Forums: Climbing Information: Beginners:
Woman climbers, arm strength
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for Beginners

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 Next page Last page  View All


jt512


Apr 7, 2012, 11:24 AM
Post #26 of 103 (2398 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21890

Re: [rgold] Woman climbers, arm strength [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

rgold wrote:
Shotwell's sample of one is contradicted by the considerably more experienced Steph Davis sample of one, and in any case tells us nothing about what the best, safest, and most efficient approach might be, because we can't run Shotwell's wife through an alternate program to see how she would have done, and we can't run clones of her through the same experiences to see what injury potential she may have dodged by building strength via relatively uncontrollable means.

On the other hand, we can't rerun Steph Davis to see if she could have sent V9 within her first two years of climbing if she had trained like Shotwell's wife.

Jay


ceebo


Apr 7, 2012, 12:08 PM
Post #27 of 103 (2390 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 8, 2009
Posts: 862

Re: [jt512] Woman climbers, arm strength [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
rgold wrote:
Shotwell's sample of one is contradicted by the considerably more experienced Steph Davis sample of one, and in any case tells us nothing about what the best, safest, and most efficient approach might be, because we can't run Shotwell's wife through an alternate program to see how she would have done, and we can't run clones of her through the same experiences to see what injury potential she may have dodged by building strength via relatively uncontrollable means.

On the other hand, we can't rerun Steph Davis to see if she could have sent V9 within her first two years of climbing if she had trained like Shotwell's wife.

Jay

But to me that leads to such questions as was she consistent in that level of sending at that time?. Was it a long running project leading to a send of familiarity. Was it a 1 move wonder kind of problem, was it a problem of placement over brute strength. Was the v9 here the same as the v9 their etc. I do not wish to take away anything form this persons acomplishment but using 1 single send uder conditions we do not know of is hardly the grounds for argument.

Besides that their is still the differances in height,reach wieght and so on that would alter the results even more in the already impossible rerun.


(This post was edited by ceebo on Apr 7, 2012, 12:11 PM)


shotwell


Apr 7, 2012, 1:04 PM
Post #28 of 103 (2380 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 5, 2009
Posts: 366

Re: [ceebo] Woman climbers, arm strength [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

ceebo wrote:
jt512 wrote:
rgold wrote:
Shotwell's sample of one is contradicted by the considerably more experienced Steph Davis sample of one, and in any case tells us nothing about what the best, safest, and most efficient approach might be, because we can't run Shotwell's wife through an alternate program to see how she would have done, and we can't run clones of her through the same experiences to see what injury potential she may have dodged by building strength via relatively uncontrollable means.

On the other hand, we can't rerun Steph Davis to see if she could have sent V9 within her first two years of climbing if she had trained like Shotwell's wife.

Jay

But to me that leads to such questions as was she consistent in that level of sending at that time?. Was it a long running project leading to a send of familiarity. Was it a 1 move wonder kind of problem, was it a problem of placement over brute strength. Was the v9 here the same as the v9 their etc. I do not wish to take away anything form this persons acomplishment but using 1 single send uder conditions we do not know of is hardly the grounds for argument.

Besides that their is still the differances in height,reach wieght and so on that would alter the results even more in the already impossible rerun.

Well, I can answer some of those questions.

1) Last Dance is consensus V9. It is in Bishop, CA. You're welcome to go try it if you think it is soft.

2) Leading up to her send of this problem and in the course of two weeks she climbed: The Little Arete (Consensus V8, 2 days, 2 hours), Gleaming the Cube (Consensus V8, she suggested V5 second attempt, she dabbed on the V2 topout the first), The Croft Problem (Consensus hard V8, 2 days, 2 hours), Mr. Frosty (Consensus V8) 1 day, 1 hour, and Junior's Achievement (Kind of variable between easy V8 and hard V7. She suggested easy for V7, 1 day, 3 or 4 tries) She also completed more V7's in this time period than I would take the time to count.

3) I linked a video to the problem earlier in the thread.

http://www.youtube.com/...x=3&feature=plcp

Last Dance is normally considered "over" after you hit the big compression move. My wife considered the crux to be the big move after, but considered it to be significantly harder than any of the V8s listed above. It was certainly not a 'delicate' problem, though it required grace, precision, and pure power.

4) She put in three sessions of 1 hour a piece to send Last Dance.

As far as directly comparing Steph and my wife, that is kind of foolish. Steph climbs cracks primarily, my wife mainly climbs faces.


shotwell


Apr 7, 2012, 1:09 PM
Post #29 of 103 (2378 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 5, 2009
Posts: 366

Re: [jt512] Woman climbers, arm strength [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
rgold wrote:
Shotwell's sample of one is contradicted by the considerably more experienced Steph Davis sample of one, and in any case tells us nothing about what the best, safest, and most efficient approach might be, because we can't run Shotwell's wife through an alternate program to see how she would have done, and we can't run clones of her through the same experiences to see what injury potential she may have dodged by building strength via relatively uncontrollable means.

On the other hand, we can't rerun Steph Davis to see if she could have sent V9 within her first two years of climbing if she had trained like Shotwell's wife.

Jay

I wanted to make this argument as well, but I thought it would sound too arrogant coming from me.


ceebo


Apr 7, 2012, 1:20 PM
Post #30 of 103 (2376 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 8, 2009
Posts: 862

Re: [shotwell] Woman climbers, arm strength [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

shotwell wrote:
ceebo wrote:
jt512 wrote:
rgold wrote:
Shotwell's sample of one is contradicted by the considerably more experienced Steph Davis sample of one, and in any case tells us nothing about what the best, safest, and most efficient approach might be, because we can't run Shotwell's wife through an alternate program to see how she would have done, and we can't run clones of her through the same experiences to see what injury potential she may have dodged by building strength via relatively uncontrollable means.

On the other hand, we can't rerun Steph Davis to see if she could have sent V9 within her first two years of climbing if she had trained like Shotwell's wife.

Jay

But to me that leads to such questions as was she consistent in that level of sending at that time?. Was it a long running project leading to a send of familiarity. Was it a 1 move wonder kind of problem, was it a problem of placement over brute strength. Was the v9 here the same as the v9 their etc. I do not wish to take away anything form this persons acomplishment but using 1 single send uder conditions we do not know of is hardly the grounds for argument.

Besides that their is still the differances in height,reach wieght and so on that would alter the results even more in the already impossible rerun.

Well, I can answer some of those questions.

1) Last Dance is consensus V9. It is in Bishop, CA. You're welcome to go try it if you think it is soft.

2) Leading up to her send of this problem and in the course of two weeks she climbed: The Little Arete (Consensus V8, 2 days, 2 hours), Gleaming the Cube (Consensus V8, she suggested V5 second attempt, she dabbed on the V2 topout the first), The Croft Problem (Consensus hard V8, 2 days, 2 hours), Mr. Frosty (Consensus V8) 1 day, 1 hour, and Junior's Achievement (Kind of variable between easy V8 and hard V7. She suggested easy for V7, 1 day, 3 or 4 tries) She also completed more V7's in this time period than I would take the time to count.

3) I linked a video to the problem earlier in the thread.

http://www.youtube.com/...x=3&feature=plcp

Last Dance is normally considered "over" after you hit the big compression move. My wife considered the crux to be the big move after, but considered it to be significantly harder than any of the V8s listed above. It was certainly not a 'delicate' problem, though it required grace, precision, and pure power.

4) She put in three sessions of 1 hour a piece to send Last Dance.

As far as directly comparing Steph and my wife, that is kind of foolish. Steph climbs cracks primarily, my wife mainly climbs faces.

Try not to take offence i did not mean it in that way. Thnx for the elaborations.


Partner rgold


Apr 7, 2012, 9:11 PM
Post #31 of 103 (2333 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1800

Re: [jt512] Woman climbers, arm strength [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
rgold wrote:
Shotwell's sample of one is contradicted by the considerably more experienced Steph Davis sample of one, and in any case tells us nothing about what the best, safest, and most efficient approach might be, because we can't run Shotwell's wife through an alternate program to see how she would have done, and we can't run clones of her through the same experiences to see what injury potential she may have dodged by building strength via relatively uncontrollable means.

On the other hand, we can't rerun Steph Davis to see if she could have sent V9 within her first two years of climbing if she had trained like Shotwell's wife.

Jay

Of course. My only point in bringing up Steph Davis as a "sample of one" was to emphasize the fact that you can find examples for any conclusion you'd like. The main point about Steph Davis is that, as a very experienced woman climber offering advice to people in Shannon's postion, she has found supplementary training to be of considerable value and specifically discounted the claim that just climbing is equivalent.

Back in the day, people learned climbing outdoors, progressing at what now would be considered a pedestrian pace through the grades. By the time some upper body strength might be helpful, they already had an substantial base of skills and a conditioning base.

Now people start out indoors and in very short order are trying relatively difficult overhanging problems with dynamic moves and all the shock loading that goes along with them, especially since technique is just developing. To be doing this with relatively little upper-body strength courts all kinds of injury potential in my opinion, especially if hand strength outstrips the ability to stabilize the torso.

Someone who can do one or two pullups who is trying dynamic moves that could end up loading full body weight on one arm is more likely to end up injured in my opinion (and yes, that is an internet opinion whose value will have to be decided by the accompanying logic.) In addtion to the career-ending example I cited previously, I also know a number of very capable women who have had shoulder surgery after a few years of high-standard climbing. Whether they could have avoided the injuries with supplementary pullup and pressing training is unknown, but it is hard to imagine that such training could have hurt.

There's a peculiar paradox in modern bouldering and sport climbing. Dynamic technique has greatly reduced, some people would say has eliminated, the utility of upper body strength. (This is much less true of trad climbing.) But while learning both dynamic technique and static techniques on overhanging terrain, it seems to me that the beginning climber needs the protection afforded by upper body strength more than ever.


shotwell


Apr 8, 2012, 6:36 AM
Post #32 of 103 (2296 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 5, 2009
Posts: 366

Re: [rgold] Woman climbers, arm strength [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

rgold wrote:
Back in the day, people learned climbing outdoors, progressing at what now would be considered a pedestrian pace through the grades. By the time some upper body strength might be helpful, they already had an substantial base of skills and a conditioning base.

Now people start out indoors and in very short order are trying relatively difficult overhanging problems with dynamic moves and all the shock loading that goes along with them, especially since technique is just developing. To be doing this with relatively little upper-body strength courts all kinds of injury potential in my opinion, especially if hand strength outstrips the ability to stabilize the torso.

Modern climbers that do very little climbing indoors are making these huge gains as well. The simple truth is that safer styles such as padded bouldering and sport climbing allow climbers to 'outpace' what their rate of improvement would have been in the past. Gyms have contributed to this phenomenon, as they offer another safe place to work on skills, strength, and power. All provide essentially the same opportunities for improvement.

I have some misgivings about the argument you use about developing upper body strength as a means of developing further control. Dave Graham and Fred Nicole were used as examples earlier in the thread. I get that the application is a little different here, as both are men.

Dave, for example, is fairly dynamic and pretty weak. He can't do a one-arm pull-up. He has climbed exceptional dynamic problems, doesn't train, and climbed very well in his first year. He has been on top of his game for a very long time.

Fred, alternatively, is very static and exceptionally strong. He can crank one pinkie pull-ups. He climbs statically on overhangs, and really believes in control. He has been on the top of his game (and the world) for a long time.

I'm not sure exactly how much protection this upper body strength is affording, to be honest. I understand the logic, but I think we're both just seeing the world through the sum of our experiences. Yours are more extensive, though I feel mine are more applicable to modern techniques. I say this with extreme reservation, as I assume you learned a thing or two about cutting it loose by climbing with Gill.


ceebo


Apr 8, 2012, 6:40 AM
Post #33 of 103 (2296 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 8, 2009
Posts: 862

Re: [rgold] Woman climbers, arm strength [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

rgold wrote:
jt512 wrote:
rgold wrote:
Shotwell's sample of one is contradicted by the considerably more experienced Steph Davis sample of one, and in any case tells us nothing about what the best, safest, and most efficient approach might be, because we can't run Shotwell's wife through an alternate program to see how she would have done, and we can't run clones of her through the same experiences to see what injury potential she may have dodged by building strength via relatively uncontrollable means.

On the other hand, we can't rerun Steph Davis to see if she could have sent V9 within her first two years of climbing if she had trained like Shotwell's wife.

Jay

Of course. My only point in bringing up Steph Davis as a "sample of one" was to emphasize the fact that you can find examples for any conclusion you'd like. The main point about Steph Davis is that, as a very experienced woman climber offering advice to people in Shannon's postion, she has found supplementary training to be of considerable value and specifically discounted the claim that just climbing is equivalent.

Back in the day, people learned climbing outdoors, progressing at what now would be considered a pedestrian pace through the grades. By the time some upper body strength might be helpful, they already had an substantial base of skills and a conditioning base.

Now people start out indoors and in very short order are trying relatively difficult overhanging problems with dynamic moves and all the shock loading that goes along with them, especially since technique is just developing. To be doing this with relatively little upper-body strength courts all kinds of injury potential in my opinion, especially if hand strength outstrips the ability to stabilize the torso.

Someone who can do one or two pullups who is trying dynamic moves that could end up loading full body weight on one arm is more likely to end up injured in my opinion (and yes, that is an internet opinion whose value will have to be decided by the accompanying logic.) In addtion to the career-ending example I cited previously, I also know a number of very capable women who have had shoulder surgery after a few years of high-standard climbing. Whether they could have avoided the injuries with supplementary pullup and pressing training is unknown, but it is hard to imagine that such training could have hurt.

There's a peculiar paradox in modern bouldering and sport climbing. Dynamic technique has greatly reduced, some people would say has eliminated, the utility of upper body strength. (This is much less true of trad climbing.) But while learning both dynamic technique and static techniques on overhanging terrain, it seems to me that the beginning climber needs the protection afforded by upper body strength more than ever.

The shock load from dynamic miss haps is a logical reason of injury, on the other hand don't you think the injury potential may just be shifted to elbows and wrists in the more static nature?. Or instead of freak shock load injurys you would perhaps expect to see more built over time injurys in the static nature.

I would pot shot guess that the main reason of injury in new and more experianced climbers is doing to much and/or to much of the same. Most of the advice is '' 5 days a week, 2 hour sessions''. Take that with the fact most new climbers feel the need to climb full steam every session.

For the more experianced climbers perhaps they fall victem to doing to much of the same. For example how differant is a campus session to climbing steep over hang for the relitave body parts?. The finger grip styls may change but the elbows/shoulders don't get quite the same luxury.

I don't think any amount of off training could stop a injury of such over use or shock load.


(This post was edited by ceebo on Apr 8, 2012, 6:42 AM)


Partner rgold


Apr 8, 2012, 8:58 AM
Post #34 of 103 (2286 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1800

Re: [shotwell] Woman climbers, arm strength [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

shotwell wrote:
I have some misgivings about the argument you use about developing upper body strength as a means of developing further control. Dave Graham and Fred Nicole were used as examples earlier in the thread. I get that the application is a little different here, as both are men.

Well, I had decided for this discussion, about what might be useful for a woman starting out, to stay away from the utility of strength for expert climbers. But I do wish I could find a link to a bouldering video I saw with Dave Graham and Chris Sharma. They were trying an overhanging dynamic move to a catch that caused both feet to cut loose. Graham couldn't come close; Sharma nailed it multiple times. The difference was entirely one of strength. Sharma could catch and maintain a one-arm lockoff as he swung out, Graham caught and immediately (and rather violently) dropped to full-arm extension, his body forming a longer pendulum that caused him to fly off the hold into space every time.

Strength has other uses. In trad climbing, dynamic technique isn't always appropriate for survival reasons. But there is also the matter of getting gear in. You can't dyno in high protection, you have to be able to lock off to place high pieces. Although perhaps not common, there are times when a quick pullup is actually a more efficient solution to a move that otherwise requires a host of intricate body positions. And strength also increases your margin of error, which is to say that you can miss the precise timing or the obscure and counterintuitive foot placement and still make the move on the first try. Such considerations are nothing more than arcane matters of style classification for boulderers and sport climbers, but for trad climbers, avoiding falling may have more than stylistic consequences.

I don't think anyone can seriously suggest that more strength isn't a good thing, even for David Graham. The claim is that you'll get more out of the time spent developing technique. I absolutely agree, don't get me wrong. But then we get what I think are argument extremes in which even relatively minor amounts of strength training are denounced. Some of this is understandable, since it is in response to intense and protracted body-building routines that are surely a waste of good climbing time.

But as I've said over and over, completely rejecting limited, appropriate, and targeted strength training really makes no sense and flies in the face to the substantial accumulated wisdom of training and rehabilitating for sports. But the two points of view are now just repeating themselves and so it is surely time to give it a rest.


granite_grrl


Apr 9, 2012, 8:06 AM
Post #35 of 103 (2222 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 14708

Re: [rgold] Woman climbers, arm strength [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

rgold wrote:
Shannon, I don't think you are getting very good advice here.

There is no question that technique reduces the need to apply pure strength, and that one can and should learn an enormous amount from texts like The Self-Coached Climber. But I also think it is irrational to insist that general conditioning is either irrelevant or can be acquired along the way. Its a mantra one hears more and more, and it doesn't make much sense to me, and seems to fly in the face of the accumulated experience of virtually all other sports.

I'm not talking here about non-sport specific things like the Crossfit cult, I'm thinking about specific combinations of basic physical training aimed at the kinds of strength climbers either need for certain types of moves or else could use to prevent the kinds of injuries that occur when, for example, dynamic moves are made without enough strength to control the consequences.

But don't listen to me. (The almost political nature of these debates means that very little listening is going on anyway.) Consider, for example, what a highly accomplished woman climber has to say. Responding in her blog to questions about building strength for women analogous to the questions in this thread, Steph Davis writes, (http://www.highinfatuation.com/blog/gymless-training/)

I think youíre on the right track with wanting to increase your upper body strength for climbing. As a woman, I notice that if I improve my upper body strength at all, I instantly see dramatic results in my climbing. Since women do not naturally build upper body muscle like men do, I think we are forced to climb with more technique in general. If we give any attention to strength building, it allows us to make use of that technique to an extremely gratifying degree.
Iíve also seen many posts written for climbers that play down the benefits of pullups and pullup workouts. I couldnít disagree more, especially for women. If you start to do pullup workouts, and possibly fingerboard workouts, you will see a dramatic improvement in your climbing very quickly.


Her article has links to weight, hangboard, and pullup training regimens she uses. Might be worth checking out, if for no other reason than to balance the "just climb" chorus heard here.

Great post, rgold. I think a lot of women would do well focusing on some strength training and I'm looking forward to going through Steph's blag too.

But what I worry about with Shannon's post is that she's probably not identifying the things that are actually holding her back. If she's a newer climber she might be trying problems from V2 to V4. Telling her that focusing on strength to get up these problems won't take her as far as learning the techniqu required in these initial month (based on the fact that she already sounds decently strong).

She should absolutly work on building strength as well and continue with this through her climbing career, but I think that focusing on bouldering initially will bring her a long way in terms of strength building too (at least for a while). But if she doesn't build up her technique right now any strength gains she makes will go to waste.


ceebo


Apr 9, 2012, 5:40 PM
Post #36 of 103 (2159 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 8, 2009
Posts: 862

Re: [granite_grrl] Woman climbers, arm strength [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

granite_grrl wrote:
rgold wrote:
Shannon, I don't think you are getting very good advice here.

There is no question that technique reduces the need to apply pure strength, and that one can and should learn an enormous amount from texts like The Self-Coached Climber. But I also think it is irrational to insist that general conditioning is either irrelevant or can be acquired along the way. Its a mantra one hears more and more, and it doesn't make much sense to me, and seems to fly in the face of the accumulated experience of virtually all other sports.

I'm not talking here about non-sport specific things like the Crossfit cult, I'm thinking about specific combinations of basic physical training aimed at the kinds of strength climbers either need for certain types of moves or else could use to prevent the kinds of injuries that occur when, for example, dynamic moves are made without enough strength to control the consequences.

But don't listen to me. (The almost political nature of these debates means that very little listening is going on anyway.) Consider, for example, what a highly accomplished woman climber has to say. Responding in her blog to questions about building strength for women analogous to the questions in this thread, Steph Davis writes, (http://www.highinfatuation.com/blog/gymless-training/)

I think youíre on the right track with wanting to increase your upper body strength for climbing. As a woman, I notice that if I improve my upper body strength at all, I instantly see dramatic results in my climbing. Since women do not naturally build upper body muscle like men do, I think we are forced to climb with more technique in general. If we give any attention to strength building, it allows us to make use of that technique to an extremely gratifying degree.
Iíve also seen many posts written for climbers that play down the benefits of pullups and pullup workouts. I couldnít disagree more, especially for women. If you start to do pullup workouts, and possibly fingerboard workouts, you will see a dramatic improvement in your climbing very quickly.


Her article has links to weight, hangboard, and pullup training regimens she uses. Might be worth checking out, if for no other reason than to balance the "just climb" chorus heard here.

Great post, rgold. I think a lot of women would do well focusing on some strength training and I'm looking forward to going through Steph's blag too.

But what I worry about with Shannon's post is that she's probably not identifying the things that are actually holding her back. If she's a newer climber she might be trying problems from V2 to V4. Telling her that focusing on strength to get up these problems won't take her as far as learning the techniqu required in these initial month (based on the fact that she already sounds decently strong).

She should absolutly work on building strength as well and continue with this through her climbing career, but I think that focusing on bouldering initially will bring her a long way in terms of strength building too (at least for a while). But if she doesn't build up her technique right now any strength gains she makes will go to waste.

You consider ''barely 2 pull ups'' as reasonably strong?. I would consider that to be a bigger weakness than her current technique level, how ever low that might be. 2 pull ups is good for a women is what you meant?. Ok great, cookies for her.. but being realistic in reltaion to climbing, 2 pull ups? thats weak. I'm sorry to be harsh but be honist.. it just is.

You yourself are trying to increase your own upper body strength right?. Why then is it ok for you and not for her.. becuase you have some technique, oh ok.

Don't you think that (in your own admition) being to weak in the upper body held you back on steeper terain?. In the interest of her faster being in a position to learn and climb on steeper terain then should't the base skills include the strength to actualy be on them in the first place?. It escapes me how a person can learn technique on steep ground where they are forced to be straight armed or else they burn out.

Just building to 5-7 pull ups is hardly asking miricles, hard work sure.. get use to it?.

Pull ups and technique are hardly the repeling poles of magnets either. It's actualy possible to do a few sets of pull ups and then good technique drills in one sesion. The horror.


(This post was edited by ceebo on Apr 9, 2012, 5:42 PM)


granite_grrl


Apr 9, 2012, 6:24 PM
Post #37 of 103 (2140 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 14708

Re: [ceebo] Woman climbers, arm strength [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

ceebo wrote:
granite_grrl wrote:
rgold wrote:
Shannon, I don't think you are getting very good advice here.

There is no question that technique reduces the need to apply pure strength, and that one can and should learn an enormous amount from texts like The Self-Coached Climber. But I also think it is irrational to insist that general conditioning is either irrelevant or can be acquired along the way. Its a mantra one hears more and more, and it doesn't make much sense to me, and seems to fly in the face of the accumulated experience of virtually all other sports.

I'm not talking here about non-sport specific things like the Crossfit cult, I'm thinking about specific combinations of basic physical training aimed at the kinds of strength climbers either need for certain types of moves or else could use to prevent the kinds of injuries that occur when, for example, dynamic moves are made without enough strength to control the consequences.

But don't listen to me. (The almost political nature of these debates means that very little listening is going on anyway.) Consider, for example, what a highly accomplished woman climber has to say. Responding in her blog to questions about building strength for women analogous to the questions in this thread, Steph Davis writes, (http://www.highinfatuation.com/blog/gymless-training/)

I think youíre on the right track with wanting to increase your upper body strength for climbing. As a woman, I notice that if I improve my upper body strength at all, I instantly see dramatic results in my climbing. Since women do not naturally build upper body muscle like men do, I think we are forced to climb with more technique in general. If we give any attention to strength building, it allows us to make use of that technique to an extremely gratifying degree.
Iíve also seen many posts written for climbers that play down the benefits of pullups and pullup workouts. I couldnít disagree more, especially for women. If you start to do pullup workouts, and possibly fingerboard workouts, you will see a dramatic improvement in your climbing very quickly.


Her article has links to weight, hangboard, and pullup training regimens she uses. Might be worth checking out, if for no other reason than to balance the "just climb" chorus heard here.

Great post, rgold. I think a lot of women would do well focusing on some strength training and I'm looking forward to going through Steph's blag too.

But what I worry about with Shannon's post is that she's probably not identifying the things that are actually holding her back. If she's a newer climber she might be trying problems from V2 to V4. Telling her that focusing on strength to get up these problems won't take her as far as learning the techniqu required in these initial month (based on the fact that she already sounds decently strong).

She should absolutly work on building strength as well and continue with this through her climbing career, but I think that focusing on bouldering initially will bring her a long way in terms of strength building too (at least for a while). But if she doesn't build up her technique right now any strength gains she makes will go to waste.

You consider ''barely 2 pull ups'' as reasonably strong?. I would consider that to be a bigger weakness than her current technique level, how ever low that might be. 2 pull ups is good for a women is what you meant?. Ok great, cookies for her.. but being realistic in reltaion to climbing, 2 pull ups? thats weak. I'm sorry to be harsh but be honist.. it just is.

You yourself are trying to increase your own upper body strength right?. Why then is it ok for you and not for her.. becuase you have some technique, oh ok.

Don't you think that (in your own admition) being to weak in the upper body held you back on steeper terain?. In the interest of her faster being in a position to learn and climb on steeper terain then should't the base skills include the strength to actualy be on them in the first place?. It escapes me how a person can learn technique on steep ground where they are forced to be straight armed or else they burn out.

Just building to 5-7 pull ups is hardly asking miricles, hard work sure.. get use to it?.

Pull ups and technique are hardly the repeling poles of magnets either. It's actualy possible to do a few sets of pull ups and then good technique drills in one sesion. The horror.

Have you ever done a poll of women who recently started climbing of how many pullups they can do?

By my own admission I know there are specific moves that require lock off and controlled dynamic movement that I have had problems with on routes in the past (in general I'm not shabby on steep rock though and I love climbing that stuff). I have also been climbing long enough that I can do a reasonable analysis of my climbing abilities.

Most beginners can't. Most female beginners (at least most of the ones I've climb with over the years) can't do a single pullup much less two, so yeah, that's probably not her problem at the moment. Most beginners lack technique and no matter how strong (or weak) this is generally what's really holding them back. I've seen many girls focus on needing to get stronger and ignore the fact that there's a lot of technique involved as well.


ceebo


Apr 9, 2012, 7:49 PM
Post #38 of 103 (2119 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 8, 2009
Posts: 862

Re: [granite_grrl] Woman climbers, arm strength [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

granite_grrl wrote:
Most beginners can't. Most female beginners (at least most of the ones I've climb with over the years) can't do a single pullup much less two, so yeah, that's probably not her problem at the moment. Most beginners lack technique and no matter how strong (or weak) this is generally what's really holding them back. I've seen many girls focus on needing to get stronger and ignore the fact that there's a lot of technique involved as well.

And this amounts to a overhang being not so far off pull ups. It stands to reason the more upper strength a person has.. the more time they have on the wall to learn technique. When i say this i guess you automaticaly think that a newb with strength by nature has no concept of technique.. they are so strong they just don't need to learn it.. so they campus to the top?. That's rediculess.

This is where friends, coach etc come into it. We can speed up the learning of technique. With that in mind (and this is not guessing) the stronger climbers progress much faster.

Ofc their are people who are not so strong but are just gifted in picking up technique.. but their are also strong climbers who are just as gifted. Its not a clear cut case of one or the other that you seem to see in climbing.

I come into contact with new climbers alot. I have seen many times a person with great technique fall off a over hang where a person with lesser technique was able to pull through the lip.

I'm not saying one is better than the other, im simply saying the middle ground between both is going to be the best start for a climber. 2 pull ups.. is not the middle ground sorry.


(This post was edited by ceebo on Apr 9, 2012, 7:50 PM)


granite_grrl


Apr 10, 2012, 4:29 AM
Post #39 of 103 (2080 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 14708

Re: [ceebo] Woman climbers, arm strength [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

ceebo wrote:
And this amounts to a overhang being not so far off pull ups. It stands to reason the more upper strength a person has.. the more time they have on the wall to learn technique.

If this is what you think overhang technique consists of then it sounds like you need to work on your technique as well.

FYI - strength is not what keeps a person hanging onto a wall, giving them time to figure out a move, it's endurance. You would do well with reading the Self Coached Climber yourself.


Partner cracklover


Apr 10, 2012, 9:04 AM
Post #40 of 103 (2044 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9976

Re: [shotwell] Woman climbers, arm strength [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

shotwell wrote:
ShannonT wrote:
I've just recently started climbing ALOT and find i have no pull strength which is a pain as i find it hard to do overhang bolder problems. Honestly i can hardly do 2 pull ups.

What shall i do, i'm kind of needing a training programme but don't know where to start.Frown

My wife started climbing two years ago, unable to do a pull up. Her 'training program' has always been to climb. She puts in mileage, hits the boulders, and always challenges herself. She rests as needed (typically 2 days on, 1 off.)

After two years of this, she is bouldering V9 with powerful, dynamic movement.

That is very, very impressive.

GO


ceebo


Apr 10, 2012, 9:49 AM
Post #41 of 103 (2032 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 8, 2009
Posts: 862

Re: [granite_grrl] Woman climbers, arm strength [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

granite_grrl wrote:
ceebo wrote:
And this amounts to a overhang being not so far off pull ups. It stands to reason the more upper strength a person has.. the more time they have on the wall to learn technique.

If this is what you think overhang technique consists of then it sounds like you need to work on your technique as well.

FYI - strength is not what keeps a person hanging onto a wall, giving them time to figure out a move, it's endurance. You would do well with reading the Self Coached Climber yourself.

You miss understood, a begginer does not have refined over hang technique (see the part i bolded in your other post). For all they do have feet on the wall they are rarely using them properly.. and yes it does amount to something better described as pull ups than climbing.

You just don't seem to accept that a stronger climber has a better start to climbing when shown down the right path of tehcnique training. They can put in more miledge at the same level as the weaker climber to learn even more. They can also be taught certain techniques that genuinely require X amount of strength.

On the last part you are just being petty or again miss understood. For her to build upto 5 pull ups would be better described as strength training. That higher base of strength will allow a higher base of endurance to develop within climbing.

Allot of newer climbers also spend far greater time on easier angle terrain. The fingers and forearms get a better work out. Then when it comes to over hangs you may find (if you watch enough new climbers) that the leading reason for the fall wa upper body strength or even core. Having a greater base of upper strength eliminates it as the prodominent reason for failure (technique aside) and thus alows the fingers and for arms to develop under the greater weight inherent of steeper terain.

Now i sence again you will take the part i said ''technique aside'' out of context. Think logical, a person with lower strength and bad technique can not be in a better position than a person with higher strength and the same level of technique (can we assume the climbers are clones of the same so you cant take that road of avoidence).

If you assume fingers, forearms and technique are allways going to be the weakest and train you must.. don't complain when you realise your upper body and the likes of core become the real weakness.

- edit. I personaly think its lazy or just bad advice when the words ''just learn technique'' are given to new climbers. When do they stop learning just technique.. when physical ability is the reason for a 2 year long platue?. Explain to me why a new climber (3-12 month) should only train technique and rely on physical gains to come as a by product?.

Instead of arguing technique learning makes the most of what ever physical ability you have.. how about you try and prove wrong the notion than being to weak slows down the learning of technique. Good luck.


(This post was edited by ceebo on Apr 10, 2012, 10:04 AM)


redlude97


Apr 10, 2012, 9:59 AM
Post #42 of 103 (2024 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 988

Re: [ceebo] Woman climbers, arm strength [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

ceebo wrote:
granite_grrl wrote:
ceebo wrote:
And this amounts to a overhang being not so far off pull ups. It stands to reason the more upper strength a person has.. the more time they have on the wall to learn technique.

If this is what you think overhang technique consists of then it sounds like you need to work on your technique as well.

FYI - strength is not what keeps a person hanging onto a wall, giving them time to figure out a move, it's endurance. You would do well with reading the Self Coached Climber yourself.

You miss understood, a begginer does not have refined over hang technique (see the part i bolded in your other post). For all they do have feet on the wall they are rarely using them properly.. and yes it does amount to something better described as pull ups than climbing.

You just don't seem to accept that a stronger climber has a better start to climbing when shown down the right path of tehcnique training. They can put in more miledge at the same level as the weaker climber to learn even more. They can also be taught certain techniques that genuinely require X amount of strength.

On the last part you are just being petty or again miss understood. For her to build upto 5 pull ups would be better described as strength training. That higher base of strength will allow a higher base of endurance to develop within climbing.

Allot of newer climbers also spend far greater time on easier angle terrain. The fingers and forearms get a better work out. Then when it comes to over hangs you may find (if you watch enough new climbers) that the leading reason for the fall wa upper body strength or even core. Having a greater base of upper strength eliminates it as the prodominent reason for failure (technique aside) and thus alows the fingers and for arms to develop under the greater weight inherent of steeper terain.

Now i sence again you will take the part i said ''technique aside'' out of context. Think logical, a person with lower strength and bad technique can not be in a better position than a person with higher strength and the same level of technique (can we assume the climbers are clones of the same so you cant take that road of avoidence).

If you assume fingers, forearms and technique are allways going to be the weakest and train you must.. don't complain when you realise your upper body and the likes of core become the real weakness.
Well no shit sherlock. Of course starting out stronger would be better in most cases.

Now take 2 beginner climbers with the same strength, have one train in the climbing gym 3 days a week, and have the other climb 1 day a week, and devote the other 2 days to pullups. Which one do you think will be the better climber after a month?


(This post was edited by redlude97 on Apr 10, 2012, 10:00 AM)


Partner cracklover


Apr 10, 2012, 10:00 AM
Post #43 of 103 (2021 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9976

Re: [ceebo] Woman climbers, arm strength [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

ceebo wrote:
granite_grrl wrote:
Most beginners can't. Most female beginners (at least most of the ones I've climb with over the years) can't do a single pullup much less two, so yeah, that's probably not her problem at the moment. Most beginners lack technique and no matter how strong (or weak) this is generally what's really holding them back. I've seen many girls focus on needing to get stronger and ignore the fact that there's a lot of technique involved as well.

And this amounts to a overhang being not so far off pull ups. It stands to reason the more upper strength a person has.. the more time they have on the wall to learn technique. When i say this i guess you automaticaly think that a newb with strength by nature has no concept of technique.. they are so strong they just don't need to learn it.. so they campus to the top?. That's rediculess.

This is where friends, coach etc come into it. We can speed up the learning of technique. With that in mind (and this is not guessing) the stronger climbers progress much faster.

Ofc their are people who are not so strong but are just gifted in picking up technique.. but their are also strong climbers who are just as gifted. Its not a clear cut case of one or the other that you seem to see in climbing.

I come into contact with new climbers alot. I have seen many times a person with great technique fall off a over hang where a person with lesser technique was able to pull through the lip.

I'm not saying one is better than the other, im simply saying the middle ground between both is going to be the best start for a climber. 2 pull ups.. is not the middle ground sorry.

I agree entirely with GG - there is no evidence that the OP is so weak that time doing anything aside from climbing will give greater benefit than climbing alone, at this point. In fact, I suspect that being too strong is detrimental to beginners learning good technique as quickly as possible.

But with that said, I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater - I do think that for some climbers (maybe most?) supplemental training is beneficial.

There is a part of RG's argument that I'd like to flesh out. I think we all agree that there is an optimum level of climbing-specific power (per weight) for climbing. His supposition, I think, is that targeted supplemental training can get you there more effectively than climbing alone (setting aside the issue of injury).

Here's where I'd like to expand on RG's argument.

Everyone's body responds to physical training differently. On one end of the spectrum are those who gain power relatively quickly, for a given amount of training. Natural bodybuilders, if you will. On the other are those who can put more time and effort into it and see only half the gains. Natural ectomorphs, if you will.

It stands to reason that if you are in the pool of people on the ectomorph end of the spectrum, *some* amount of specifically targeted training would be required to get you the gains that people on the bodybuilder end would get automatically, through just climbing.

To say otherwise would be to claim that those people who genetically gain less strength through the same amount of effort "should" have less strength. An accident of genetics is the only difference between the two pools, and why should the people on one end of the pool not be allowed to gain some of the strength through non-climbing training regimes that the people on the other end of the pool will get without them?

For some people, simply being a girl is just such an accident of genetics. So why shouldn't they do supplemental training? It makes perfect sense to me that it would be helpful for someone like Steph Davis, if you think about things in the way I've stated it above.

GO


(This post was edited by cracklover on Apr 10, 2012, 10:14 AM)


shotwell


Apr 10, 2012, 2:16 PM
Post #44 of 103 (1975 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 5, 2009
Posts: 366

Re: [cracklover] Woman climbers, arm strength [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
shotwell wrote:
ShannonT wrote:
I've just recently started climbing ALOT and find i have no pull strength which is a pain as i find it hard to do overhang bolder problems. Honestly i can hardly do 2 pull ups.

What shall i do, i'm kind of needing a training programme but don't know where to start.Frown

My wife started climbing two years ago, unable to do a pull up. Her 'training program' has always been to climb. She puts in mileage, hits the boulders, and always challenges herself. She rests as needed (typically 2 days on, 1 off.)

After two years of this, she is bouldering V9 with powerful, dynamic movement.

That is very, very impressive.

GO

I promised myself I wouldn't respond to this thread anymore after Rich's suggestion that we agree to disagree, but thanks from her and one very proud husband.

The funny thing is that she doesn't consider it impressive, at all. It amazes me how the rising standards for the elite change the perception of (IMO) a pretty talented new climber.


ceebo


Apr 10, 2012, 4:11 PM
Post #45 of 103 (1946 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 8, 2009
Posts: 862

Re: [redlude97] Woman climbers, arm strength [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

redlude97 wrote:
Now take 2 beginner climbers with the same strength, have one train in the climbing gym 3 days a week, and have the other climb 1 day a week, and devote the other 2 days to pullups. Which one do you think will be the better climber after a month?

You have set conditions where their is only one winner.. so why bother?.

Even it up a bit, the guy would also introduce other forms of training when able. Hang boards, campusing and all the rest of it ( ofc im talking greater duration than 1 month). How can you say for sure the ''just climb'' guy takes all?. Has this been tested?. I would apreciate some links to actual experiments of this because it genuinely interests me.

An interesting thought, the guy doing 1 day per week seperates the enviroment he learns technique in to the enviroment he gains physical condition in.

As a training plan i think that means something. He can look at the climbing and fully focus that time on pure technique learning and consoldation (until the point it deminishes and he can spend timefully projecting and grade pushing). He can use the campusing etc to focus on physical weaknesses.. its very very easy to determin a physical weakness when you focus them individualy as with campusing and so. Its also far easier to track and develop those weaknesses into strengths as a result.

When a person falls off a problem you can't be enitrely sure why.. it could be a number of influences or a combination of a few. 'that imo makes discovering true weaknesses a difficult task.

Perhaps that more direct aproach would gave greater rewards than you may think at first look?.

Do you think on the whole a person realy needs to spend LOTS of time on technique?. IMO technique is the first thing to go into deminishing returns (lets not confuse technique with route spacific problem solving). Again IMO i think physical condition of all things climbing related takes far longer to see deminished returns. You may actualy have not been far off with your 2:1 ratio.


(This post was edited by ceebo on Apr 10, 2012, 4:35 PM)


bearbreeder


Apr 10, 2012, 4:34 PM
Post #46 of 103 (1936 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 1, 2009
Posts: 1960

Re: [ShannonT] Woman climbers, arm strength [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

ignore all the usual RC banter ....

it all depends what you call "climbing" ... there is plenty of climbing that is not your usual gym overhung big holds routes ...

just go to anywhere that has difficult less than overhanging terrain .... squamish for example .. and youll find that footwork is what pays dividends here ...

there are other places that do require a bit more upper body strength ... but then its quite hilarious when some hawt yung gurl can outclimb me on those type of terrains regardless of how little arm strength they have ... they simply have better technique

when was the last time you had to do a pull up on a slab, or a less than vertical crack? ... hmmmmm

now finger strength ... that does matter ....

Wink


ceebo


Apr 10, 2012, 4:40 PM
Post #47 of 103 (1930 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 8, 2009
Posts: 862

Re: [bearbreeder] Woman climbers, arm strength [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

bearbreeder wrote:
ignore all the usual RC banter ....

it all depends what you call "climbing" ... there is plenty of climbing that is not your usual gym overhung big holds routes ...

just go to anywhere that has difficult less than overhanging terrain .... squamish for example .. and youll find that footwork is what pays dividends here ...

there are other places that do require a bit more upper body strength ... but then its quite hilarious when some hawt yung gurl can outclimb me on those type of terrains regardless of how little arm strength they have ... they simply have better technique

when was the last time you had to do a pull up on a slab, or a less than vertical crack? ... hmmmmm

now finger strength ... that does matter ....

Wink

I call all sorts of climbing.. climbing. Do you intend to come across as though one style (probably the style you do) is better than the other?.

What if she wans to climb over hangs?.. and i can show you plenty of overhangs that have not a wif of a jug.. and also require good footwork.

I tend to think that hawt chick not only has better technique than you.. but she is also stronger than you. Do you find it difficult to accept a women is stronger than you?.


redlude97


Apr 10, 2012, 4:44 PM
Post #48 of 103 (1929 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 988

Re: [ceebo] Woman climbers, arm strength [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

ceebo wrote:
redlude97 wrote:
Now take 2 beginner climbers with the same strength, have one train in the climbing gym 3 days a week, and have the other climb 1 day a week, and devote the other 2 days to pullups. Which one do you think will be the better climber after a month?

You have set conditions where their is only one winner.. so why bother?.

Even it up a bit, the guy would also introduce other forms of training when able. Hang boards, campusing and all the rest of it ( ofc im talking greater duration than 1 month). How can you say for sure the ''just climb'' guy takes all?. Has this been tested?. I would apreciate some links to actual experiments of this because it genuinely interests me.

An interesting thought, the guy doing 1 day per week seperates the enviroment he learns technique in to the enviroment he gains physical condition in.

As a training plan i think that means something. He can look at the climbing and fully focus that time on pure technique learning and consoldation (until the point it deminishes and he can spend timefully projecting and grade pushing). He can use the campusing etc to focus on physical weaknesses.. its very very easy to determin a physical weakness when you focus them individualy as with campusing and so. Its also far easier to track and develop those weaknesses into strengths as a result.

When a person falls off a problem you can't be enitrely sure why.. it could be a number of influences or a combination of a few. 'that imo makes discovering true weaknesses a difficult task.

Perhaps that more direct aproach would gave greater rewards than you may think at first look?.

Do you think on the whole a person realy needs to spend LOTS of time on technique?. IMO technique is the first thing to go into deminishing returns (lets not confuse technique with route spacific problem solving). Again IMO i think physical condition of all things climbing related takes far longer to see deminished returns. You may actualy have not been far off with your 2:1 ratio.
You realize you are posting in the beginners forum right? Yes a beginner needs to focus solely on technique, the strength can come later, whereas focusing on strength too early leads to ingraining poor technique the majority of the time. most people are susceptible to it.


bearbreeder


Apr 10, 2012, 4:54 PM
Post #49 of 103 (1919 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 1, 2009
Posts: 1960

Re: [ceebo] Woman climbers, arm strength [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

ceebo wrote:
I call all sorts of climbing.. climbing. Do you intend to come across as though one style (probably the style you do) is better than the other?.

What if she wans to climb over hangs?.. and i can show you plenty of overhangs that have not a wif of a jug.. and also require good footwork.

I tend to think that hawt chick not only has better technique than you.. but she is also stronger than you. Do you find it difficult to accept a women is stronger than you?.

blah blah blah blah blah blah ....

i can definitely do more "pull ups" than than many chicks who can outclimb me easily ... and more push ups, arm curls, and campus jugs ...

it doesnt matter .... their technique is simply better than mine ...

the best way to gain dividends fast and avoid injury is to work on yr technique when starting out ... at a certain point extra training in certain areas may help you ... but not for a new climber fresh in the gym

as to "better" climbing .. thats yr own words ... the idea that you need arm strength or pull ups for ALL climbing is simply not true ... try some slab sometime

or just go out and climb instead of keyboard commandoing ... i just got back from a 4 day trip so im having some old fashion RC fun on my rest day before i head back out

Tongue


redlude97


Apr 10, 2012, 4:56 PM
Post #50 of 103 (1914 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 988

Re: [bearbreeder] Woman climbers, arm strength [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

bearbreeder wrote:
ceebo wrote:
I call all sorts of climbing.. climbing. Do you intend to come across as though one style (probably the style you do) is better than the other?.

What if she wans to climb over hangs?.. and i can show you plenty of overhangs that have not a wif of a jug.. and also require good footwork.

I tend to think that hawt chick not only has better technique than you.. but she is also stronger than you. Do you find it difficult to accept a women is stronger than you?.

blah blah blah blah blah blah ....

i can definitely do more "pull ups" than than many chicks who can outclimb me easily ... and more push ups, arm curls, and campus jugs ...

it doesnt matter .... their technique is simply better than mine ...

the best way to gain dividends fast and avoid injury is to work on yr technique when starting out ... at a certain point extra training in certain areas may help you ... but not for a new climber fresh in the gym

as to "better" climbing .. thats yr own words ... the idea that you need arm strength or pull ups for ALL climbing is simply not true ... try some slab sometime

or just go out and climb instead of keyboard commandoing ... i just got back from a 4 day trip so im having some old fashion RC fun on my rest day before i head back out

Tongue
The world is about to end, I actually agree with bearbreeder

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Climbing Information : Beginners

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?
$233.96 (10% off)
$13.46 (10% off)
$14.58 (10% off)
$7.65 (10% off)



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook