[edshakey]

its a bit like asking what's the hardest crimpy boulder or hardest boulder with heel hooks. Imo.

I was broadly agreeing with you until this. I'd have said the exact opposite - deciding a hardest crimpy or heel hook boulder is really easy in comparison to technical. Categorising a boulder as eg. contains heel hooks, is not too bad, and then we just need to find the hardest of that list. The problem with "technical" is that literally every boulder requires technique, if climbed by someone at or near their limit - I think you'd be hard pressed to find many boulders that aren't "technical". Even if they require strength in a particular way, that isn't what causes people to take a long time to climb it. For example, using BoD like everyone else has done, what caused Will to take ~10 sessions in Finland wasn't the fact his fingers/other muscles were too weak, and then he suddenly trained them stronger in a couple of weeks; instead, he had to spend time learning the technical aspects of the boulder (as well as the usual skin, conditions, etc).

So I'd agree that when you say "aren't all boulders a bit technical", but actually I'd think we'd have a much bigger chance of finding the hardest boulder with a heel hook!


I am intrigued now though... what's the hardest not technical boulder? Or just any examples of very non technical? My initial thought was something like rainbow rocket, feels like it'd be one where you either have the power or not, but actually I'm sure there's plenty of ways to use technique to make it easier, and therefore maybe it is technical!?

[Dingdong]

I think we can all at least agree that Ned Zeppelin is the hardest mantel in the world

[Moo]

Surely there's just different styles of technicality whereas power is is just that. Theres balancy moves, weird body positions, awkward transitions, difficult to use footholds and handholds. The most 'techy' problems are just the ones which combine most of these difficuties.

The one which jumps out at me when I think about this is maybe marie rose ? for the grade it's got difficult feet, slightly weird body positions awkward transitions and you've got take the handholds pretty well to the most out of them. There's no mystery as to why a ton of top drawer climbers have blown the flash on it.

Is there anything in the UK that jumps out at you when thinking about it like that ? maybe honorary called is a good contender ?

[Will Hunt]

Or just any examples of very non technical? My initial thought was something like rainbow rocket, feels like it'd be one where you either have the power or not, but actually I'm sure there's plenty of ways to use technique to make it easier, and therefore maybe it is technical!?

Dynos are often really technical in my view. Unless it's really easy it's never about pulling harder on the holds, it's about timing and learning how to launch, the precision in the catch etc. I've got plenty of mates who are massively stronger than I am (and not significantly shorter) who are pathetic dynoers.

Never tried Rainbow Rocket but it looks hard to get the pull, launch and foot stomp to flow as one continuous building of momentum. Footwork, bless him, is almost uniquely dreadful at that sort of thing. Every time he completes the pull of a dyno he stops dead then pumps his legs. Very amusing to watch.

[spidermonkey09]

Honorary Caley is miles easier than Marie Rose! Maybe Strawberries is a better corollary?

[Fultonius]

Blue Meanie at Dumbarton, 5+ but often >7A climbers often take a few goes to get it right. Absolutely lovely problem when you know.

[teestub]

I think we can all at least agree that Ned Zeppelin is the hardest mantel in the world

The From Dirt Grows the Flower one looks pretty tricky

[Dingdong]

It does but zeppelin is just a pure 8a (probably more like 8B) mantel whereas dirt has a tricky end with some hard climbing beforehand. They’re also very different styles of mantels - which kind of lines up with the conversation about how you discern difficulty across styles, even within mantels, you have different styles (balls, friction, shelves, rockovers)

[edshakey]

Honorary Caley is miles easier than Marie Rose! Maybe Strawberries is a better corollary?

Wait really?? I've never tried Honorary Caley, but Marie Rose was pretty straightforward a few weeks ago, I'd love to get a 7A for even less effort 

[thunderbeest]

If you have the strength and power to do a boulder, doesn't it become a technical boulder for you? And if you don't it feels like a powerful boulder.

[Dexter]

I am intrigued now though... what's the hardest not technical boulder? Or just any examples of very non technical? My initial thought was something like rainbow rocket, feels like it'd be one where you either have the power or not, but actually I'm sure there's plenty of ways to use technique to make it easier, and therefore maybe it is technical!?

I wonder where Floatin' lies in the techy vs. powerful side of things. On the surface it seems mainly power (surely campus on edges is power) but there must be quite a technical aspect in the end.

[MischaHY]

IMO it's not worth attempting to black-white the issue but better recognising that climbs have both technical difficulty and absolute difficulty which stand seperately. I think that JWI describes the phenomenon well in that a highly technical boulder may be much harder at the start but easy to repeat once you know the movement pattern. A non-technical boulder of the same grade will be similarly difficult regardless of number of attempts because there is little learning to be done.

TLDR; technicality increases subjective difficulty until the movement pattern is sufficiently rehearsed.

[jakaitch]

What they said

(Prev edit was from wrong thread)

IMO it's not worth attempting to black-white the issue but better recognising that climbs have both technical difficulty and absolute difficulty which stand seperately. I think that JWI describes the phenomenon well in that a highly technical boulder may be much harder at the start but easy to repeat once you know the movement pattern. A non-technical boulder of the same grade will be similarly difficult regardless of number of attempts because there is little learning to be done.

TLDR; technicality increases subjective difficulty until the movement pattern is sufficiently rehearsed.

[remus]

I think that JWI describes the phenomenon well in that a highly technical boulder may be much harder at the start but easy to repeat once you know the movement pattern.

If there's some specific trick(s) to doing a boulder that make it feel substantially easier I'd say that was more knacky than technical, though there can be a lot of cross over e.g. China in your Hands at Gardoms.

[MischaHY]

I think that JWI describes the phenomenon well in that a highly technical boulder may be much harder at the start but easy to repeat once you know the movement pattern.

If there's some specific trick(s) to doing a boulder that make it feel substantially easier I'd say that was more knacky than technical, though there can be a lot of cross over e.g. China in your Hands at Gardoms.

Ah I'm not thinking of that but more that a learnt sequence becomes more efficient and costs less energy per move.

[Wellsy]

its a bit like asking what's the hardest crimpy boulder or hardest boulder with heel hooks. Imo.

I was broadly agreeing with you until this. I'd have said the exact opposite - deciding a hardest crimpy or heel hook boulder is really easy in comparison to technical. Categorising a boulder as eg. contains heel hooks, is not too bad, and then we just need to find the hardest of that list. The problem with "technical" is that literally every boulder requires technique, if climbed by someone at or near their limit - I think you'd be hard pressed to find many boulders that aren't "technical". Even if they require strength in a particular way, that isn't what causes people to take a long time to climb it. For example, using BoD like everyone else has done, what caused Will to take ~10 sessions in Finland wasn't the fact his fingers/other muscles were too weak, and then he suddenly trained them stronger in a couple of weeks; instead, he had to spend time learning the technical aspects of the boulder (as well as the usual skin, conditions, etc).

So I'd agree that when you say "aren't all boulders a bit technical", but actually I'd think we'd have a much bigger chance of finding the hardest boulder with a heel hook!


I am intrigued now though... what's the hardest not technical boulder? Or just any examples of very non technical? My initial thought was something like rainbow rocket, feels like it'd be one where you either have the power or not, but actually I'm sure there's plenty of ways to use technique to make it easier, and therefore maybe it is technical!?

I agree with you broadly. I think my thinking was going down two ways, one being "isn't everything technical" (which it is) and the other being okay but we know what someone means when they describe something as "techy" but is that enough of a subdivided to say well what's the hardest "techy" boulder. To me the former is more where I sit, I don't really believe that any boulder isn't "technical" in some way

[iwasmexican]

surely for hard climnbing it just boils down to:

powerful = steep; technical = not steep...?

[User deactivated.]

A non-technical boulder of the same grade will be similarly difficult regardless of number of attempts because there is little learning to be done.

I might have agreed with you on this until the last couple of weeks. After building my new board, I've done the same 5 warm up problems every session. These problems start a bit below my flash level and ramp up to quite a way over my flash level. They're all basic. I've continued to use the same problems not only to warm up, but to indicate what form i'm on - if i'm overtrained I probably won't do the last couple first go, and I might consider ending my session there.

Over the first few sessions, these problems naturally got a bit easier, but this plateaued, with any remaining variance being down to strong and weak days. This is what I wanted. Having done them for many months, multiple times per week, I thought I had them as dialled as they were going to get. However, over the last couple of weeks I've started really paying attention to the positions and movement on these climbs and I've got better at them. They are all feeling easier, and it's a bigger difference than strong vs weak days. My max finger strength (which I test before every session on a Tindeq) is about the same as it was a month ago, but i'm currently on my best ever board form by moving well.   

TLDR: you can continue to improve at the most basic moves without getting stronger.

[MischaHY]

A non-technical boulder of the same grade will be similarly difficult regardless of number of attempts because there is little learning to be done.

I might have agreed with you on this until the last couple of weeks. After building my new board, I've done the same 5 warm up problems every session. These problems start a bit below my flash level and ramp up to quite a way over my flash level. They're all basic. I've continued to use the same problems not only to warm up, but to indicate what form i'm on - if i'm overtrained I probably won't do the last couple first go, and I might consider ending my session there.

Over the first few sessions, these problems naturally got a bit easier, but this plateaued, with any remaining variance being down to strong and weak days. This is what I wanted. Having done them for many months, multiple times per week, I thought I had them as dialled as they were going to get. However, over the last couple of weeks I've started really paying attention to the positions and movement on these climbs and I've got better at them. They are all feeling easier, and it's a bigger difference than strong vs weak days. My max finger strength (which I test before every session on a Tindeq) is about the same as it was a month ago, but i'm currently on my best ever board form by moving well.   

TLDR: you can continue to improve at the most basic moves without getting stronger.

I think our two statements can co-exist because they both involve a fair amount of nuance 

[User deactivated.]

Yeah, I realise you said 'little learning' and not 'no learning', so it was probably unfair to call you out just to make my point 

[jwi]

surely for hard climnbing it just boils down to:

powerful = steep; technical = not steep...?

eh... there are quite a few steep climbs that have super-tricky hooks and knee-bars that you have to find in order to climb them with anything near the optimal method

[abarro81]

surely for hard climnbing it just boils down to:

powerful = steep; technical = not steep...?

Like jwi says... no. I've done plenty of not-very-technical things at 10-20 degrees overhanging and plenty of technical things in roofs. Even not all vert or slabs are that techy. I think it's often determined more by how incut/good the holds are than angle - poor and slopey holds tend to mean you have to position yourself very well, incut good holds not so much.

[jwi]

further to this, I have onsighted pure 7c slabs that were the climbing was just a question of boning down on grattons and having brand new Miuras, while I have gotten badly spanked on 6c-slabs where it is a question of figuring on exactly which small change in incline I am supposed to stand up on, but often feels no more difficult than adventurous walking on the redpoint after carefully working the moves.

The former are not techy, the latter very much so.

[crimpinainteasy]

If you have the strength and power to do a boulder, doesn't it become a technical boulder for you? And if you don't it feels like a powerful boulder.

How would you know you have the strength and power to do a boulder until you've done it or at least dropped the last move though? 

There are some boulders where I've been able to do every single move from my first session but have really struggled to link since the difficulty revolves around 2 or 3 really powerful moves after you're already slightly drained. Equally, there are moves that at first feel impossible but once I've learned the movement feel very accessible.

[teestub]

How would you know you have the strength and power to do a boulder until you've done it or at least dropped the last move though? 

There are some boulders where I've been able to do every single move from my first session but have really struggled to link since the difficulty revolves around 2 or 3 really powerful moves after you're already slightly drained. Equally, there are moves that at first feel impossible but once I've learned the movement feel very accessible.

I think you've answered your own question there? If you can do the moves but can't link then you've got the strength but you're lacking in the specific strength endurance that you can either train on the boulder or go away and train for if it's not feasible to have lots of sessions.