[GCW]

As with anything, if you do it for a reason (and are aware that you're doing it for a specific reason), and you use it as part of your training then it shouldn't turn your technique to shit.

Balance, I suppose.  I expect if you do nothing but staying open you may suffer on something technical outside.  And don't forget, Malc's point was that a lot of people are weak when open so training this is an important part of your training.  Even Malc wouldn't say it's the only thing you should do.

If you watch he says he trained long moves as he was weak on this etc.  Anyway, I'll let Mr Smith say it (subtitles for non-Scots):

[Paul B]

Is B Paul?

or alternatively you'll score a 6month trip and wonder why on earth you were bothered in training for hard things when all you want to do is climb big easy trad.

 

Mix it all up is the gist of Dave Mac's book. As a caveat to that he also says focus on your weaknesses, and if you are able to drop knee like Edlinger and get shut down on front on moves with no footholds then some practice may benefit.

Is it a good read? I gave up on buying books re:training after Horst.

Oh and more on topic: I think what gets skipped over from that pro-tips is the keeping feet on even when its easier to jump them off.

[Nibile]

i think that some things that bonjoy said are very correct, others are slightly not precise. regarding the weight belt, it's not about giving 100 on a 6c without and 100 on a 6b with it. it's about giving 100 on a 6c with it.

re. twisting.
i think that we have to distinguish between training for climbing and climbing (even indoors).
when i train, i want to make things as hard as i can. in the gym i don't twist, i don't use the aretes of the walls and so on. but when i want to actually complete a problem to impress the random chick, i do everything to make the problem easier for me. so i basically try to climb at my best and then i one arm the top hold.
 

[saltbeef]

dave mac's book.... hmmm
its ok. its a world away from horst.
its the sort of thing that would be gold dust if you were in your first year of climbing. if you've got ten years experience and have climbed some hard stuff it will be less so. on the other channel people think it is elitist. i completely disagree. its aimed at hvs punters as having stuff for those in the upper echelons of the sport to gain, but maybe not as much.
the basic premise is the big 4. technique, finger strength, body composition (ie don't be like sloper, but also don't be like me)((this is going to be adressed in another book) and local (power/forearm) endurance.
Its worth reading. I'd hoped for more.
a lot is on his blog.
there are few specifics. alot of general principles.

[Paul B]

borrowage? 

[hairich]

axel i will always love you.

you all have to remember we are bumbling on small bits of rock.its just for fun

[saltbeef]

as malc says... its for power

[dobbin]

What you are all ignoring is that doing basic Jez with an egyptian would mean you were the GAY. Climber A never reaches the utopic stage of opening his reading school for baby dolphins because he is too busy watching tv interior designers Justin and Colin and shopping for soft furnishings.

climber B meanwhile develops a hunchback and is Leo Moger. Whilst he may not suck the blood from children he will certainly burn you off (as long as you are at the board), and chicks the world over will dig his 'rad crimp strength'.

Someone throw another polar bear on the fire - its cold in this cellar.

[Bonjoy]

Look this is going to sound like heresy to some, but is Malc a good role model for an aspirant rock climber?    I’d say that given how strong Malc was, ie very very strong, stronger than all his peers, he was a long way from realising his potential, essentially he was a very strong underachiever  . Whilst he wasn’t a technical punter, neither was he excellent and it was this that held him back to a degree. From what I’ve heard he’d tend to beast through sequences using basic, inefficient techniques, making the climbing far harder than it needed to be. Whilst he was strong enough to get away with it sometimes, other times he’d end up falling off higher up as a result. To me it seems like a classic case of training imbalance, with bad movement habits being re-inforced due to the deliberate basic regime adopted on the board.


Nibile: If it take 100% of your effort to climb 6c without weight, then surely 100% effort with weight on, on the same moves will not lift your arse off the mat! Contrary to what programs like The Apprentice would have us believe 100% effort = maximum effort.

[Jim]

Malc is god. Now give me 110% you weaklings.

Let us not forget the some people just aren't that good at climbing, no matter how much they train/climb aretes/slabs etc... and have to put loads of effort in to get what just comes naturally to some people.

[GCW]

Again, I think it depends on what you are doing.
If you use a belt to increase load on bigger holds rather than pulling harder on smaller holds and no weight belt there are potential gains.  Although you'd also have to train fingerstrength too.
I used a weight belt for a bit last year, but this was when I was loosing weight (didn't last long).  basically for every 1kg I lost, I'd add in weight for a belt.  Although the theory was no doubt flawed

I think the main point with this was that Malc identified something he was weak at, and trained that area.  Sounds like sense to me. 

[Bonjoy]

My premise is that by addressing one weakness he create another and as such we should be wary of over simplistic solutions. Remember the lady who swallowed a fly....

[dave]

Are you suggesting that perhaps Malc'll die?

[Jim]

I think he'll struggle with a cat

[Bonjoy]

Everyone knows Malc can swallow any animal, he eats them front on and spits out the knees and heels.


Further to my previous heresy, I also suspect that a lot of people given the choice would rather be a Malc Smith than a Steve McClure. Conciously or otherwise they’d be happy to sacrifice overall practical ability in order to be impressively strong, even if it meant they were less good at climbing and climbed less and easier routes/problems. Am I right, of course I’m right, I’m stating the obvious, who wouldn’t want to look the beast!? But is this good for our climbing, I think not.

[GCW]

Fuck that, I'd rather be Gaskins.

[nik at work]

Sorry Bonjoy, I feel as though I have staked my support for your theory then buggered off leaving you to the baying hounds.
The idea of underachievement is an interesting one, I think there are a lot of climbers out there who savagely underachieve given their ridiculous levels of strength*.
As to the original point a climber deliberately climbing straight on is silly unless it's the easiest way for that climber to climb that problem, then it makes sense. When climbing (even problems on a board) aiming for the best technique and most efficient style is always best. If you feel you have a specific weakness then work it using finger boards/core exercises/weights etc etc etc where you will not be building up a store of inefficient climbing engrams. Weighted hangs, fine, weighted climbing I'd be wary...

Just an opinion mind, but given that Bonjoy appears to agree that suggests is that this is practically SCIENCE.

P.S. I'd rather be Steve than Malc but I'm pretty happy being me, does that make me gay Dobbin?

*equally there are people who ponce about technique-ing up things and if they just put a bit of effort into getting beastly then they'd reside in CRUSHVILLE, TENNE-8-SSEE...

[Nibile]

bonjoy,
i know that 100% is 100% (despite other math horrors) but sometimes reality is no math. i think that we are almost never performing at our 100% and finding that gap, maybe just 1%, is where improvement reside.

[andy popp]

What a good thread.

The vast majority of problems on my board have been worked out by either myself or Pete Chadwick. Pete is much stronger than me and much more willing to work his weaknesses. My problems - not really deliberately - tend have got a lot of weird body positions, flagging, hooking etc (not many real egyptians though) and are often feet follow hands. They often climb really well (for a board) and can look unlikely but are pretty repeatable once sussed. Pete's, in comparison, are often more basic.

I have, I think, one problem Pete can't touch and a few he struggles on. He has probably dozens I can't touch. OK, so not exactly a controlled experiment (not least because Pete's technique is as good as he is strong) but it does at least call into question Bonjoys hypotheticals.

If there are strong underacheivers then I'm probably your classic type who believes he can take refuge in good technique and not try and get stronger.

[Paul B]

I think suggesting Malc is an underachiever is perhaps a bit harsh. Maybe he didn't reach his potential but he did disappear from climbing before every stagnating. I can think of a few things he's climbed that haven't seen any/many repeats. Maybe his sequences are inefficient but if he's the only one sat on top of the boulder then he's got something right.

[Bonjoy]

What a good thread.

The vast majority of problems on my board have been worked out by either myself or Pete Chadwick. Pete is much stronger than me and much more willing to work his weaknesses. My problems - not really deliberately - tend have got a lot of weird body positions, flagging, hooking etc (not many real egyptians though) and are often feet follow hands. They often climb really well (for a board) and can look unlikely but are pretty repeatable once sussed. Pete's, in comparison, are often more basic.

I have, I think, one problem Pete can't touch and a few he struggles on. He has probably dozens I can't touch. OK, so not exactly a controlled experiment (not least because Pete's technique is as good as he is strong) but it does at least call into question Bonjoys hypotheticals.

If there are strong underacheivers then I'm probably your classic type who believes he can take refuge in good technique and not try and get stronger.

Andy, by your own admission you are swapping one bad habit for another. As an alternative to deliberately using bad technique I think the smart thing to do would be to concentrate on trying to repeat each other’s problems for a while rather than creating more of your own. This would work your respective weaknesses without having to resort to deliberate bad form. I’m not suggesting people don’t work their weaknesses; I’m just questioning the idea that deliberate bad form is a smart way to do this.
To be clear, by underachiever in this context I’m specifically meaning climbers who’s level of strength is high relative to the level they climb at. By this definition are you really a classic under achiever?

I think suggesting Malc is an underachiever is perhaps a bit harsh. Maybe he didn't reach his potential but he did disappear from climbing before every stagnating. I can think of a few things he's climbed that haven't seen any/many repeats. Maybe his sequences are inefficient but if he's the only one sat on top of the boulder then he's got something right.

Paul you are being disingenuous. You just said yourself he didn’t achieve his potential, is this not the very definition of underachievement? As you well know, I’m not suggesting he was (is) not a brilliant climber among the best in the world at his peak. Of course he ‘did something right’, but does this mean his approach is a flawless paradigm to follow? If you want to be a beast for it’s own sake then it probably is, but if you want to climb as hard as your own physical frame will allow then I think the approach is flawed. It’s the difference between admiration and hero worship.

[Jim]

yes agreed, I don't think I would say Malc was an underachiever.
As stated before some people aren't as naturally talented as others and the only way they can make up for it is by getting mutantly strong

[Johnny Brown]

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

[Jim]

so when i keith going to learn to top out then? 

[andy popp]

Jon, you're absolutely right, that was a deliberate (if not explicit) form of admission from me - one provoked by this thread. We do try each others problems but I know there are some I avoid, either completely or when I get shut down quickly. That is a weakness.

Yes, I wasn't clear, I meant that in contrast to the classic strong underacheiver I perhaps exemplify another type.

I've always thought the concept of realizable potential a tricky one. We have a tendency to reduce it to its physical components (esp strength) but in reality its a much more complex bundle. In some senses, ignoring purely external contingencies, we all realize our potential as it (should) also include our psychological ability to apply ourselves fully. The whole idea is pretty tautological and not very useful.