[slackline]

Technique can be learned you know. Its not all genetic.

There are two components to technique (I think)...

a) Having the required range of movement to place fingers/hands/feet in the correct position.

b) Being able to read moves (quickly) and see what works.

Genetics is only involved in a) and can be modified by the environment (viz. yoga etc.), whilst b) is all learnt, although some people are capable reading and seeing what works faster than others when they first start climbing, but I very much doubt this is down to a true genetic aspect, more likely ascribable to better kinaesthetics from other experiences.

[north_country_boy]

I'm with Bonjoy on this.

I have nothing but admiration for Malc, especially the way he has repeatedly trained specifically for projects, then gone out and crushed them, however I agree he isn't the role model I would follow to maximise my own physical potential......

Many have followed his lead and got insanely strong at places like the School and gone on to achieve nothing or very little in relation to their own relative level of strength, where it matters......on the Routes/Blocs!!

The Application of this new found strength seems to be what many people actually struggle to achieve (essentially realising their perceived potential), which you will only achieve by climbing on rock, which at some point will require you (and even Malc) to be 'Gay' (is this new school-street-talk for 'Efficiency'?) and drop a knee/match etc.....

Comparing Malc and Steve is like comparing two extremes on a very long spectrum of climbing style and physique......I know which one i'm nearer to, but it doesn't mean I can't learn from both......

I love getting burnt off at the wall by people before returning the compliment where it matters! 

[Paul B]

Paul you are being disingenuous. You just said yourself he didn’t achieve his potential, is this not the very definition of underachievement?

What I was trying to suggest was that he stopped climbing (or appeared to) before he came anywhere close to a plateau. Underachiever has some rather negative undertones and I feel its pretty unfair to label anybody who achieved what Malc did with that title.

Of course he ‘did something right’, but does this mean his approach is a flawless paradigm to follow?

Has anyone truly suggested that people follow that pro-tips solely and without any deviation, everyone knows the phrase work your weaknesses. If you're not powerful listen to Malc, if you're sh*t with your feet go to a Dawes workshop? The question was will staying open etc. lead to you always climbing that way.

I don't think anyone would advocate going and climbing on a board from Day 1, that breeds the inefficient overly strong gollum creatures that Jon, NCB are talking about (and I've had to learn that the hard way). But look at people like JB (yes I know you climb for enjoyment), is the reverse not true?

[shark]

Technique can be learned you know. Its not all genetic.

There are two components to technique (I think)...

a) Having the required range of movement to place fingers/hands/feet in the correct position.

b) Being able to read moves (quickly) and see what works.

I think there is at least a c) as well which is body wiring / synchronisation / co-ordination aspect as well which other some people seem to be pre-disposed to ie gifted , natural climbers who probably take it for granted. 

[Johnny Brown]

Which I think is best developed climbing well within your grade on rock. Unfortunately folk desperate to improve tend to concentrate on climbing beyond their grade indoors.

[Rocksteady]

Great thread.

As I understand it front-on non-twisty 'open position' is how a system board should be climbed, attempting to do reps of the same grip position/movement in order to build strength for that specific type of hold.

This makes sense in terms of targetting your weakness - i.e. if you can narrow it down to being weak at undercuts or pinches or crimps or whatever.

The idea of generally climbing problems open or front on in order to get stronger sounds a bit more dubious. What is it specifically targetting? I guess as Malc says keeping your feet on then it's training your core to stick footholds when stretched out in a front on position? Probs not training your finger strength though any more than doing it with good technique.

I guess training front on for this specific strength could be useful as a component of strength training, but I'd have thought it wouldn't be useful to prioritize it for too long.

Personally I think it's really hard to identify when I fail on problems through sheer lack of strength or through not climbing it with optimal technique/balance. I'm guessing this becomes more evident at more beastly levels.

 

[Paul B]

Which I think is best developed climbing well within your grade on rock. Unfortunately folk desperate to improve tend to concentrate on climbing beyond their grade indoors.

Absolutely agree. That doesn't mean however that training in whatever shape or form doesn't have a place and that anything you learn on rock will be instantly forgotten should you force yourself to lock a move indoors.

[T_B]

Surely the point with climbing front on and open is that you use a lot of strength in your shoulders. If like me you are weaker in the arms, fingers and core, you need to work on side on twisty cross through moves, rather than relying on the shoulders all the time...

Paul B. I have just read the Macleod book. It's worth £15 but no more without any diagrams or pictures and overall having been edited by his mum! The gist of the book is that to get better you need to work not on getting strong, but on technique, targeting weaknesses, removing your fear (of falling) so that you stay relaxed and climb efficiently. And what you can do in terms of lifestyle to optimise you time. He does mention a lot that a coach (presumably one based in Scotland) can be helpful 

[Stubbs]

climber B meanwhile develops a hunchback and is Leo Moger.

There's not a man amongst us who doesn't respect The Moger!

[saltbeef]

a coach that costs £250 for 4 hours!
Poor Malc. I think he's getting a hard time here...
If you watch his pro-tips thingy he states that he realised he was weak on open moves so specifically trained it.  As I said previously you should attempt to train all aspects of your climbing whilst training (including technique and as JB points out this is probably best done below your hardest level as the cerebration required to concentrate on the moves means you can't perform at such a high level, however it is probably easier to do this outside than at the wall).
Problems should be both front on and twisting.
As Malc says sometimes you can't hide from climbing front on, and consequently that shoulder strength needs to be developed in training. 
Of course you'd want to be like Malc not steve he's weak!

[Paul B]

Of course you'd want to be like Malc not steve he's weak!

you're already half way there beef.

[The Sausage]

...I haven't read all of the posts on this thread, but it seems that most people are in agreement - there are lots of aspects to training and climbing, and identification of personal weaknesses/needs to achieve goals, is vital to goal accomplishment.

However, the original question is whether training 'open' will inherently lead to climbing with poor technique. In other sports, breaking down of a technique into its component parts, and working specifically on them is integral to training. If a sprinter practices starts, are they likely to get in a race situation and pull up after the first 10 metres? Powelifters doubtless train employing 'form', providing strength, that then is used in a highly technical clean & jerk manoeuvre.

[richdraws]

When comparing sports training with climbing remember that most of those sports well covered by sports science are essentially SIMPLE in comparison. A sprinter has relatively little technique component to risk losing, powerlifters again use little technique as they are doing the same movement only hoping to achieve greater outputs of force and greater economy of movement.

Sprinters, swimmers, weightlifters don't have to figure out the most economical way of doing a new variant on a lift/sprint each time they compete or practice. The "highly technical clean and jerk", is not so complex a movement when compared to gymnastic movements or  judo skills against a live partner. Applying a physical knowledge (engram) with strength on the fly in new situations is more common in fighting sports, kayaking, climbing and few others?

I think lovejoy is spot on. Time spent doing a move an inefficient way is time spent wiring your motor skills up the wrong way.

[Paul B]

will someone please explain, why is open (not always open just open) the WRONG way? There are moves that require it.

[richdraws]

Nobody is saying that Paul. And watch out for GAY's who come along and use drop knees on those moves who didn't know that it could only be done STRAIGHT on.

Says me with neither strength nor technique x

[Paul B]

but you nearly look as much like malc as foley so it doesn't really matter.

[Johnny Brown]

Foley looks nothing like Malc. He looks like Fred Nicole.

I've never denied training will make you stronger. What consistently puzzles me is those who profess to take training seriously only ever train strength, usually indoors and usually in bizarre ways (open, no thumbs etc). Training technique will leads to faster gains and better results long term, but no one does it, it never even gets discussed.

[Bonjoy]

will someone please explain, why is open (not always open just open) the WRONG way? There are moves that require it.

Exactly. Some moves on probs it’s the best/easiest way, some moves it isn’t. Hence no need to force bad technique when it is not the easiest way. The idea a climber can render all power problems easy by using drop knees is nonsense BTW. Simply train on a wide range of problems, including things which you feel don’t suite you, do them all using most efficient technique. By doing this you will work the full range of movements AND hardwire the key skill of instantly identifying which way is easiest in any given situation. Change the problems you are trying rather than changing the way you are trying the problems, it’s as simple as that!



JB - I think one of the reasons the training of technique is not discussed much is because it is nigh on impossible to train this on the current generation of climbing walls. It’s is much more effective to do as you say, climb lots within your grade outside, but generally the people who do that think of it more as climbing than training and hence don’t discuss it in those terms. It’d be nice if some day walls/setting got subtle enough to be of some benefit on for hard technical climbing.

[Johnny Brown]

I'm not convinced its a simple as that. The Works certainly seem to create some fairly technical challenges.

There are some problems though - what doesn't seem to be possible indoors is proper smearing or small footholds. Flat paint or tiny polished nubbins are all you get. Similarly early walls worked hard to make holds inset, now they seem to be resigned to make everything a chickenhead. That does make egyptians a powerful tool indoors though, which is an argument for limiting their use I suppose...

I'm quite sure technique can be trained well indoors, by applying such tools as: a 2-3 go rule, making flow the goal rather than the top, repeating moves until effortless (especially knack moves), using strength as little as possible, preferring dynamic to static etc etc.

To get back to why technique is ignored, I think the problem is those with 'the training gene' are predisposed to obsess over measurable progress.

To make repeatable yardsticks you have to reduce down to simple components - far easier to do with strength training, but only possible with technique much more vaguely, and over longer periods. The more reduced the movements become the less related to climbing and the closer to weightlifting.

Then they go climbing outside, find the measured strength gain allows some progress but not what they'd hoped, assume they need to train harder, apply feedback loop, result donkey.

[dave]

The problem with technical stuff indoors is that more often than not, for me at least, the limiting factor is the fear of either kneecapping myself on a selection of ill-positioned jugs or removing most of the skin off my shin on a plywood edge, rather than actual technique. I think even walls like the works are not great for techniquey stuff. the techy stuff was a novelty at first but I don't bother with it these days.

The only place I've climbed indoors with some geninely techy challeneges (albeit at a fairly low grade, and piss once you had them wired) was the berghaus wall in newcastle. old-school moulded bencrete type. The problem with this kind of wall is its fixed, so to build a facility that had the popularity/amount of climbing of say the climbing works you'd need a floor space the size of earls court.

So basically you can only train technique outdoors, which means you can't really train it on winter evenings, or when its too hot for grit. So basically if you're holding down a 9-5 job you don't have much chance. Hence people train strenght because they can. Plus a lot of "technique" for a lot of people can come down to simply trusting smears, which is something you can almost learn rather than train.

[andy popp]

I think people are working with an old-fashioned view of technique here, e.g. slabby, smearing, aretes, thin walls etc.

Watching videos of the Woods, Robinson, Landman etc. generation I'm constantly struck by how differently (and well) they climb, using the whole body and a huge repetoire of techniques (compression, all kinds of hooks, bicycling etc.) to use very poor holds to cross very steep ground. For someone who's been climbing for a very long time its clear they climb in ways unimagineable even relatively recently. This sort of technique is patently trainable on boards.

[Jim]

agreed, all rock types have different types and styles of climbing on them, technique for say grit, is totally different to lime and to granite and sandstone etc... and very different to plastic and they are all different from each. Point is, trying to train technique on plastic is only good for.... climbing on plastic, that is why I would be only be intrested in training for strength and pulling on small holds If I climbed indoors often enough to call it training (if this snow carries on then I may have to)

[Nibile]

Then they go climbing outside, find the measured strength gain allows some progress but not what they'd hoped, assume they need to train harder, apply feedback loop, result donkey.

adam, you are an excellent climber and i have the highest respect for your climbing achievements, but in some occasions you really seem a bit aggressive. like the parisella's topic or this case.
whether i am the first to know that power gains don't directly apply to climbing gains, i don't understand why you want to generalize and make the equation that i quoted.
it depends ot the type of climbing for example. clearly my training routines will be useless to climb duel, but they helped me quite a bit to tore cresciano to pieces.
that said, i want you to coach me on brad pit when i come north.

[Johnny Brown]

I agree with Andy. Improving your technique is all about how you climb not what you climb.

Any aggression unintended Nibs. Just trying to help those most bothered about improving actually acheive it.
Though anyone contemplating the cave in our current weather needs a fucking brain transplant.

[Nibile]

yes, probably "aggressive" wasn't the exact word (me no hablo inglich), but you got the meaning i'm sure.