|
|
|
|
ceebo
Nov 10, 2011, 3:14 PM
Post #1 of 9
(5304 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 9, 2009
Posts: 862
|
After looking back on the hardest things i have climbed most of them share the same thing in common, vertical or moderate overhanging technical crimp climbing.
I really enjoy that style of climbing. Is it because that is what i can climb hardest in.. or is it the product of the fact that this style of climbing is what i love to do...
Recently i have been doing roof bouldering, and to be blunt it is boring. I am not great at it but put me on a 8c vert climb and I'm not great at that either.. but it does not bore me to work a hard vert climb as it does a roof climb.
The common advice is to do things you do not normally do, such as roof climbing for me. But, where is the real cross over in roof climbing to vert climbing?. Ok physically roof climbing is harder and demands more muscle condition in core etc.. but from a technique stance they are both not one in the same. That said, some simple hang board sessions would totally remove the need to do roof climbing with the goals i have.
A person who loves roof climbing, what exactly can they gain from doing vert climbing?. Physically it is arguably less demanding, and technically it is not the same. So why should they bother?. Why should they force them self to do a style of climbing that does not amuse htem in hope it will help them on a style of climbing that does?.. (and I'm not convinced the 2 styles really help each other so much anyway).
A vert flake/crack climber going to roof climbing as another example. What is his gains?.. how does spending many sessions homing in roof climbing skill help him become a better crack climber?. Further more.. while learning the needed roof skills his actual work out time from a physical perspective would be reduced as he is likely be falling off due to technical error. That unneeded learning curve of a skill he does not really need would be in put in place instead of a targeted hang board session that would show direct gains to his crack/flake style.
In all styles it appears the only thing that changes is the technical skills needed. For all those i can think of, the physical cross overs are in body parts that do not need to be as strong for their desired style.. or that can easily be gained from the likes of hang boarding that removes the need for needless skills in your desired field.
Any thoughts?. Do you think people only climb what their good at, or that they are good at it because that is what they like to climb?. Do you think being able to climb well in any style makes you a better climber for your loved style?.
|
|
|
|
|
sungam
Nov 10, 2011, 3:35 PM
Post #2 of 9
(5291 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26804
|
ceebo wrote: A vert flake/crack climb er going to roof climbing as another example.
I can think of several mostly-verticle routes that have slab to approach, a roof near the start etc. etc. If you wanna do those routes you gotta pull those pitches.
(This post was edited by sungam on Nov 10, 2011, 4:14 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
njrox
Nov 10, 2011, 3:45 PM
Post #3 of 9
(5284 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2011
Posts: 251
|
The nearest outdoor climbing for me is on slightly overhanging rock with a lot of slopers and pinches. Very pumpy. I’m not a fan, but I go because it’s there.
I prefer slabby granite/quartzite with a lot of friction. I like more technical climbing on dime-sized smears with tiny crimps. Balance and making smaller more calculated moves.
The first “style” is very physical. I realize it demands technique and efficiency but even on routes I’ve climbed dozens of times my forearms still end up getting very pumped. The overhang and the slopy nature of the holds don’t offer a lot of solid rests. I’ve gotten better, but it’s been slow.
As far as slab climbing, I think I’ve made my biggest gains here. Not only am I more comfortable, but I’ve been pushing myself on harder climbs.
I think for me it’s a preference of balance vs strength. Not discounting the amount of balance and technique needed on overhanging climbs with sloping holds. But I’ve noticed I can take my time and really think while on slab as I inch my way up. Where on a more physical route, you really have to move in order to avoid fatigue. Sort of like Chess vs Checkers.
|
|
|
|
|
DouglasHunter
Nov 10, 2011, 4:08 PM
Post #4 of 9
(5270 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2010
Posts: 106
|
ceebo wrote: The common advice is to do things you do not normally do, such as roof climbing for me. But, where is the real cross over in roof climbing to vert climbing?
A couple of things here. First, the reason that people climb different styles is because as a most basic principle of athletic development an athlete needs to have a understanding of a broad range of skills used in the activity. We don't climb roofs because we think they are training for vertical climbs, we climb both roofs and vertical climbs because these features are extremely common on boulder problems and routes.
Over its history climbing has become more and more specialized. Your question is an example of over specialization. The climber who only climbs on one angle is going to be dramatically limited in his climbing choices and skills.
There are some forms of specialization that have become part of climbing. Hard crack climbing started to become an area of specialization of climbing in the 1970s. Competition climbing and bouldering became independent branches of the climbing family tree in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Now we are seeing the emergence of climbers who really only climb indoors. This last development may not be intentional but it does seem to be happening.
|
|
|
|
|
lena_chita
Moderator
Nov 10, 2011, 4:14 PM
Post #5 of 9
(5264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 6087
|
I may be wrong, but I don't think most people compartmentalize climbing quite that strictly.
While there are routes that are purely one thing or the other, more often there is some mix.I am thinking back to the routes my partners and I climbed just this past weekend, and they had slopers, crimps, crack sections, laybacks, roofs, slabs... All in the same climbing area, on the same type of rock.
Some examples that come to mind... a classic route, Satisfaction Guaranteed at the NRG: bouldery start, continues on techy slab to a roof, with options to use some handjams right after pulling the roof to rest, and then continues with slopers on slab to finish.
Or Bicycle Club at the NRG: Pull the roof, using either a ringlock or dyno, or just plain reach, depending on personal preferences and body type, climb vertical face, and then do either a techy move on crimps, or dyno, or reach. I am short, and I suck at dynos. Until I learned how to ringlock, I could not do the move to pull the roof on Bicycle Club.
Yet nobody would ever call this route a "crack climb"-- and it is not. It just has one move where knowing how to place a ringlock, recognizing that the rock feature has that potential (or rather, being shown that it has this potential, LOL), was helpful for a short person like me.
I know that getting better at dynos would help me tremendously on quite a few routes, too, even though on this particular one I found a different way of doing the moves.
If you are strictly one-kind-of-climbing-only person, and you are sure you would not ever get on any other kind of climbs, other than your favorite kind, then sure, there is no point to train a variety of techniques. If you will only climb granite slab, and have no desire to do anything else, why would you bother to train on roofs? No point at all!
Most people I know are not like that.
My personal experience has been that climbing different styles on different types of rock in different areas ultimately increases the 'repertoire of moves' I have and makes it possible for me to climb harder on the routes of the style that i really really want to climb. Not to mention that it is fun.
|
|
|
|
|
njrox
Nov 10, 2011, 4:45 PM
Post #6 of 9
(5238 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2011
Posts: 251
|
I agree. It’s pretty silly to limit yourself to climbs with just specific features. Given the chaotic nature of rock there’s bound to be some sort of random characteristic. A clean slab with a juggy ceiling, a crimpy overhang with a vertical fist crack, etc.
I think where you get stiffed on “climbing style” is the available rock type to climb on. For example, here in NY, NJ, PA we don’t have desert sandstone.
|
|
|
|
|
tH1e-swiN1e
Nov 10, 2011, 8:59 PM
Post #7 of 9
(5165 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 28, 2011
Posts: 192
|
All climbing is awesome. Overhang/roof is definitely my favorite but I climb it all because I like it all. A climber should climb anything.
|
|
|
|
|
ceebo
Nov 11, 2011, 12:03 AM
Post #8 of 9
(5128 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 9, 2009
Posts: 862
|
Looks like omre roof climbing is in order then ;/.
|
|
|
|
|
damienclimber
Nov 11, 2011, 12:47 AM
Post #9 of 9
(5116 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2011
Posts: 313
|
tH1e-swiN1e wrote: All climbing is awesome. Overhang/roof is definitely my favorite but I climb it all because I like it all. A climber should climb anything.
Off-widths are most difficult for me.
Howwever if I climbed in Veduawoo more ,I'm sure I would improve,
I'm fond of laybacks but I like to mix it up.
One of my favorite climbs was the ultimate everything.
(This post was edited by damienclimber on Nov 11, 2011, 12:50 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
|
