beta to figure out how to do a climb, and I wanted to figure it out for myself. Not because I was stubborn (although that may be) but because I was learning skills that I did not want to short-circuit; the skills around listening to the interplay between body and rock, and learning how to adjust to find the balance required in the moment. Now I'm no rock-star, and never will be, but I've learned a shit-ton of good technique this way. For how weak I am (just ask Curt!) I climb pretty damn well. Just sayin', the short shrift being given to really paying attention to what you're doing, and finding intelligent ways to experiment on-route, is notable. GO That's like saying you should learn math all on your own. Works well for brilliant people like Newton but for your average practitioner the process is vastly accelerated by tutelage combined with self study.
Your argument is logical, and I never suggested that having a coach couldn't be helpful for some. But I'm simply not convinced that the vast majority of people who climb with mediocre technique wouldn't gain far more useful and applicable climbing technique far more quickly if they just paid really close attention to what they were doing and how their body was responding to the balance points and the rock.
Look at the bit I was responding to directly:
In reply to: And yes, books are a good resource, and SCC instructional DVD is very helpful, but that still doesn't address the fact that once you are out on the actual climb trying to apply that flagging, or backstep, or whatever, the observer offering you advice along the lines of "try to get your left foot higher before you start rocking over" or "it looks like you are stopping yourself halfway through the move and losing momentum" is going to be invaluable.
The way I take that is: "you can learn about flagging and backstepping and rocking over from a book, but until you get a coach to show you how to use them, you'll never figure out how to apply them just right."
That is so incredibly ass-backwards. Flagging and backstepping and rocking over are basic techniques I learned in my first year of climbing from... climbing. I used those techniques because they worked, and only later found they had names. And of course I know how they work, because the climbing itself taught me - and continues to teach me. As you get into harder climbs, you learn more and more subtle interplays between various things, your timing gets better, etc. This all comes naturally through paying attention.
Don't get me wrong - books and teachers are fine supplements, and if you want to be a competition climber, you will need to learn to work well with a coach, but overall, your absolute best teacher is the rock itself.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
lena_chita
Moderator
Feb 27, 2012, 4:08 PM
Post #121 of 151
(13551 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 6087
|
cracklover wrote: shockabuku wrote: That's like saying you should learn math all on your own. Works well for brilliant people like Newton but for your average practitioner the process is vastly accelerated by tutelage combined with self study. Your argument is logical, and I never suggested that having a coach couldn't be helpful for some. But I'm simply not convinced that the vast majority of people who climb with mediocre technique wouldn't gain far more useful and applicable climbing technique far more quickly if they just paid really close attention to what they were doing and how their body was responding to the balance points and the rock. Look at the bit I was responding to directly: lena_chita wrote: And yes, books are a good resource, and SCC instructional DVD is very helpful, but that still doesn't address the fact that once you are out on the actual climb trying to apply that flagging, or backstep, or whatever, the observer offering you advice along the lines of "try to get your left foot higher before you start rocking over" or "it looks like you are stopping yourself halfway through the move and losing momentum" is going to be invaluable. The way I take that is: "you can learn about flagging and backstepping and rocking over from a book, but until you get a coach to show you how to use them, you'll never figure out how to apply them just right." That is so incredibly ass-backwards. Flagging and backstepping and rocking over are basic techniques I learned in my first year of climbing from... climbing. I used those techniques because they worked, and only later found they had names. And of course I know how they work, because the climbing itself taught me - and continues to teach me. As you get into harder climbs, you learn more and more subtle interplays between various things, your timing gets better, etc. This all comes naturally through paying attention. Don't get me wrong - books and teachers are fine supplements, and if you want to be a competition climber, you will need to learn to work well with a coach, but overall, your absolute best teacher is the rock itself. GO
Since you were responding to my comment, I feel like I need to clarify. I was NOT thinking of coaching when I wrote that.
I was actually responding to jt512, saying that book and DVD learning can only take you so far, and that for most climbers having a COACH is not realistic, but having a good climber friend who makes suggestions/points out things when you are stuck usually is helpful.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Feb 27, 2012, 5:07 PM
Post #122 of 151
(13528 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
lena_chita wrote: cracklover wrote: shockabuku wrote: That's like saying you should learn math all on your own. Works well for brilliant people like Newton but for your average practitioner the process is vastly accelerated by tutelage combined with self study. Your argument is logical, and I never suggested that having a coach couldn't be helpful for some. But I'm simply not convinced that the vast majority of people who climb with mediocre technique wouldn't gain far more useful and applicable climbing technique far more quickly if they just paid really close attention to what they were doing and how their body was responding to the balance points and the rock. Look at the bit I was responding to directly: lena_chita wrote: And yes, books are a good resource, and SCC instructional DVD is very helpful, but that still doesn't address the fact that once you are out on the actual climb trying to apply that flagging, or backstep, or whatever, the observer offering you advice along the lines of "try to get your left foot higher before you start rocking over" or "it looks like you are stopping yourself halfway through the move and losing momentum" is going to be invaluable. The way I take that is: "you can learn about flagging and backstepping and rocking over from a book, but until you get a coach to show you how to use them, you'll never figure out how to apply them just right." That is so incredibly ass-backwards. Flagging and backstepping and rocking over are basic techniques I learned in my first year of climbing from... climbing. I used those techniques because they worked, and only later found they had names. And of course I know how they work, because the climbing itself taught me - and continues to teach me. As you get into harder climbs, you learn more and more subtle interplays between various things, your timing gets better, etc. This all comes naturally through paying attention. Don't get me wrong - books and teachers are fine supplements, and if you want to be a competition climber, you will need to learn to work well with a coach, but overall, your absolute best teacher is the rock itself. GO Since you were responding to my comment, I feel like I need to clarify. I was NOT thinking of coaching when I wrote that. I was actually responding to jt512, saying that book and DVD learning can only take you so far, and that for most climbers having a COACH is not realistic, but having a good climber friend who makes suggestions/points out things when you are stuck usually is helpful.
Oh, OK, fair enough. It's the definition of "when you're stuck" that is at issue for me. Knowing when to turn to external advice, and when (and how) to listen to what the rock is trying to tell you is where I fear many people go astray.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 27, 2012, 6:50 PM
Post #123 of 151
(13500 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
cracklover wrote: lena_chita wrote: cracklover wrote: shockabuku wrote: That's like saying you should learn math all on your own. Works well for brilliant people like Newton but for your average practitioner the process is vastly accelerated by tutelage combined with self study. Your argument is logical, and I never suggested that having a coach couldn't be helpful for some. But I'm simply not convinced that the vast majority of people who climb with mediocre technique wouldn't gain far more useful and applicable climbing technique far more quickly if they just paid really close attention to what they were doing and how their body was responding to the balance points and the rock. Look at the bit I was responding to directly: lena_chita wrote: And yes, books are a good resource, and SCC instructional DVD is very helpful, but that still doesn't address the fact that once you are out on the actual climb trying to apply that flagging, or backstep, or whatever, the observer offering you advice along the lines of "try to get your left foot higher before you start rocking over" or "it looks like you are stopping yourself halfway through the move and losing momentum" is going to be invaluable. The way I take that is: "you can learn about flagging and backstepping and rocking over from a book, but until you get a coach to show you how to use them, you'll never figure out how to apply them just right." That is so incredibly ass-backwards. Flagging and backstepping and rocking over are basic techniques I learned in my first year of climbing from... climbing. I used those techniques because they worked, and only later found they had names. And of course I know how they work, because the climbing itself taught me - and continues to teach me. As you get into harder climbs, you learn more and more subtle interplays between various things, your timing gets better, etc. This all comes naturally through paying attention. Don't get me wrong - books and teachers are fine supplements, and if you want to be a competition climber, you will need to learn to work well with a coach, but overall, your absolute best teacher is the rock itself. GO Since you were responding to my comment, I feel like I need to clarify. I was NOT thinking of coaching when I wrote that. I was actually responding to jt512, saying that book and DVD learning can only take you so far, and that for most climbers having a COACH is not realistic, but having a good climber friend who makes suggestions/points out things when you are stuck usually is helpful. Oh, OK, fair enough. It's the definition of "when you're stuck" that is at issue for me. Knowing when to turn to external advice, and when (and how) to listen to what the rock is trying to tell you is where I fear many people go astray. GO
Apparently the rock speaks louder to some of us than to others. I climbed for a good 15 years before I read the SCC, and when I did, it opened my eyes to a whole new level of climbing. Basically, I had been doing it all wrong for 15 years, and had to re-teach myself climbing from—no pun intended—the ground up.
Actually, Douglas was more charitable. He said I was only doing it all wrong about half the time.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Feb 27, 2012, 7:06 PM
Post #124 of 151
(13494 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
jt512 wrote: I climbed for a good 15 years before I read the SCC, and when I did, it opened my eyes to a whole new level of climbing. Basically, I had been doing it all wrong for 15 years, and had to re-teach myself climbing from—no pun intended—the ground up. Actually, Douglas was more charitable. He said I was only doing it all wrong about half the time. Jay
Okay, interesting. So can you give an example of something that was working but was "wrong"? What made it wrong? And what was the "right" solution, and what made it better?
GO
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 27, 2012, 8:01 PM
Post #125 of 151
(13477 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
cracklover wrote: jt512 wrote: I climbed for a good 15 years before I read the SCC, and when I did, it opened my eyes to a whole new level of climbing. Basically, I had been doing it all wrong for 15 years, and had to re-teach myself climbing from—no pun intended—the ground up. Actually, Douglas was more charitable. He said I was only doing it all wrong about half the time. Jay Okay, interesting. So can you give an example of something that was working but was "wrong"? What made it wrong? And what was the "right" solution, and what made it better? GO
The building blocks of climbing movement are not discrete techniques, like flags, backsteps, and hand jams. Rather, they are things like balance, movement initiation, movement centers, momentum generation, body tension, timing, and so on. Except possibly for balance, I had no concept of those elements. I wasn't engaging my legs and back, I was dropping my heels, I wasn't arching my back enough, I had no body tension, I wasn't effectively generating momentum. Essentially, I thought of climbing like this: find the next handhold, move the feet up, get in balance and reach for the next handhold. That doesn't mean I wasn't backstepping, flagging, drop-kneeing, and all that. I was. I had a pretty good idea about how to engage the holds to form a high-quality base of support and to stay in balance. But that was about it.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
