UKBouldering.com

Indoor Technique (Read 19878 times)

mctrials23

Offline
  • ***
  • obsessive maniac
  • Posts: 301
  • Karma: +3/-0
#50 Re: Indoor Technique
January 09, 2015, 03:02:09 pm
I'm not sure how relevant an extra stone is to a person who is much shorter than me and when that extra stone takes them to 10.5 stone instead of 13.5 stone.

The holds don't get proportionally bigger the taller and heavier you get though the forces you have to apply with longer limbs do. There comes a point with certain types of hold and certain styles of boulder where the holds are so bad that any mechanical disadvantage or excess weight makes it magnitudes harder to make the moves.

I know that proportionally, 1 stone is more of the whole for someone who is 9.5 stone than someone who is 12.5 stone but instead of it making something a big harder, it makes it a lot lot harder.


rodma

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1621
  • Karma: +60/-3
#51 Re: Indoor Technique
January 09, 2015, 03:17:19 pm
I know that proportionally, 1 stone is more of the whole for someone who is 9.5 stone than someone who is 12.5 stone but instead of it making something a big harder, it makes it a lot lot harder.

what a shit excuse, anyone who thinks that needs to train much harder

I'm going to resort to blaming my lack of reach in future, since there is nothing i can do about that, much as you can't do anything about your limb length

I'm not sure how relevant an extra stone is to a person who is much shorter than me and when that extra stone takes them to 10.5 stone instead of 13.5 stone.

it's clearly not relevant at all, everyone knows that a shorty stone weighs less than a tally stone  :jab:

mctrials23

Offline
  • ***
  • obsessive maniac
  • Posts: 301
  • Karma: +3/-0
#52 Re: Indoor Technique
January 09, 2015, 03:23:28 pm
I don't think I explained that very well obviously as I seem to have hit a nerve so apologies. My point is that on really un-positive holds as you add more weight it doesn't become 10% harder for 10% more weight.

webbo

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5028
  • Karma: +141/-13
#53 Re: Indoor Technique
January 09, 2015, 03:46:43 pm
No it becomes harder if you can't use them.

rodma

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1621
  • Karma: +60/-3
#54 Re: Indoor Technique
January 09, 2015, 03:47:53 pm
I think you explained it fine

it just seems that you were implying that somehow an extra stone has less of an impact to a short person due to lever length, which is frankly bizarre, since a 10% increase in load, requires a 10% increase in force to perform the same basic task (like a one-armer), regardless of lever length


Dexter

Offline
  • ***
  • obsessive maniac
  • Posts: 483
  • Karma: +19/-0
#55 Re: Indoor Technique
January 09, 2015, 03:51:54 pm
I think you explained it fine

it just seems that you were implying that somehow an extra stone has less of an impact to a short person due to lever length, which is frankly bizarre, since a 10% increase in load, requires a 10% increase in force to perform the same basic task (like a one-armer), regardless of lever length

Ah but its about moments not forces, if someone has double the leverage then a 10% increase in load results in double to moment for someone with double the leverage.

SA Chris

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 29221
  • Karma: +630/-11
    • http://groups.msn.com/ChrisClix
#56 Re: Indoor Technique
January 09, 2015, 03:55:55 pm
how much of a difference?

To me this depends on steepness. I notice very little difference from an extra stone or so on anything up to 10 degrees or so, any steeper than 20 deg and my grade goes through the floor.

rodma

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1621
  • Karma: +60/-3
#57 Re: Indoor Technique
January 09, 2015, 03:58:57 pm
Ah but its about moments not forces, if someone has double the leverage then a 10% increase in load results in double to moment for someone with double the leverage.


What, the actual fuck are you on about

a 10% increase in strength/force is required by both parties, but only if they are each increasing the load by 10% in the first place.

we are not (with the exception of Nibs) machines, we all have differing attachment points that affect how strong our muscles have to be in the first place, but regardless of this, or lever length a 10% increase in load still requires a 10% increase in force

lagerstarfish

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Weapon Of Mass
  • Posts: 8810
  • Karma: +812/-10
  • "There's no cure for being a c#nt"
#58 Re: Indoor Technique
January 09, 2015, 03:59:56 pm
I know this is slightly outside the ranges being discussed, but, as I lose weight, the change in belly size/shape has quite an effect on my ability to bunch up and high step - it also makes a big difference to barn-door stuff. At one point it was noticable that I couldn't bend or bunch without making it hard to breath. Campussing stuff was fine (just took effort). even a basic drop knee seemed awkward

Currently my circumference around my gut is 39" and I shall be monitoring it as I try to drive myself down from my Xmas XXL to (hopefully) below the magic 14st mark - at which point I expect to feel like grade whoring is on the cards.

there is no point in me going on a 50 deg board

webbo

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5028
  • Karma: +141/-13
#59 Re: Indoor Technique
January 09, 2015, 04:00:34 pm
how much of a difference?

To me this depends on steepness. I notice very little difference from an extra stone or so on anything up to 10 degrees or so, any steeper than 20 deg and my grade goes through the floor.
This is despite being a Langster. :whistle:

benno

Offline
  • **
  • menacing presence
  • Posts: 191
  • Karma: +15/-0
#60 Re: Indoor Technique
January 09, 2015, 05:04:11 pm
Ah but its about moments not forces, if someone has double the leverage then a 10% increase in load results in double to moment for someone with double the leverage.


What, the actual fuck are you on about

a 10% increase in strength/force is required by both parties, but only if they are each increasing the load by 10% in the first place.

we are not (with the exception of Nibs) machines, we all have differing attachment points that affect how strong our muscles have to be in the first place, but regardless of this, or lever length a 10% increase in load still requires a 10% increase in force

I think I see what you're trying to say, but it looks to me as though you're using the wrong words. Someone with longer levers does require more force; it's the amount of work that stays the same (assuming no difference in weight).

rodma

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1621
  • Karma: +60/-3
#61 Re: Indoor Technique
January 09, 2015, 05:16:12 pm
Ah but its about moments not forces, if someone has double the leverage then a 10% increase in load results in double to moment for someone with double the leverage.


What, the actual fuck are you on about

a 10% increase in strength/force is required by both parties, but only if they are each increasing the load by 10% in the first place.

we are not (with the exception of Nibs) machines, we all have differing attachment points that affect how strong our muscles have to be in the first place, but regardless of this, or lever length a 10% increase in load still requires a 10% increase in force

I think I see what you're trying to say, but it looks to me as though you're using the wrong words. Someone with longer levers does require more force; it's the amount of work that stays the same (assuming no difference in weight).

i know that they would require more force than someone with shorter levers, my original point was that a percentage 10% increase would be just that, a 10% increase, for both parties, regardless of lever length.

the next problem with this part of the  :offtopic: discussion, would be the assumtion that the person with the longer levers attachment points are in the same place as the shorties, otherwise the force required by the muscle of the tall-arse may not actually require more force, which is why i never wanted to get in to discussing moments, etc. etc. etc. becase it's just a further deviation from the original topic

benno

Offline
  • **
  • menacing presence
  • Posts: 191
  • Karma: +15/-0
#62 Re: Indoor Technique
January 09, 2015, 05:31:05 pm
Ah yes, that makes more sense on re-reading. As you were, gents.

 :off:
... sorry, can't resist one last bit of geekery. I reckon that as climbers get taller, even if the attachment points scale proportionately, the taller climber will lose out because the load will be scaling as approximately height^3 (length to volume).

rodma

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1621
  • Karma: +60/-3
#63 Re: Indoor Technique
January 09, 2015, 05:43:46 pm
Ah yes, that makes more sense on re-reading. As you were, gents.

 :off:
... sorry, can't resist one last bit of geekery. I reckon that as climbers get taller, even if the attachment points scale proportionately, the taller climber will lose out because the load will be scaling as approximately height^3 (length to volume).
You'll have to draw me a picture for  that one

lagerstarfish

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Weapon Of Mass
  • Posts: 8810
  • Karma: +812/-10
  • "There's no cure for being a c#nt"
#64 Re: Indoor Technique
January 09, 2015, 06:01:41 pm
he means weight is proportional to volume (cubic units), whereas sizes of body parts are proportional to area (squared units) or only one dimension (length, height)

you dig?

thus it is proved that being short is sooooo much easier and God is a white male with a beard

benno

Offline
  • **
  • menacing presence
  • Posts: 191
  • Karma: +15/-0
#65 Re: Indoor Technique
January 09, 2015, 06:06:02 pm
 :agree:

I haven't read it thoroughly, but this seems like a good précis of the idea: http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/304/scaling.pdf

rodma

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1621
  • Karma: +60/-3
#66 Re: Indoor Technique
January 09, 2015, 06:08:50 pm
I gots you. No need for a picture. I thought it was some reference to the way a muscle works. That's what I get for reading in the drizzle.




lagerstarfish

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Weapon Of Mass
  • Posts: 8810
  • Karma: +812/-10
  • "There's no cure for being a c#nt"
#67 Re: Indoor Technique
January 09, 2015, 07:02:31 pm
that's just fuel for the "I'm big boned" brigade

tomtom

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 20282
  • Karma: +641/-11
#68 Re: Indoor Technique
January 09, 2015, 07:23:09 pm

he means weight is proportional to volume (cubic units), whereas sizes of body parts are proportional to area (squared units) or only one dimension (length, height)

you dig?

thus it is proved that being short is sooooo much easier and God is a white male with a beard

Ahh... But that assumes that volume increases all dimensions equally with increased size - whereas skinny streaks of piss like myself may have similar volume but be longer and thinner...

But let the poor little hobbits think they're better ;) and God is a white male with a top knot nowadays silly.

Doylo

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 6694
  • Karma: +442/-7
#69 Re: Indoor Technique
January 09, 2015, 07:31:58 pm
The heavier you are the harder it is. End.

lagerstarfish

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Weapon Of Mass
  • Posts: 8810
  • Karma: +812/-10
  • "There's no cure for being a c#nt"
#70 Re: Indoor Technique
January 09, 2015, 08:06:25 pm
But that assumes that volume increases all dimensions equally with increased size -

no it doesn't

if dimensions increase at all in more than just one direction, then weight increases disproportionately to height

so One Direction are probably the ideal size for climbing hard - even more so than Tomtom

tomtom

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 20282
  • Karma: +641/-11
#71 Re: Indoor Technique
January 09, 2015, 09:27:05 pm

But that assumes that volume increases all dimensions equally with increased size -

no it doesn't

if dimensions increase at all in more than just one direction, then weight increases disproportionately to height

so One Direction are probably the ideal size for climbing hard - even more so than Tomtom

Ok Louis, but dimensions don't have to increase in more than wand erection...  Non?

Sasquatch

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1984
  • Karma: +153/-1
  • www.akclimber.com
    • AkClimber
#72 Re: Indoor Technique
January 10, 2015, 12:54:18 am
1st input -

Quote
I'm 6'2" and weight about 13.5 stone and very little of that is fat so I can't get any lighter without just dropping muscle.

I'm 5'10" and weight between 12-12.5 stone (167-175lbs).  I grew up playing soccer, and have very robust legs as well and generally not alot of fat, but plenty to lose.  The lowest weight I've had in the last 4 years is very briefly 165lbs, and even then I could tell that losing additional weight for me would continue to improve my climbing. I'd be willing to argue that for any climber with a BMI below 20, weight loss should not be a primary goal.  For those over abour 24, it will likely significantly imrpove your climbing.  between 20-24 it would depend on your personal strengths/weaknesses.   

Quote
I tend to struggle on moves that have feet that are very close to my hands and I don't feel like I can get any power put down on the feet or hands (usually one or the other and usually it requires a transition between the two). I find this especially apparent on the 50 degree board and on overhanging routes of a certain grade that are set in a compact manner.

Logically speaking I don't understand how I can overcome this because on a big enough overhang, you have to be pulling down or back on the holds to be able to get purchase on them. Once your feet get high enough that pushes the rest of the body higher and suddenly that crimp that was ok has turned into a slopey crimp and I don't have enough on it to make the next move.

This is indeed a strength, technique and flexibility issue.  Taller people as a result of being more able to lank develop slightly different techniques than shorter people.  This is not "easier" or "harder" just different.  What you're referring to is a technique and strength shorties have to learn from nearly day 1 in climbing and lanksters can skip and may have to learn later.  In my experience, shorties also tend to be more bendy than tallies.  I can assure you that with a strong enough core and enough flexibility, you can work with those holds.  Work on obliques, triceps, and felxibility.   

Tight body compression and tension is a funky technique and is hard for me to learn.  I don't like it, I'm relatively poor at it, and yes it's harder if you've got big legs as they tend to be both less flexy, and heavier making this type of problem generally feel much harder.   It may be proportionately harder for you than a problem you can lank, but that's an ego issue you have to get through, or not if you don't care for that style.   

lagerstarfish

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Weapon Of Mass
  • Posts: 8810
  • Karma: +812/-10
  • "There's no cure for being a c#nt"
#73 Re: Indoor Technique
January 10, 2015, 08:05:23 am

Ok Louis, but dimensions don't have to increase in more than wand erection...  Non?

they don't have to, but they usually do in order to retain structural integrity, blood supply and to make clothes fit properly

tomtom

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 20282
  • Karma: +641/-11
#74 Re: Indoor Technique
January 10, 2015, 08:48:35 am


Ok Louis, but dimensions don't have to increase in more than wand erection...  Non?

they don't have to, but they usually do in order to retain structural integrity, blood supply and to make clothes fit properly

I wore some Ron hills once in the early 90's and I was laughed at because they were baggy :-/

 

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal