|
|
|
|
fracture
Aug 11, 2005, 11:54 PM
Post #1 of 31
(4658 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In a lot of sports (or games), people tend to talk about certain "fundamentals"---just important things to do properly or keep in mind. In Golf, for example, people talk about the fundamentals of grip, backswing, stance, etc. In chess people talk about things like controlling the center, pawn structure or basic tactical elements (forks, skewers, etc) in a similar sense.
What's the analog for climbing? I don't mean "tie your knot properly"---I'm talking about the actual climbing movement.
Here's an attempted first stab at things I've found to be of principal importance in my (limited) experience. Maybe some of the gurus of the technique and training forum can add their own thoughts and comments.... (Some of this may be a little biased towards what is important on steep climbing).
[*:40f7dfe348] Dynamic Movement
It's simply way more efficient to move dynamically than statically. I'm not only talking about big dynamic moves (like dynos and deadpoints), but also just moving fluidly and using momentum to do moves you could have done static.
This thread has some interesting comments on the topic. Including a nice quotable from fluxus (hopefully he doesn't mind): "99% of all lock offs are un-necessary because of our ability to move dynamically or with momentum".
[*:40f7dfe348] Twisting
Anyone who's climbed overhangs realizes that, when possible, twisting into reaches often makes it way easier, and lets you get more push from your feat. This generic concept really is the heart of several specific techniques like backsteps, drop-knees, and even rose moves.
[*:40f7dfe348] Pacing
How fast should you do a sequence of moves? As holds get smaller and moves get harder, I generally try to move as fast as I can without throwing off my accuracy. This tends to leave me less pumped on the other side of the crux. It makes sense: if you have to make three hard bumps off of the same bad hold, you'll obviously be less tired from it if it takes you half a second than if it takes you a second and a half.
In this same category, when holds get bigger or the rock gets less steep, slowing down (and shaking arms alternatively) seems to yield better results.
I know pacing is important, but it's a subtle topic and I feel like I barely understand the surface of it; it's pretty hard to tell sometimes how fast one should be doing a sequence. Maybe someone else can comment on this more.
[*:40f7dfe348] Commitment
This may or may not really fit (since one could argue it's all in your head), but it certainly seems fundamental to me.
Climbing timid doesn't work very well. This goes hand in hand with "dynamic movement".
That's all I can come up with now. Anyone else?
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 12, 2005, 12:59 AM
Post #2 of 31
(4658 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
Nice post--I gave it a trophy.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Aug 12, 2005, 5:30 AM
Post #3 of 31
(4658 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
nice post.
i just dont agree with the dynamic part. yes, sometimes is more efficient to do dynamic moves, but often its not and sometimes its even impossible. the difference is that a dynamic move uses a relatively high workload for a short periond of time and the static uses a lower workload for a longer period. you cant really dyno off a tiny ledge that already slipping when youre just hanging from it :wink: but i do agree with the momentum thingy. thats very important.
its also good that you touched commitment. that an important aspect of climbing. maybe even the most important.
|
|
|
|
|
fluxus
Aug 19, 2005, 6:19 AM
Post #4 of 31
(4658 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2003
Posts: 947
|
Very good post. (no, I'm not just saying that because you quoted me.)
It got me thinking about how to define the fundamental challenges of climbing, is it better to look at the characteristics of climbing movement or the body's response to it, for example in terms of the cognitive or physiological demands of climbing? It seemed like a bit of a dead end but I would add that the ability to make high quality contact with hand and foot holds is an essential element of climbing performance. In addition, I am fascinated by the motor processing of new climbers and experienced climbers in a situation they are not familar with. I suspect there is a lot to be learned by examining these issues. Even though I don't have a good lable for it, the early and radical adjustemts that occur in motor processing strike me as essential.
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Aug 21, 2005, 12:20 PM
Post #5 of 31
(4658 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
that is true. i have found out that i have much better hand-eye coordination than my non climbing buddies. not to mention my foot-eye coordination. some of my buddies have problems, say, walking on stones across a river and i can usually run the thing.
|
|
|
|
|
robo555
Aug 22, 2005, 12:21 AM
Post #6 of 31
(4658 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2005
Posts: 98
|
In reply to: some of my buddies have problems, say, walking on stones across a river and i can usually run the thing.
I find running on stones is easier 'cos if you're about to fall over, you can just run to the next stone.
|
|
|
|
|
hosh
Aug 22, 2005, 12:29 AM
Post #7 of 31
(4658 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 15, 2003
Posts: 1662
|
interesting idea for a thread. I'd like to see how it developes...
hosh.
|
|
|
|
|
musicman
Aug 22, 2005, 12:42 AM
Post #8 of 31
(4658 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 16, 2004
Posts: 828
|
In reply to: In reply to: some of my buddies have problems, say, walking on stones across a river and i can usually run the thing. I find running on stones is easier 'cos if you're about to fall over, you can just run to the next stone.
While carrying heavy backpacks on trips i've noticed that if i run real fast across the stones if i fall i'll generally have enough momentum to land flat on my face on the opposite bank, as opposed to landing flat on my face in the water and getting wet :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Aug 22, 2005, 6:24 PM
Post #9 of 31
(4658 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
thats another benefit of running i guess :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Aug 22, 2005, 6:30 PM
Post #10 of 31
(4658 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
Maybe add in 'quiet feet?'
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
bill413
Aug 22, 2005, 6:49 PM
Post #12 of 31
(4658 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 19, 2004
Posts: 5674
|
I agree with commitment being an important fundamental. If you're not willing to commit, you're not going to be able to move off of holds that are OK onto holds that aren't (or don't look) so good...and you certainly aren't going to be able to throw dynos, nor maintain your rhythm.
Along with commitment, or another aspect of it, is trust. I think that gets overlooked because those who have been climbing for a while tend to have it, but it really is fundamental to being able to do this sport - knowing that your partner & the system will catch you when you need it.
|
|
|
|
|
bill413
Aug 22, 2005, 6:50 PM
Post #13 of 31
(4658 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 19, 2004
Posts: 5674
|
Fundamental: BALANCE
Awareness of where your body is in relation to where gravity wants to take it.
|
|
|
|
|
mattamatta
Aug 22, 2005, 8:03 PM
Post #14 of 31
(4658 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 20, 2005
Posts: 65
|
That's a great link.
|
|
|
|
|
fluxus
Aug 23, 2005, 8:24 PM
Post #15 of 31
(4658 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2003
Posts: 947
|
That's a scary link. I didn't look at all the "principles" but the first 4 or 5 are incorrect. The author does not understand mechanics or balance in climbing, so the principles end up being a very strange description of balance in face climbing. I would say they are NOT examples of the fundamentals of climbing.
|
|
|
|
|
jbak
Aug 24, 2005, 7:42 PM
Post #16 of 31
(4658 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2003
Posts: 63
|
In reply to: That's a scary link. I didn't look at all the "principles" but the first 4 or 5 are incorrect. The author does not understand mechanics or balance in climbing, so the principles end up being a very strange description of balance in face climbing. I would say they are NOT examples of the fundamentals of climbing.
Really ? Wow. Most people I teach think they're pretty helpful. Oh well I've only been climbing a little while, so it's no surprise I got it all wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Aug 24, 2005, 8:00 PM
Post #17 of 31
(4658 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
In reply to: In reply to: That's a scary link. I didn't look at all the "principles" but the first 4 or 5 are incorrect. The author does not understand mechanics or balance in climbing, so the principles end up being a very strange description of balance in face climbing. I would say they are NOT examples of the fundamentals of climbing. Really ? Wow. Most people I teach think they're pretty helpful. Oh well I've only been climbing a little while, so it's no surprise I got it all wrong.
if youve only been climbing a little while, why are you teachin other people.
just because flagging got him through one move, it doesnt make it an all-in-wonder-you-can-pull-on-anything move :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
mtnbkrxtrordnair
Aug 24, 2005, 8:08 PM
Post #18 of 31
(4658 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2003
Posts: 267
|
In reply to: What's the analog for climbing? I don't mean "tie your knot properly"---I'm talking about the actual climbing movement.
I think footwork is what you are looking for. Steep or thin, proper footwork will get you there more than anything else.
Footwork
Did I mention footwork?
Feets don't fail me now!!
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Aug 24, 2005, 8:13 PM
Post #19 of 31
(4658 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: if youve only been climbing a little while, why are you teachin other people.
He meant 'only a little while' in dog years. Old climbers, like old dogs, age at rates different than normal humans. We can pack 7 years of living into 1 year at the crags. So his 30 years of human climbing, is only, what, ~4?
And who is that beta-sprayer Bob Murray THINK HE IS ANYWAY??? Some sort of bouldering god? Why is HE talking to a noob?
I don't know, I read the list because you two guys were making fun of it. Now I don't make an intense study/translation habit of movement analysis like this, but it sure seemed accurate to this noob punter too.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
fluxus
Aug 29, 2005, 5:45 AM
Post #20 of 31
(4658 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2003
Posts: 947
|
In reply to: Really ? Wow. Most people I teach think they're pretty helpful. Oh well I've only been climbing a little while, so it's no surprise I got it all wrong.
Sorry man, I don't mean to diss you. Its just that reading over the principles, they appear to be the observations of someone without a lot of experience. The important thing to keep in mind is that if we are going to seek out the "basic principles" of climbing they must catagorically be in line with the well known laws of balance and mechanics.
Anyway, if the principles on your web page are your personal observations then they are not a bad start despite being incorrect. You are trying to do something important: you are trying to look at climbing on a structural level, which is great. Engage in a serious study of bio-mechanics, use objective means to observe movement, and check what you think you see happening against established science and you will do well.
|
|
|
|
|
jbak
Aug 29, 2005, 7:18 PM
Post #21 of 31
(4658 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2003
Posts: 63
|
In reply to: In reply to: Really ? Wow. Most people I teach think they're pretty helpful. Oh well I've only been climbing a little while, so it's no surprise I got it all wrong. Sorry man, I don't mean to diss you. Its just that reading over the principles, they appear to be the observations of someone without a lot of experience. The important thing to keep in mind is that if we are going to seek out the "basic principles" of climbing they must catagorically be in line with the well known laws of balance and mechanics. Anyway, if the principles on your web page are your personal observations then they are not a bad start despite being incorrect. You are trying to do something important: you are trying to look at climbing on a structural level, which is great. Engage in a serious study of bio-mechanics, use objective means to observe movement, and check what you think you see happening against established science and you will do well.
I am laughing at you right now. "without a lot of experience" ? hahaha. I think your analytical abilities must be really weak. These principles have been reviewed by many smart, competent climbers and they have stood up.
|
|
|
|
|
fluxus
Aug 29, 2005, 8:29 PM
Post #22 of 31
(4658 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2003
Posts: 947
|
In reply to: I am laughing at you right now. "without a lot of experience" ? hahaha. I think your analytical abilities must be really weak. These principles have been reviewed by many smart, competent climbers and they have stood up.
Clearly your smart, competent climbers know little of balance or mechanics. Do some research before you get over confident. . . oops too late.
|
|
|
|
|
jbak
Aug 29, 2005, 9:03 PM
Post #23 of 31
(4658 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2003
Posts: 63
|
Stop, you're killing me. Either you know some really radical, ground-breaking stuff...OR... you are a fool. If I ever see your book I'll have to take a peek and see what I think.
|
|
|
|
|
fluxus
Aug 29, 2005, 9:26 PM
Post #24 of 31
(4658 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2003
Posts: 947
|
In reply to: Stop, you're killing me. Either you know some really radical, ground-breaking stuff...OR... you are a fool. If I ever see your book I'll have to take a peek and see what I think.
No, I don't know any "ground breaking" stuff but I do know that people with a working knowledge of kinesiology and mechanics simply do not write or speak about movement the way you do on your web page. The point is not to make this some kind of contest, I was simply trying to point out that your principles are not consistent or complete in light of well established science, and I was encouraging you to learn something about kinesiology / mechanics. so you can see where the problem lies. If thats too much for ya, oh well.
|
|
|
|
|
jbak
Aug 29, 2005, 10:45 PM
Post #25 of 31
(4658 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2003
Posts: 63
|
In reply to: I do know that people with a working knowledge of kinesiology and mechanics simply do not write or speak about movement the way you do on your web page.
And 99.9% of 'em don't know a drop-knee from a Gaston, so I'm betting the relevance of their knowledge is tangential.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
