Forums: Climbing Information: Technique & Training:
The effect of weight
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for Technique & Training

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All


ceebo


Jul 19, 2010, 2:31 PM
Post #1 of 35 (4969 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 8, 2009
Posts: 862

The effect of weight
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I have been doing deadhangs alot on rungs, I was doing like 25 seconds perisitently so i figured it was no longer of benifit and decided to add wieght, since i had no smaller rungs to use.

I added 2 stone wieght, perhaps slightly arogent.. but it was still a shock to see that my dead hang was cut to one fith of the time at 5 seconds a shot.

I weigh around 9 and a half stone, and im arguable slightly underweight.. so really, i wasnt at a rediculess level with the added weight.

So yeah, just thought id share that with people who are ''overwieght'', not ment as an insult but just some encouragement that if your trying to lose weight, the benifits on your climbing are going to be huge.


dugl33


Jul 19, 2010, 3:03 PM
Post #2 of 35 (4953 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 6, 2009
Posts: 740

Re: [ceebo] The effect of weight [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (6 ratings)  
Can't Post

Sure, 9 and a half stone, but how many hands high are you?


onceahardman


Jul 19, 2010, 3:26 PM
Post #3 of 35 (4932 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2473

Re: [ceebo] The effect of weight [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

If what you want to do is increase your ability to do deadhangs with lots of extra weight, you are proceeding in exactly the right way.

I really hate being the spelling/grammar police, as I make typos frequently, but the poor spelling in your post was quite distracting.


ceebo


Jul 19, 2010, 5:43 PM
Post #4 of 35 (4880 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 8, 2009
Posts: 862

Re: [onceahardman] The effect of weight [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

onceahardman wrote:
If what you want to do is increase your ability to do deadhangs with lots of extra weight, you are proceeding in exactly the right way.

I really hate being the spelling/grammar police, as I make typos frequently, but the poor spelling in your post was quite distracting.


This is nothing to do with the topic. I dont really know what your trying to get at.. having stronger fingers means i am more at ease. A 1.1 car doing 100 mile an hour is reving its tits off... while a 5.0 is just cruising. Its the exact same princible with finger strength and unless you can link me multiple sources saying its completely useless then ill continue to do it, along with campusing. Every none climbing training articles ive ever read allways bring up dead hangs follwed by weighted hangs and campusing, i just dont see how all those are wrong. Especially when some are written by well known climbers.

As for the spelling, sure.


(This post was edited by ceebo on Jul 19, 2010, 5:45 PM)


patto


Jul 19, 2010, 5:49 PM
Post #5 of 35 (4867 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2005
Posts: 1451

Re: [dugl33] The effect of weight [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (6 ratings)  
Can't Post

dugl33 wrote:
Sure, 9 and a half stone, but how many hands high are you?

You make fun of people using weights in stone yet you probably use the antiquated pound weight yourself. Crazy

The US is so far from a sensible measurement system that you probably don't get the irony.


davidnn5


Jul 19, 2010, 6:20 PM
Post #6 of 35 (4846 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 7, 2009
Posts: 348

Re: [ceebo] The effect of weight [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

ceebo wrote:
onceahardman wrote:
If what you want to do is increase your ability to do deadhangs with lots of extra weight, you are proceeding in exactly the right way.

I really hate being the spelling/grammar police, as I make typos frequently, but the poor spelling in your post was quite distracting.


This is nothing to do with the topic. I dont really know what your trying to get at.. having stronger fingers means i am more at ease. A 1.1 car doing 100 mile an hour is reving its tits off... while a 5.0 is just cruising. Its the exact same princible with finger strength and unless you can link me multiple sources saying its completely useless then ill continue to do it, along with campusing. Every none climbing training articles ive ever read allways bring up dead hangs follwed by weighted hangs and campusing, i just dont see how all those are wrong. Especially when some are written by well known climbers.

As for the spelling, sure.

The question is why you wouldn't train finger strength on hard crimpy climbs/boulder problems? You might learn some footwork and body positioning while you're at it.


dugl33


Jul 19, 2010, 11:43 PM
Post #7 of 35 (4766 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 6, 2009
Posts: 740

Re: [patto] The effect of weight [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

patto wrote:
dugl33 wrote:
Sure, 9 and a half stone, but how many hands high are you?

You make fun of people using weights in stone yet you probably use the antiquated pound weight yourself. Crazy

The US is so far from a sensible measurement system that you probably don't get the irony.

I'm not implying the OP is a hobbit. I would be curious to know from what shire he hails, though.


Toast_in_the_Machine


Jul 20, 2010, 4:27 AM
Post #8 of 35 (4726 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

Re: [patto] The effect of weight [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

patto wrote:
dugl33 wrote:
Sure, 9 and a half stone, but how many hands high are you?

You make fun of people using weights in stone yet you probably use the antiquated pound weight yourself. Crazy

The US is so far from a sensible measurement system that you probably don't get the irony.

Go to Ell




























If you didn't get that:



bill413


Jul 20, 2010, 5:56 AM
Post #9 of 35 (4699 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 19, 2004
Posts: 5674

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] The effect of weight [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

(Toast - great illustration)

To the OP: so you were surprised that a roughly 20% increase in your weight caused a decrease in hanging ability?
Too much, too fast.


ceebo


Jul 20, 2010, 6:24 AM
Post #10 of 35 (4677 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 8, 2009
Posts: 862

Re: [ceebo] The effect of weight [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (8 ratings)  
Can't Post

I never seen such a bunch of wankers with their heads so far up their own arse.

All your idiots do is look for opertunitys to try and prove people wrong and prove your ''the best'' and most informed climber. Or maybe you just enjoy trying to degrade somebody who had good intentions towards helping people?.

So yeah take this post and make up more of your fucking childish insults that have fuck all to do with anything than flexing your pathetic ego.


charliesmall


Jul 20, 2010, 6:54 AM
Post #11 of 35 (4653 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 1, 2010
Posts: 13

Re: [ceebo] The effect of weight [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I think your finding is really interesting.

I once attended a session where a bunch of high level female boulderers had their pull up, lock off, campusing ability etc tested. Then we had a session trying a load of hard boulder problems.

It was interesting to find that the girl that was the best at the tests in the first session (she could easily do most of the tests) actually did the worst when it came to doing the problems. So just remember not to neglect actual climbing and make sure you have good technique otherwise it's a bit of a waste.


Gmburns2000


Jul 20, 2010, 7:06 AM
Post #12 of 35 (4641 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15168

Re: [charliesmall] The effect of weight [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

charliesmall wrote:
I think your finding is really interesting.

I once attended a session where a bunch of high level female boulderers had their pull up, lock off, campusing ability etc tested. Then we had a session trying a load of hard boulder problems.

It was interesting to find that the girl that was the best at the tests in the first session (she could easily do most of the tests) actually did the worst when it came to doing the problems. So just remember not to neglect actual climbing and make sure you have good technique otherwise it's a bit of a waste.

just curious, if she hadn't done the testing beforehand would she have still been the worst boulderer? Just wondering if she excelled at the tests because she tried the hardest and, thus, burned herself out.


charliesmall


Jul 20, 2010, 7:10 AM
Post #13 of 35 (4631 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 1, 2010
Posts: 13

Re: [Gmburns2000] The effect of weight [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I thought about that as I was writing it but having climbed with her at other times it didn't seem like she had tired herself out in the first session. I think she just trained so much by campusing that she was really good at it so it didn't tire her out- she made it look easy.

She performed poorly on problems where there was a side pull or pinches, anything that didn't involve simply pulling down. I think she had just been so focused on campusing that she had neglected the other skills needed.


Toast_in_the_Machine


Jul 20, 2010, 7:16 AM
Post #14 of 35 (4623 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

Re: [ceebo] The effect of weight [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

ceebo wrote:
I never seen such a bunch of wankers with their heads so far up their own arse.

All your idiots do is look for opertunitys to try and prove people wrong and prove your ''the best'' and most informed climber. Or maybe you just enjoy trying to degrade somebody who had good intentions towards helping people?.

So yeah take this post and make up more of your fucking childish insults that have fuck all to do with anything than flexing your pathetic ego.

Let me see if I get your point. The OP was a statement that if you gain 20% additional weight it will be harder to do deadhangs and by proxy harder to climb.

We had some side comments on units of measure and two posts indicating that deadhangs with excessive weight may not be the best training technique.

And then you post this gem in reply to yourself.

What responses were you expecting? Were you thinking that someone would say:

Thanks mate, I'm fat, just a little plump, but by looking at your insight, I realized that the one thing I need to do is shed the shed. So I quit eating my full english and have realized that for each stone I shed I have gained two grades. Your insite has not just changed my climbing, it has changed my life.

Seriosly - what did you expect?


ceebo


Jul 20, 2010, 3:50 PM
Post #15 of 35 (4542 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 8, 2009
Posts: 862

Re: [charliesmall] The effect of weight [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

charliesmall wrote:
I think your finding is really interesting.

I once attended a session where a bunch of high level female boulderers had their pull up, lock off, campusing ability etc tested. Then we had a session trying a load of hard boulder problems.

It was interesting to find that the girl that was the best at the tests in the first session (she could easily do most of the tests) actually did the worst when it came to doing the problems. So just remember not to neglect actual climbing and make sure you have good technique otherwise it's a bit of a waste.

I dont really understand how a high level climber would be so bad in technique?, besides that their are many diffrent types of routes out their as you know. Maybe the routes was more suited to the other climbers.

Besides that, to defend campus and deadhang training... The only logical thing ive been able to think of is that ''technique'' itself can only get you so far, As the routes get harder and harder the technique becomes manditory. After that it gets to the point where technique has less and less effect on climbing. For example a 7a ''could'' be climbed with 30% being manditory technique and the other 70% owed to pure physical ability. Both are needed to climb the route and you probably could not complete the route from physical ability alone, unless your climbing so much harder than that.

Then you have a 9a, even if your technique is perfect it will only cator for 10% of the climb (another example number), the other 90% has to be raw physical ability.

The only reason i came to that theory was from trying a 8a (far out of my current ability though). That said i did actually know what i was suppose to do.. i got a few of the first moves done and i was using the correct technique for those moves. So the only conclusion i could come up with was that i had the technique but not the physical ability to do the route.

Theirs obviusly a limit to how much technique will reduce the physicall toll when climbing.. and once at that point only strength power and endurence will get you any further up the grades, in my opinion. It would be interesting (if any of this is even true) if it is actually possible to pin that exact point to a spacific grade/s? that would be assuming we are all robots who climb exactly the same.

- sorry i got a bit carried away their, alot of bad spelling no doupt. Anyway this topic was with nothing more than good intentions, i was kinde happy with the weighted deadhang finding, just because it opend my eyes to know that people trying to lose weight are going to get big rewards for it. Kinde strugle to see why most of you can be so negitive about it?.


(This post was edited by ceebo on Jul 20, 2010, 3:58 PM)


petsfed


Jul 20, 2010, 4:15 PM
Post #16 of 35 (4526 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 8589

Re: [ceebo] The effect of weight [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 dont really understand how a high level climber would be so bad in technique?, besides that their are many diffrent types of routes out their as you know. Maybe the routes was more suited to the other climbers.

Technique is a fancy way of saying "climbing efficiently". So even if you're on some sick-hard route where you have to be wicked strong to succeed, if you lack good technique, you'll have to be even stronger. Taken to its logical extreme, the hardest routes will be done by those who are both stronger and more efficient than any one else.

Weighted dead-hangs, while great for increasing the time you can spend hanging, are not nearly as useful as making the hold more difficult. If you can hang on all of the holds on your hangboard for 25 seconds, then take some sandpaper and remove all of the texture. Find a hangboard with worse holds. Unless you are training to climb with a pack, there's really no situation where adding weight to a dead-hang situation will really benefit you more than simply getting on harder holds.


Rufsen


Jul 21, 2010, 2:50 AM
Post #17 of 35 (4448 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 8, 2008
Posts: 126

Re: [ceebo] The effect of weight [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

ceebo wrote:
Theirs obviusly a limit to how much technique will reduce the physicall toll when climbing.. and once at that point only strength power and endurence will get you any further up the grades, in my opinion. It would be interesting (if any of this is even true) if it is actually possible to pin that exact point to a spacific grade/s? that would be assuming we are all robots who climb exactly the same.

I dont know. I recently did an 7C (V9?) where the crux was to use a terrible smear to press against some poor sidepull-slopers. And this was actually a steep and powerful boulder, not a so called technical problem. So i have no problem seeing that a problem could be made harder by having smaller footholds, more dynamic reaches or moves that are more off-balance.

So your idea might be correct, but it's kind of a moot point since 99,9% of us will never climb that hard anyway.


ceebo


Jul 21, 2010, 10:23 AM
Post #18 of 35 (4381 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 8, 2009
Posts: 862

Re: [Rufsen] The effect of weight [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Rufsen wrote:
ceebo wrote:
Theirs obviusly a limit to how much technique will reduce the physicall toll when climbing.. and once at that point only strength power and endurence will get you any further up the grades, in my opinion. It would be interesting (if any of this is even true) if it is actually possible to pin that exact point to a spacific grade/s? that would be assuming we are all robots who climb exactly the same.

I dont know. I recently did an 7C (V9?) where the crux was to use a terrible smear to press against some poor sidepull-slopers. And this was actually a steep and powerful boulder, not a so called technical problem. So i have no problem seeing that a problem could be made harder by having smaller footholds, more dynamic reaches or moves that are more off-balance.

So your idea might be correct, but it's kind of a moot point since 99,9% of us will never climb that hard anyway.

Might be a bit of a stereo type here, but i have read a hell of alot of articles and watched loads of youtube vids and so on. I get a feeling that the general attitude of climbers is to hammer technique technique technique. Ok technique is importent, but climbing is a physical thing.. so ultimately imo, your physical condition is going to dictate how far you get, and your level of technique will only supliment that.

In the end, if your physical ability does not allow you to hold onto the wall, then you cannot take advantedge of your traind technique.. and that would applie to any grade or any standard of climber, so looking at it like that it effects all of us. Not trying to make out as if im some kinde pro here, just saying how i htink of climbing.

Btw, how long have you climbed for? any tips to get onto 8a leading?.


(This post was edited by ceebo on Jul 21, 2010, 10:25 AM)


kaizen


Jul 21, 2010, 10:58 AM
Post #19 of 35 (4346 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 17, 2009
Posts: 154

Re: [ceebo] The effect of weight [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

On a high-level, I agree with you. But I think you are missing the point as to why so many are arguing with you. I realize the below is very vague, but I don't think a detailed description is needed.

The reason you see so much focus on technique, especially in the first few years, is simple. You will get stronger when you are working on efficiency and skills. If you just focus on strength, you will only get stronger. Couple that idea with the fact that tendons take a long time to strengthen, and generally the most efficient way to improve the grades you climb (particularly in the beginning stages of your career) is to focus on technique. And one of the best ways to improve your technique is to just climb more frequently and with more purpose.

I swear that lots of people care more about climbing harder grades than they do actually climbing. A perfect example from a few nights ago at a gym, from a guy whose been climbing about a year talking to a coach

n00b: I really want to work on my lock offs, especially on slopers and crimps. Do you think that practicing locking off on the hangboard would help (as he does this at a 90 degree lock off on the hangboard).
Coach: It will only help you lock off at that particular angle. Since a majority of the time you won't be locking off at 90 degrees, you would need to practice at every angle. Your better off climbing sloping and crimpy routes and locking off while you're on them, than using the hangboard.
n00b: So you're saying the best way to improve my lock offs is to do them while climbing?
Coach: yes.
n00b: That fucking sucks, how lame.

(The only sentence I remember word for word was the last one).


Point is, technique and strength are fairly equal components needed to redpoint a majority of routes. If you're not a climbing bum or sponsored, why not use your free time efficiently?


onceahardman


Jul 21, 2010, 3:54 PM
Post #20 of 35 (4287 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2473

Re: [ceebo] The effect of weight [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

ceebo, I didn't mean to come off as a jackass. In truth, I'm a big proponent of doing general strength training in addition to sport-specific training. I am of the opinion that strength training is likely to limit injury, thereby increasing the number of days of sport-specific training one is able to accomplish.

If you aren't injured, you can climb more. And get better at climbing.

The concept of specificity of exercise has a long, well-researched history. Training weighted hangs will increase your strength, but this may not directly result in improved climbing. For example, you just might have so much confidence in your crazy-strong grip that you fail to use good footwork.

Anyway, this:

In reply to:
6. The Principle of Specificity
The Specificity Principle simply states that exercising a certain body part or component of the body primarily develops that part. The Principle of Specificity implies that, to become better at a particular exercise or skill, you must perform that exercise or skill. A runner should train by running, a swimmer by swimming and a cyclist by cycling. While it's helpful to have a good base of fitness and to do general conditioning routines, if you want to be better at your sport, you need to train specifically for that sport.

Many coaches and trainers will add additional guidelines and principles to this list. However, these six basics are the cornerstones of all other effective training methods. These cover all major aspects of a solid foundation of athletic training.

Designing a program that adheres to all of these guidelines can be challenging, so it's not a surprise that many athletes turn to a coach or trainer for help with the details so they can focus on the workouts.

Learn more

Is from here:

http://sportsmedicine.about.com/...ing/a/Ex-Science.htm


Rufsen


Jul 21, 2010, 3:54 PM
Post #21 of 35 (4286 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 8, 2008
Posts: 126

Re: [ceebo] The effect of weight [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

ceebo wrote:
Rufsen wrote:
ceebo wrote:
Theirs obviusly a limit to how much technique will reduce the physicall toll when climbing.. and once at that point only strength power and endurence will get you any further up the grades, in my opinion. It would be interesting (if any of this is even true) if it is actually possible to pin that exact point to a spacific grade/s? that would be assuming we are all robots who climb exactly the same.

I dont know. I recently did an 7C (V9?) where the crux was to use a terrible smear to press against some poor sidepull-slopers. And this was actually a steep and powerful boulder, not a so called technical problem. So i have no problem seeing that a problem could be made harder by having smaller footholds, more dynamic reaches or moves that are more off-balance.

So your idea might be correct, but it's kind of a moot point since 99,9% of us will never climb that hard anyway.

Might be a bit of a stereo type here, but i have read a hell of alot of articles and watched loads of youtube vids and so on. I get a feeling that the general attitude of climbers is to hammer technique technique technique. Ok technique is importent, but climbing is a physical thing.. so ultimately imo, your physical condition is going to dictate how far you get, and your level of technique will only supliment that.

In the end, if your physical ability does not allow you to hold onto the wall, then you cannot take advantedge of your traind technique.. and that would applie to any grade or any standard of climber, so looking at it like that it effects all of us. Not trying to make out as if im some kinde pro here, just saying how i htink of climbing.

Btw, how long have you climbed for? any tips to get onto 8a leading?.

Sure physical strength is a factor, nobody is denying that. Im just trying to point out a couple of things here.

It's hard to seperate between strength and techique in climbing. Lets say you have two climbers who cannot hang onto a small crimp on a boulder, one decides to train deadhangs and the other learns to put more weight on his feet. When they are able to use the crimp they both appear to be stronger, but only one of them is actually stronger in the way you describe strength.

Also the second climber can now use his new skills on slopers, pockets and cracks if he feels like it.

Been climbing for about 10 years now, i actually havent climbed anything harder than 7c. It's a bit embarrassing considering how hard i'we been bouldering the last couple of years.

As far as advice goes, just climb a lot. In the end it will pay off more than campusing or deadhanging.


onceahardman


Jul 21, 2010, 4:07 PM
Post #22 of 35 (4275 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2473

Re: [davidnn5] The effect of weight [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

By the way, is there anyone out there (who has been climbing at least 5 or so years) who hasn't seen a hard (5.12+) gym climber out at the crag, trying desperately to find face holds to avoid jamming a simple 5.9 handcrack?

Super strong at crimping, super weak at other valuable techniques?


davidnn5


Jul 21, 2010, 4:09 PM
Post #23 of 35 (4271 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 7, 2009
Posts: 348

Re: [onceahardman] The effect of weight [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

Or for that matter, jumping on a slab for the first time and looking ready to cry...


silascl


Jul 21, 2010, 5:24 PM
Post #24 of 35 (4250 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 14, 2006
Posts: 225

Re: [onceahardman] The effect of weight [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

By the way, is there anyone out there (who has been climbing at least 5 or so years) who hasn't seen a hard (5.9+) trad climber inside at the gym, trying desperately to find slab climbs to avoid climbing a simple 5.10d jug haul?

Super strong at smearing, super weak at other valuable techniques?


Colinhoglund


Jul 21, 2010, 6:00 PM
Post #25 of 35 (4231 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 4, 2008
Posts: 338

Re: [silascl] The effect of weight [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

Once and Dave, I have to agree. I am by no means a great climber in the grand scheme of things, but imo technique rules. I have easily stemmed/jammed/sidepulled my way up stuff that stronger climbers have hauled them selves up on pure power alone. It's always funny to see the look on the face of someone who climbs a grade or more harder, when I cruise what they grunted through when it was below their grade.
Silascl, I may never be strong enough to climb 5.X, but I take pride in that I can climb 5.z consistently. In my books I'm more proud of that then what my hardest climbs are. Not an attack, just my 2 worth.

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Climbing Information : Technique & Training

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook