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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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 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.

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.

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.

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

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?.