|
racer999
Sep 9, 2006, 1:05 PM
Post #51 of 56
(5689 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 4, 2006
Posts: 11
|
My first post, so first Hello to all. I am 46 and have been climbing for 3 months so I'm a complete beginner. I am climbing pretty comfortably top rope or following 5.10a/b. I am relatively strong for my weight, and find that I can power myself through many difficult parts of a climb. Since that stops working as the climbs get harder, the thing that has really helped me is a technique that has served me well in other sports - "trying easy". Simply put, if I climb something and feel like I used more power than it needed I keep climbing it until it feels "easy" (from a power perspective) because I am using better technique.
Aaron
|
|
|
|
|
fluxus
Sep 9, 2006, 4:39 PM
Post #52 of 56
(5689 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2003
Posts: 947
|
In reply to: That's when I finally realized that technique is just as important as strength (at least until you get to 5.13s and the only thing to hold onto is the size of a button; yeah I'm not there yet).
This one slipped past me earlier. The idea that movement skills become less important at the higher leves and strength becomes more importantl is false, movement skills become MORE important the higher in the grades you go.
Why?
Because of balance: smaller holds, and steeper climbs usually result in a greater number of off-set balance moves, which is more often than not the most difficult type of balance for climbers to deal with. The margin of error is smaller, the positioning of the COG in space needs to be very percise, as must all other aspects of a climbers movement from the placement of hands and feet on the holds to the timing of the move. A climber's movement skills never stop developing as long as they keep trying hard moves and routes, the climber's brain and body need to adjust to the new more challenging context in which they attempt to move.
It's just never a good idea to think in terms of strength vs. technique as we have seen several people do in this thread, its a gross misrepresentation of what happens when climbers move.
|
|
|
|
|
nomuse
Sep 10, 2006, 9:36 PM
Post #53 of 56
(5689 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 31, 2006
Posts: 6
|
Jumping in here when I saw so many familiar stories. I'm 45 and a newbie climber...less than a year, I think, although I've been a grid monkey most of my career.
Apocryphal story on the strength...I've gone from one pull-up to five after climbing for a year (no other strength training in that time), but my grip strength is within a few pounds of that of another carpenter (and semi-pro tree climber) I know. On the other hand, I can start some of those dratted V2's now, and I didn't used to be able to crimp on to them.
But lest it seem I'm voting in on the strength side of the debate...it's technique that has solved almost every problem I've faced. I tend to climb a little too much like a guy (dynamic, campusing, skipping holds because I've got the reach to do it), but the climbers I really respect and learn the most from are those who climb gentle and deliberate.
Technique-improvement drill I like; static climbing. Make every move, but pause before you lock on it. If you can't pause and hold before making the hold, then you aren't static. It's also a tremendous workout, as you are basically climbing in slo-mo.
|
|
|
|
|
bagre_rei
Sep 12, 2006, 1:49 PM
Post #54 of 56
(5689 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2006
Posts: 22
|
In reply to: In reply to: as far as an "approach" that i feel is spot-on: i agree with E. Horst that explains everything.
To Victor999. Anyway the guy knows better about muscular preparation so, in the particular case of crimp-masters, I would follow the advice and change it for another kind of exercise that mimics better the movements you do when climbing. (Yet Iīm unable to find where Hörst advocates the use of that device :) )
My two cents (one cent?): If you
a) are seventeen and fat less
b) donīt have time issues
c) has climbed for the last seventeen years
d) any combination of the above
Then you really do not need to get any stronger and the "just climb" approach to get a better climber will serve you well. Dani Andrada rules and guess how much times he trains? Zero hour and zero minutes.
All the rest of us, even if not trying to do the mighty routes that, letīs say, Jay does, can use some form of extra strength. (Of course there are places where climbing is mostly slab, and thus the technique/strength ratio necessary to improve is higher). The form of this strength itīs the really issue.
My perception is that capillarity and power endurance (forearms) are two areas that you can train right away from the beginning. What you do not need to train in the beginning is burst.
Edited to add emoticon
|
|
|
|
|
johnny_jibba
Sep 13, 2006, 12:56 PM
Post #55 of 56
(5689 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 25, 2006
Posts: 55
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: as far as an "approach" that i feel is spot-on: i agree with E. Horst that explains everything. Ethics, someone?
Fluxus has openly disagreed with Horst's approach to training since long before his own book came out. I don't see anything even remotely resembling an ethics slip here.
|
|
|
|
|
fluxus
Sep 14, 2006, 5:18 AM
Post #56 of 56
(5689 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2003
Posts: 947
|
In reply to: Fluxus has openly disagreed with Horst's approach to training since long before his own book came out. I don't see anything even remotely resembling an ethics slip here.
True, I'm not just stirring the pot I have an honest, long standing disagreement with Eric on many issues. The ethical issue, if there is one, may be that I'm not always nice about it. Eric on the other hand would never be a punk about a disagreement. He's very good about taking the high road.
|
|
|
|
|
|
