UKBouldering.com

Gymnastic rings, TRX and gym balls: fashion, toys, or serious training tool? (Read 22700 times)

Oldmanmatt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • At this rate, I probably won’t last the week.
  • Posts: 7097
  • Karma: +368/-17
  • Largely broken. Obsolete spares and scrap only.
    • The Boulder Bunker climbing centre
What was the name of the Yank Gymnast turned Boulderer from the '70s? I know it should spring to mind, but I can't recall it.

It's true that most Gymnasts won't be interested and that if they come from the floor disciplines there may be little carry over, but from the bars and Rings? Add a bit of finger training  and they're liable to be awesome.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nibile

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 7991
  • Karma: +743/-4
  • Part Animal Part Machine
    • TOTOLORE
What was the name of the Yank Gymnast turned Boulderer from the '70s?
John Gill?

slackline

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 18863
  • Karma: +633/-26
    • Sheffield Boulder
Thought John Gill was primarily active in the 50s and 60s although he continued to climb after he gave up hard bouldering (moved on to soloing long routes).

He does have a section on Climbing & Gymnastics on his website (not the easiest site to navigate round though).

Oldmanmatt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • At this rate, I probably won’t last the week.
  • Posts: 7097
  • Karma: +368/-17
  • Largely broken. Obsolete spares and scrap only.
    • The Boulder Bunker climbing centre
What was the name of the Yank Gymnast turned Boulderer from the '70s?
John Gill?

That was who I was thinking of.


All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...

nai

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 4008
  • Karma: +206/-1
  • In my dreams
Have you read "Bounce" by Matthew Syed?
He was an Olympic table tennis medalist but makes a strong case for the 10,000 hrs over genetics argument, at least anecdotally. You have to read it to get the full gist of his argument, but it boils down to the unlikely "hot spot" of Table tennis talent that arose in his immediate locality and specifically his club.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep, the '10,000 hours' thing had been largely debunked, genetics are massive - no amount of sprinting is going to turn Mo Farah into Usain Bolt.

The first time I came across the 10,000 hours thing was in Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers which was published a couple of years before Bounce.  I thought Bounce leant on it rather too heavily.
It wasn't related solely to sport and his premise was that having an Innate ability for something could take you so far, or working hard at something could take you so far, but to be truly world class you needed ability and hard work and in many cases just to be strike it lucky like Syed did with his table tennis club.  Plenty of case studies from sport, business, technology, musicians.

Sasquatch

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1984
  • Karma: +153/-1
  • www.akclimber.com
    • AkClimber
I think the "gymnast punter" vs "climbing punter" needs more detail...  And is generally a load of shite...

For example, I've dabbled on rings, taken TRX classes, played with Planche, etc.  Do I count as a gymnast punter? I do a variety of "gymnast" work on a weekly basis. 

I've a good friend who worked at at gymnastics studio with a climbing wall, and we consistently saw kids who could translate it to the wall, as well as wicked strong kids who couldn't climb for shit.  They'd do crazy party tricks in the cave on jugs, but were shite at anything techy, fingery, footworky...


Oldmanmatt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • At this rate, I probably won’t last the week.
  • Posts: 7097
  • Karma: +368/-17
  • Largely broken. Obsolete spares and scrap only.
    • The Boulder Bunker climbing centre
I think the "gymnast punter" vs "climbing punter" needs more detail...  And is generally a load of shite...

For example, I've dabbled on rings, taken TRX classes, played with Planche, etc.  Do I count as a gymnast punter? I do a variety of "gymnast" work on a weekly basis. 

I've a good friend who worked at at gymnastics studio with a climbing wall, and we consistently saw kids who could translate it to the wall, as well as wicked strong kids who couldn't climb for shit.  They'd do crazy party tricks in the cave on jugs, but were shite at anything techy, fingery, footworky...

Nope, I'm sticking with the "They will very quickly surpass the regular punter with a little training" as I said above, which presupposes that the particular Gymnastic climbing punter in question has the desire to do that training/climb rocks.
I get that there are plenty of Gymnasts uninterested in climbing and vice versa.

Thought experiment:

You coach the local youth squad at your wall.
Identical twins: From age 5 one becomes Rugby obsessed, training regularly etc. The other gets into Gymnastics and bar and ring work in particular. At age 14, after a school camp that included climbing, they both divert their obsession to climbing and join their local youth squad.

You must place a bet of two months salary on which of the two will improve quickest, on their first day.[emoji56]

I suppose my glib statement gave the wrong impression. I was thinking that a person who had the passion, dedication and ability to become a good Gymnast, would likely make a good climber, quicker, should they shift that focus.
I think the genetic question is moot, in as much as such disposition is self actuating. People genetically unsuited will fritter away and lose interest or simply never try.
(This doesn't preclude all those who might have been great, but never tried etc (there are probably millions)).
I'd also agree, that at the end of the road, the top of the hill, the now relatively small genetic divergences will out (even if it's as simple as not getting a cold as often and therefore having more consistent performance).

Also, there is a huge difference in a Competition climber and the Dirtbag new router. I think part of the discrepancy in opinion here derives from differing definitions of "top climber".

Having watched supposed (note sceptical tone) training routines of many top competition climbers; it's hard to find one that doesn't include a large amount of features lifted directly from  Gymnastic training programmes. I'd be very surprised if that changed and all Gymnastic ancillary training was abandoned in favour of nothing but Fingerboarding and a 45* board.

I'm sure it's been noted before that excellence at competition indoors does not guarantee excellence outdoors and vice versa. Only very exceptional talents seem to have nailed that.

I really find it hard to see that Gymnastic training has no advantage to even the average climber. Even harder to imagine it a disadvantage. Not withstanding that to train to climb you must train climbing and only climbing can do that (did I use "climb" enough in that sentence to emphasise that actually climbing is a very important part of climbing training?)

So, rather than say "I don't think it's important", explain why it would be a disadvantage. 



All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...

Duma

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5751
  • Karma: +226/-4

So, rather than say "I don't think it's important", explain why it would be a disadvantage. 


Because it takes time and energy (for pretty much everyone) away from more specific training.

Oldmanmatt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • At this rate, I probably won’t last the week.
  • Posts: 7097
  • Karma: +368/-17
  • Largely broken. Obsolete spares and scrap only.
    • The Boulder Bunker climbing centre

So, rather than say "I don't think it's important", explain why it would be a disadvantage. 


Because it takes time and energy (for pretty much everyone) away from more specific training.
15-20mins a session?
Nah, not buying it.
More pro than con.

Edit:
Oops, that sounded way more rude than intended. I don't know about you lot, but I'm not taking this later part of the thread very seriously, way too many variables and all speculation.

The benefits of unstable training in injury prevention and as ancillary training to more established routines, or as therapeutic interventions for rehabilitation; are a different matter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: January 06, 2017, 09:10:37 am by Oldmanmatt »

duncan

Offline
  • *****
  • Global Moderator
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 2952
  • Karma: +332/-2

I think describing climbing as a "stable" activity is inaccurate, inasmuch as anything so dynamic and involving such a variety of body positions, tensions, prehensions etc etc (or simply "3D"), requires activation of so many more muscle groups per "session" than a great many sports (in fact I can't think of any sport? Judo?).


Climbing is highly unstable but it is the body that moves not the stuff you climb on (parts of North Devon excepted). My thinking was that the supplementary training should still mimic this unstable body/stable support. So if you fancy doing something different to mix things up a little, then walk on your hands or do front levers (on bars) or if you really want to impress, flags:





Regarding injury prevention:

TRX/Rings is also especially relevant to overhanging mixed climbing on jug-handle axes, which involves holding an unstable pick in one orientation whilst pulling down smoothly and moving upward on it.

Highly specific to the task - good training.

Neuromuscular 'instability' training - wobble boards and so forth - is protective for the lower limbs in pivoting sports. The training is specific to the sport here.

Good old strength training is still the most protective preventative intervention overall
.

What was the name of the Yank Gymnast turned Boulderer from the '70s?
John Gill?

That was who I was thinking of.

Which brings us back to the topic. John Gill says "First of all I cannot recommend any movable rings as exercise for climbing, having ruined my shoulders years ago on the still rings in gymnastics."




Duma

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5751
  • Karma: +226/-4

So, rather than say "I don't think it's important", explain why it would be a disadvantage. 


Because it takes time and energy (for pretty much everyone) away from more specific training.
15-20mins a session?
Nah, not buying it.
More pro than con.

Edit:
Oops, that sounded way more rude than intended. I don't know about you lot, but I'm not taking this later part of the thread very seriously, way too many variables and all speculation.

The benefits of unstable training in injury prevention and as ancillary training to more established routines, or as therapeutic interventions for rehabilitation; are a different matter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I often only get an hr at the wall. 20mins of time, and at least as importantly energy is too much.
Agree with the injury prevention/rehab bit.

slackline

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 18863
  • Karma: +633/-26
    • Sheffield Boulder
Which brings us back to the topic. John Gill says "First of all I cannot recommend any movable rings as exercise for climbing, having ruined my shoulders years ago on the still rings in gymnastics."

Interesting reading on Gills site about Noteable climbers who were gymnasts and in particular Lynn Hill's experience which suggests its not just about what can be gained physically from gymnastics but also a better understanding of the kinaesthetics of movement and improved proprioception...

Quote
"My coach, Scott Crouse, was a former competitive gymnast . . . One day he suggested I try a double back flip . . . I discovered I could dismantle the movement and focus on each separate phase of it . . . called 'chunking' . . . I had discovered a powerful learning tool for getting my body to follow whatever my mind imagined. Visual learning, I would later find, also had direct applications to rock climbing. . . . as an eager young girl, I was more interested in learning complex acrobatic maneuvers than focusing on pretty formalities . . . As gymnastics became more rigid and structured, I began to lose my motivation and enthusiasm for remaining on the team." - Climbing Free (2002)



Overall though Gill summarises that the carry over of gymnastic skill/ability to climbing varies for individuals....as you might expect.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2017, 10:31:40 am by slackline »

petejh

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5778
  • Karma: +622/-36
I'm prepared to accept that a gymnastic background could be beneficial - relative to no gymnastic background - for indoor competition climbing. But climbing's a broad church, not just plastic overhanging comp walls. For the majority of the pastime known as 'climbing' I don't think gymnastic background/training is of more benefit then simply mastering a style of climbing - North Devon anti-rock, Grit slabs and slopers, Granite cracks, Raven Tor crimps, Gogarth pinches or teetering hoar-coverd mixed climbing.

Oldmanmatt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • At this rate, I probably won’t last the week.
  • Posts: 7097
  • Karma: +368/-17
  • Largely broken. Obsolete spares and scrap only.
    • The Boulder Bunker climbing centre
I'm prepared to accept that a gymnastic background could be beneficial - relative to no gymnastic background - for indoor competition climbing. But climbing's a broad church, not just plastic overhanging comp walls. For the majority of the pastime known as 'climbing' I don't think gymnastic background/training is of more benefit then simply mastering a style of climbing - North Devon anti-rock, Grit slabs and slopers, Granite cracks, Raven Tor crimps, Gogarth pinches or teetering hoar-coverd mixed climbing.
I that  you just said what I was trying to say; except I think you said it far more clearly.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oldmanmatt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • At this rate, I probably won’t last the week.
  • Posts: 7097
  • Karma: +368/-17
  • Largely broken. Obsolete spares and scrap only.
    • The Boulder Bunker climbing centre
At the risk of making even more of a twat of myself than normal...

I own a climbing wall. I tend to train in the mornings before we open. I have huge amounts of time for training. But I'm alone, so I film myself to check form. I usually do this when I up resistance. So over lunch I cobbled up clips of my Wednesday Shoulder and Core session. Not all filmed on the same day, but all from Dec. The black bar has self adhesive roofing lead added to bring it to 10 kg. The chrome bar is 5kg, with 3kg in plates added. Ankle weights for wipers and toe to bar and wall bar levers are 12kg. Dorsal raises are 4kg at wrists with a 25lbs plate. Push away flies (at the end on rings) are with 27kg added (belt, vest, plate in vest and wrists). I know my form is crap, but new to these weights.



All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...

Oldmanmatt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • At this rate, I probably won’t last the week.
  • Posts: 7097
  • Karma: +368/-17
  • Largely broken. Obsolete spares and scrap only.
    • The Boulder Bunker climbing centre

I think describing climbing as a "stable" activity is inaccurate, inasmuch as anything so dynamic and involving such a variety of body positions, tensions, prehensions etc etc (or simply "3D"), requires activation of so many more muscle groups per "session" than a great many sports (in fact I can't think of any sport? Judo?).


Climbing is highly unstable but it is the body that moves not the stuff you climb on (parts of North Devon excepted). My thinking was that the supplementary training should still mimic this unstable body/stable support. So if you fancy doing something different to mix things up a little, then walk on your hands or do front levers (on bars) or if you really want to impress, flags:





Regarding injury prevention:

TRX/Rings is also especially relevant to overhanging mixed climbing on jug-handle axes, which involves holding an unstable pick in one orientation whilst pulling down smoothly and moving upward on it.

Highly specific to the task - good training.

Neuromuscular 'instability' training - wobble boards and so forth - is protective for the lower limbs in pivoting sports. The training is specific to the sport here.

Good old strength training is still the most protective preventative intervention overall
.

What was the name of the Yank Gymnast turned Boulderer from the '70s?
John Gill?

That was who I was thinking of.

Which brings us back to the topic. John Gill says "First of all I cannot recommend any movable rings as exercise for climbing, having ruined my shoulders years ago on the still rings in gymnastics."


Well, splitting that up to answer each point individually is now going to take too long. So bit by bit:

1: Distal versus Proximal instability.
This is moot. I've been running through mathematically and the forces don't change. This is because, if you consider the arm as a lever, the following applies:
  A: The muscles actuating to steady the load remain in the shoulder throughout the motion of arm extension. Or, always at the same end of the lever. (The wrists/forearms do little once the grip is clamped down).
  B: The Prime movers outside of the shoulder (Triceps, Biceps etc) principally act to extend the lever. The stabilisation muscles of the wrist and elbow actuate only to maintain the grip. Neither act to change the direction of applied force. They actuate with fluctuating force in unstable exercise only because the apparent load varies.

A bit of a brief summary, but if you draw/sketch it out or resolve the forces of the lever for various points within the extension (ie elbow at x* and again at elbow at x+1* and so on) the force alway acts through the shoulder joint and the forces remain the same, regardless of whether the movement/instability is applied at either end of the chain.
Because the motion is relative.

Now, in the wobble board (and any similar exercise on any limb) he principle difference is the size of the load, not whether it is Proximal or Distal. That is to say, the load on the wobble board example is the body weight of the participant. To mimic that with Proximal instability , you'll need to be somehow inverted on an unstable surface, balancing/moving a weight equal to body weight, placed on the feet.
But the forces at the hips remain the same.

This is in fact even more true for a similar exercise at the arm where the hand is gripping and therefore immobile within the system (as opposed to the foot which is resting, resulting in higher actuation at the ankle ).

Imagine the following, taking a snap shot or instant in time.
You are doing press ups, on a bar, normally.
I, suddenly (my name is chaos btw) push your body to one side with a force x. To remain stable you must activate at the shoulder by an equivalent force, in opposition. Because it is the shoulder that controls the lever.
I remove the force.
Now, a moment later (pun intended) I, equally suddenly, apply the same force, in the opposite direction; to the bar. This results in exactly equivalent activation at the shoulder as the first force did, because the movement is relative and the stabilising muscles remained at the same end of the chain. We did not suddenly switch to using the wrists to stabilise.

The principle difference between Distal and Proximal instability exercises is practicality of applying load. If the instability is Proximal the the load must be applied distally, reverse it and the body is already there.


The rings to Ice axe analogy, is both true and flawed simultaneously, because of the fundamental misunderstanding of the force application. It's not highly specific. It's the same muscles.

 If you want another analogy. I designed ships for many years. One of the more interesting and relevant aspects of that, to this conversation; is the design of crane foundations. I can promise you, the forces at the attachment remain the same, regardless of whether you move the ship or the load, because the forces applied to the crane are always balanced by the system (well, until something exceeds material limits and it all becomes fatally unbalanced) and centred through the foundation (analogous to the shoulder). That's very brief, I could start talking about fixing the crane hook to dry land (ie immovable) and moving the ship or grounding the ship and applying similar forces to a load hanging and contrasting the stresses at the foundation and how similar they in both scenarios. But, I hope I made the point.

You don't need to do handstand walking or crab walks, you get the same effect from the press ups on the rings.
Of course, by extension, those are exercises that will give the same(ish) effects and require much less equipment, so...

So, if (if) unstable exercise confers any benefit, then the location of the applied instability within the lever is not relevant to that benefit; though the size of the loads practically applied might be.


Edit for speculation:

The reason I think there might be an as yet unquantified benefit to unstable exercise is possibly hinted at in this statement (which I quoted earlier from Behm et al)

"Based on the near linear force-EMG relationship, muscle activation correlates well with force output.27 If with moderate instability, force is depressed but activation is not substantially affected; according to the force-EMG relation, there must be a force compo- nent missing. The similar extent of muscle activation accompanied by decreased force with instability exercises when compared to traditional RT exercises suggests that the dynamic motive forces of the mus- cles (the ability to apply external force) may be trans- ferred into greater stabilizing functions (greater emphasis on isometric contractions).4 "

It's that missing component that triggers the Engineer in me and looking, and looking again at the shoulder joint and how it functions; I think their hypothesis is correct. Plus that there is greater activation in the deep muscles masked by the superficial prime movers and unmonitored in any of the studies (limits of surface Electromyography etc). So I posit that there will be associated neurological adaptations and hypertrophy etc in those deep muscles that simplistic exercises cannot achieve and that it is strength training. Further, that used in conjunction with more conventional training it should confer greater benefit than either alone.
I have more reading to do. But I wonder if the flaw in mixed modality intervention is that there is " less" of each applied and that a full program of each, taken simultaneously, would effect better results?

All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
« Last Edit: January 07, 2017, 06:55:20 am by Oldmanmatt »

Oldmanmatt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • At this rate, I probably won’t last the week.
  • Posts: 7097
  • Karma: +368/-17
  • Largely broken. Obsolete spares and scrap only.
    • The Boulder Bunker climbing centre
Incidentally, if the muscle activation was similar in both stable and unstable exercises (as mentioned in that quote I keep harping on about), doesn't that mean, from a strength training perspective, that both exercises are of equal value.? Same activation, same benefit?
The only reason for discrepancy in moved load is the distribution of energy and effort to stabilisation?
Move the same participant to a stable bench (assuming rested/recovered) and his shifted load should increase?
(i think they did check and it did etc).


All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...

Ged

Offline
  • ****
  • junky
  • Posts: 922
  • Karma: +40/-1
In reply to Oldmanmatt's video: More to the point, where do I find a training facility like that in Devon!!??

Oldmanmatt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • At this rate, I probably won’t last the week.
  • Posts: 7097
  • Karma: +368/-17
  • Largely broken. Obsolete spares and scrap only.
    • The Boulder Bunker climbing centre
Torquay. It's mine. The Boulder Bunker.
Simon or Toby will be along to charge me for that in a minute...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oldmanmatt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • At this rate, I probably won’t last the week.
  • Posts: 7097
  • Karma: +368/-17
  • Largely broken. Obsolete spares and scrap only.
    • The Boulder Bunker climbing centre
Sorry, couldn't resist.




All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
« Last Edit: January 09, 2017, 09:02:46 pm by Oldmanmatt »

Sasquatch

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1984
  • Karma: +153/-1
  • www.akclimber.com
    • AkClimber
I think the "gymnast punter" vs "climbing punter" needs more detail...  And is generally a load of shite...

For example, I've dabbled on rings, taken TRX classes, played with Planche, etc.  Do I count as a gymnast punter? I do a variety of "gymnast" work on a weekly basis. 

I've a good friend who worked at at gymnastics studio with a climbing wall, and we consistently saw kids who could translate it to the wall, as well as wicked strong kids who couldn't climb for shit.  They'd do crazy party tricks in the cave on jugs, but were shite at anything techy, fingery, footworky...

Nope, I'm sticking with the "They will very quickly surpass the regular punter with a little training" as I said above, which presupposes that the particular Gymnastic climbing punter in question has the desire to do that training/climb rocks.
I get that there are plenty of Gymnasts uninterested in climbing and vice versa.

Thought experiment:

You coach the local youth squad at your wall.
Identical twins: From age 5 one becomes Rugby obsessed, training regularly etc. The other gets into Gymnastics and bar and ring work in particular. At age 14, after a school camp that included climbing, they both divert their obsession to climbing and join their local youth squad.

You must place a bet of two months salary on which of the two will improve quickest, on their first day.[emoji56]

I suppose my glib statement gave the wrong impression. I was thinking that a person who had the passion, dedication and ability to become a good Gymnast, would likely make a good climber, quicker, should they shift that focus.
I think the genetic question is moot, in as much as such disposition is self actuating. People genetically unsuited will fritter away and lose interest or simply never try.
(This doesn't preclude all those who might have been great, but never tried etc (there are probably millions)).
I'd also agree, that at the end of the road, the top of the hill, the now relatively small genetic divergences will out (even if it's as simple as not getting a cold as often and therefore having more consistent performance).

Also, there is a huge difference in a Competition climber and the Dirtbag new router. I think part of the discrepancy in opinion here derives from differing definitions of "top climber".

Having watched supposed (note sceptical tone) training routines of many top competition climbers; it's hard to find one that doesn't include a large amount of features lifted directly from  Gymnastic training programmes. I'd be very surprised if that changed and all Gymnastic ancillary training was abandoned in favour of nothing but Fingerboarding and a 45* board.

I'm sure it's been noted before that excellence at competition indoors does not guarantee excellence outdoors and vice versa. Only very exceptional talents seem to have nailed that.

I really find it hard to see that Gymnastic training has no advantage to even the average climber. Even harder to imagine it a disadvantage. Not withstanding that to train to climb you must train climbing and only climbing can do that (did I use "climb" enough in that sentence to emphasise that actually climbing is a very important part of climbing training?)

So, rather than say "I don't think it's important", explain why it would be a disadvantage. 



All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...

My point was lost a bit on reread -

I was trying to point out two things - one is what you consider a "punter" gymnast isn't really comparable to what we think of as a climbing "punter".  is a gymnast punter able to do a planche?  If so, I'd say that would equate in general difficulty to a 5.12 or v6 climber.  Is a 5.12 climber a "punter"?  If we're talking 5.9 or v0 as a "punter", then I would argue the equivalent Gymnast would be doing basic tumbling-i.e. a front roll.  If we are comparing two punters, then I'd say it's really a wash as to which will get better at the other activity faster as they both are punters at their current (also a caveat that this would only be comparing gymnastics to indoor wall climbing).

The second was that, as we all know, strength is only 1 piece of being an able climber.  Coming into it as a gymnast would certainly give you a leg up in that one aspect, but not necessarily the others.   (see above caveat about indoor only)

In response to this:
I really find it hard to see that Gymnastic training has no advantage to even the average climber. Even harder to imagine it a disadvantage. Not withstanding that to train to climb you must train climbing and only climbing can do that (did I use "climb" enough in that sentence to emphasise that actually climbing is a very important part of climbing training?)

So, rather than say "I don't think it's important", explain why it would be a disadvantage. 
I don't for one second think it's a disadvantage, and I'd agree that it would be a very hard argument to make.  Instead I think of it (as was mentioned by another) as a question of available time and maximizing the time/energy/motivation available.  I agree that for most climbers, it would be a very valuable addition to their training program (myself included).

 

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal