its a bit like asking what's the hardest crimpy boulder or hardest boulder with heel hooks. Imo.
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 think we can all at least agree that Ned Zeppelin is the hardest mantel in the world
Honorary Caley is miles easier than Marie Rose! Maybe Strawberries is a better corollary?
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!?
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.
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.
Quote from: MischaHY on November 23, 2023, 09:22:58 amI 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.
Quote from: Wellsy on November 22, 2023, 04:21:12 pmits 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!?
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.
Quote from: MischaHY on November 23, 2023, 09:22:58 amA 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.
surely for hard climnbing it just boils down to:powerful = steep; technical = not steep...?
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.