[shark]

The BMC have hosted an article by Audry Morrison and Volker Schöffl here on the evidence underpinning their guidance on campus board usage which is  here

And reads:

For those under 18

Feet-off dynamic campus boarding can permanently damage your fingers!

Whilst still growing you are at serious risk of injuring the growth plates in your fingers as they will not be fused yet.

Growth plate injury will mean no climbing for a long time.

Growth plate injury can lead to serious permanent damage.

Younger climbers benefit more from improving their flexibility, co-ordination and technique.

There is NO NEED TO CAMPUS feet-off or dynamically!

While under 18 don’t campus with feet off or dynamically!

For those over 18

Campus boarding can seriously damage your fingers!

Don’t use a campus board with your feet off, or dynamically, unless you are an experienced climber and fully understand what you are doing.

Warm up properly, especially the fingers.

Use the campus board at the beginning of your training session – tiredness increases your risk of injury.

Don’t do double dynos unless you are very experienced in campus board use.

Warm down afterwards.

[John Gillott]

Who is the article aimed at - the vast majority, or those people plus those that want to climb the very hardest things? If the latter as well, will it work?

While the title of the piece and the main thrust is about campusing, the article contains a more general warning:

'Training Methods and Devices with a Devastating Effects on Bone and Cartilage:

• Campus board
• Additional weight
• Extreme bouldering
• Too many dynamic moves
• Constant use of the crimp position'

Indeed, I wonder if campusing is in reality any worse or better than other methods? The article doesn't seem to cover the fact that the association between injuries and campusing might simply be because campusing is an obvious way for the keen to train hard. Take it away and they'd do something else, such as what the article calls 'Extreme bouldering', which might have the same effect? In any case I can't see any suggestion in the article that they've controlled for this (though of course it might be in the references).

Either way, it seems clear that Ondra thinks climbing very hard from a very early age has given him almost indestructible fingers. If a youngster is thinking about emulating or trying to emulate Ondra, what are they supposed to do? The recommendation to concentrate on technique, flexibility and coordination is all well and good, but that alone isn't going to do the job is it?

[dave]

I recon campussing is being painted in that article pretty badly (OH MY GOD ITS SO EXTREME), whereas like john says, doing any kind of steep hard bouldering could likely be just as bad/good. Whats the advice now the, basically if you're a kid only climb small moves on jugs?

[webbo]

Is it more likely to be targeted at the numptys I see using tha campus board at my local wall.They appear to be unable to manage a 2 arm pull up but insist on throwing themselves at the campus board for a warm up.

[shark]

I recon campussing is being painted in that article pretty badly (OH MY GOD ITS SO EXTREME), whereas like john says, doing any kind of steep hard bouldering could likely be just as bad/good. Whats the advice now the, basically if you're a kid only climb small moves on jugs?

The more varied loads of differing hold types and moves of foot-on steep bouldering compared to dynamic foot-off campussing mean it is less likely to be as injurious. The rate of force development places particularly high loads on fingers as you move off campus rungs. Steep bouldering although less risky is still risky so Audry's advice is also for kids limiting the amount of hard steep bouldering (ie not having international kids bouldering comps) particularly because of the growth plate issue. General coaching guidance is that early development ideally should focus more on stamina and technique than strength and power not least because muscle gain only comes later and kids are better at technique learning than adults.

[Ru]

The reality is that climbing is likely to go the way of sports such as gymnastics where if you want to be world class you have to go hard from a young age and those that get injured along the way just stop doing it.

As for Ondra thinking that hard climbing has given him indestructible fingers, well he would. Had he fucked them aged 14 he might think differently. Sample size of one etc etc.

[shark]

[The rate of force development places particularly high loads on fingers as you move off campus rungs.

To quote Serpico on this:

One of the most important differences between the various methods of training finger strength (fingerboard, system board, HIT) is rate of force development (RFD). Years ago I was a volunteer in a study on the biomechanics of campusing. I had to campus onto a hold with force sensors in. This showed a massive peak in force as you hit the hold and then moved off it. The speed at which you can recruit muscle fibres, and the synchronisity with which they fire is the mark of contact strength - the ability to latch holds at speed.
The lowest stimulus for improving RFD is probably deadhangs on a fingerboard. However it's a very controllable exercise and good at thoroughly fatiguing a grip so it's good for basic strength and Hypertrophy.
Campusing is probably the highest stimulus for RFD. It's a very exclusive exercise though as you can either do it on small enough holds to be training fingers not arms or you can't. In contrast to deadhanging it's not as good as exhausting a grip for hypertrophy.

[shark]

As for Ondra thinking that hard climbing has given him indestructible fingers, well he would. Had he fucked them aged 14 he might think differently. Sample size of one etc etc.

The BMC article is about the specifically higher risks of campussing not hard climbing. Did Ondra do a lot of hard campussing ? I formed the impression that from early on he did a massive volume of roped and indoor climbing and is a latecomer to bouldering.

[John Gillott]

As for Ondra thinking that hard climbing has given him indestructible fingers, well he would. Had he fucked them aged 14 he might think differently. Sample size of one etc etc.

The BMC article is about the specifically higher risks of campussing not hard climbing. Did Ondra do a lot of hard campussing ? I formed the impression that from early on he did a massive volume of roped and indoor climbing and is a latecomer to bouldering.

It's not that specific: it is critical of many forms of 'extreme' strength training. I also got the impression Ondra didn't do campusing, but iirc he did steep indoor bouldering and I get the distinct impression that the crux sections of the routes he trained on and the way he climbed them might be considered quite 'extreme'. As Ru says a sample size of one. As Ru also said, any youngster who wants to be the best is going to train hard from a young age and I'd be very surprised if this didn't involve things the authors of this article don't like.

Is there an argument btw that campusing is possibly less risky because it's more controlled? There is a very strong load through the fingers at a particular point, but you know it's coming. A foot pop and a desperate attempt to cling on, whether through instinct or desire not to fail, can provide an unexpected shock load.

[Ru]

The BMC article is about the specifically higher risks of campussing not hard climbing. Did Ondra do a lot of hard campussing ? I formed the impression that from early on he did a massive volume of roped and indoor climbing and is a latecomer to bouldering.

But then the article on which it's based points to "extreme bouldering" and "too many dynamic moves" as being damaging also. Ondra did Action Directe at 15. It might have been that that was the first time he'd ever done dynamic moves on small holds but I doubt it.

The point is, what exactly is being advocated here? Is is that all hard, dynamic climbing should be avoided until you're 18? Just a campus board? Is some hard dynamic climbing ok? If so how much? And all of this set against a background in which the best kids are climbing 9a at 14 and font 8b+ at 15/16 or whatever, involving hard dynamic climbing on small holds.

[shark]

The point is, what exactly is being advocated here? Is is that all hard, dynamic climbing should be avoided until you're 18? Just a campus board? Is some hard dynamic climbing ok? If so how much? And all of this set against a background in which the best kids are climbing 9a at 14 and font 8b+ at 15/16 or whatever, involving hard dynamic climbing on small holds.

No scientist is going to be, nor should be, that specifically prescriptive in their guidance because the studies wont support that level of specificity and individuals vary in being injury prone.

The coaches of the top kids will have their views for their proteges. With my kids I will endevour to keep them off the foot off campussing to focus more on volume and technique than bouldering and nag them about the other boring injury prevention stuff - warming up, hydration, laying off during growth spurts and if they get any tweaks. You do the best with what knowledge is available.

[slackline]

Apparently under 18's are advised against drinking alcohol, doesn't stop a significant proportion from trying though.

[tomtom]

How does the gymnastics community handle this? As theres plenty of children doing exercises not that different from climbing there...

[robertostallioni]

Re. gymnastics, certainly for the youngest 5-10, every "active" second of training is monitored by a coach, either prescribed exercises or observed drills so barely a second of any training, be it in the gym or at home is unregulated.

It is perfectly regulated for each participant, with obvious graded progression, but is a fairly 2 dimensional sport. ie much less complexity than climbing.

[a dense loner]

bmc advice? a kid was at the wall last night with a t-shirt saying something like "bmc talented youngster". i felt a bit sorry for him since a) he looked like a twat wearing this stupid willy waving t-shirt and b) he wasn't very talented

tonight i may wear my "I am fucking God" t-shirt with no hint of irony

[shark]

tonight i may wear my "I am miserable cunt" t-shirt with no hint of irony

[tomtom]

tonight i may wear my "I am miserable cunt" t-shirt with no hint of irony

:D

[cheque]

Under 18s are strong enough already!

Seriously, though, training tools like that definitely need information to go along with them. I didn't think this 'til my local wall installed fingerboards with open access but no advice or instructions: there's always someone hanging straight-armed from them. I saw a bodybuilder-type guy go straight from failing on juggy problems to a pull-up on the crimps of a resin Moon board. He hid the pain pretty well but left straight after. 

I'm thinking of getting a 'BMC talentless punter' shirt made.

[Paul B]

No eggs on this channel?

[a dense loner]

i'm not miserable n have probably only been so a few times in my life. i'm portrayed as miserable since i don't think watching eastenders deserves to go in the yes yes fucking yes section, n i don't think every meal i've ever had has been the best thing i've ever tasted, nor do i get an erection over cryptic crosswords. woe is me.

apart from that this study should obviously be discounted since the authors quite clearly haven't a clue what they're talking about, with reference to whats been wrote on this thread.

[lagerstarfish]

the real question is "should the under 40s be allowed to use indoor bouldering walls when members of any other age group are there?"

[underground]

i'm not miserable n have probably only been so a few times in my life. i'm portrayed as miserable since i don't think watching eastenders deserves to go in the yes yes fucking yes section, n i don't think every meal i've ever had has been the best thing i've ever tasted, nor do i get an erection over cryptic crosswords. woe is me.

apart from that this study should obviously be discounted since the authors quite clearly haven't a clue what they're talking about, with reference to whats been wrote on this thread.

I fucking love you Lee  you were visibly ecstatic last time we met....

On the BMC thing - seems to me that the bin lids who want to do it, will do it anyway, always been the way. Training hard for climbing will hurt people anyway, and fuck knows how an arbitrary '18 years old' rule will change that.

And they can either campus or they can't. What happened to getting the fuck out there and just doing stuff?

[indoor walls, i expect]

[shark]

Training hard for climbing will hurt people anyway, and fuck knows how an arbitrary '18 years old' rule will change that.

Its not arbitrary. The reason for the 18 year old 'rule' is:

Fingers only finish growing to adult size at around biological age 17.  Biological age can be different from chronological age.

The suggestion of no campus board use for those under age 18 (even perhaps up to age 20) is stating cut-off of a chronological age that allows a safe margin for ‘late maturers’ to complete developmental growth, without having to resort to other intrusive methods to figure out where a young climber’s developmental growth is at.

For example, in scientific studies developmental age before adulthood can be considered chronologically (ie age 8 years and 7 months), or biologically (age according to pubertal development). Biological age can be measured by the presence of new hormones and enzyme levels; using ‘Tanner’ stage pubertal development references; taking a hand and wrist x-ray to examine growth plate development (a ‘closed epiphysis’ in wrist bone shows the growth plate (disc shaped bone) and bone fused at age 17). 
 
The growth plate, also known as the epiphyseal plate or physis, is the area of growing tissue near the ends of the long bones in children and adolescents (shown here in young hand age 8 years 7months). Each long bone has at least two growth plates: one at each end. The growth plate determines the future length and shape of the mature bone. When growth is complete - sometime during adolescence - the growth plates close and are replaced by solid bone. Fingers complete growth around age 17.

Growth plate (or epipyseal) injuries are unique to growing children or adolescents. Injuries to the growth plates are generally, but not always, called fractures.

[Tommy]

Well said Shark.

I problem I see as a coach for a load of young kids is not the issues of what they can gain from using a campus board but rather the risk reward ratio. Sure, the reward is obvious but not great enough to justify the risk. A fucked finger(s) in your late teens is bad news and I've seen too many suffer long term to justify continued use of campussing for training.

A big well done for the BMC and Iain Mackenzie for doing so much leg work on this issue - it's not easy coming out with a coherent and simple message on issues like this.

A good thing also that people actually are debating this matter on here. I kind of thought the whole issue was going to go unnoticed for a while... 

[rodma]

The only problem with this kind of info is, since when will teenagers take advice from grown ups, specifically when:-

• The campussing has made them stronger thus far
• They are getting close to climbing the same grade as said grown-ups, or are already outclimbing them on certain if not all types of problems.

I have been on both sides, but when younger I was dealt out some poisonous advice, specifically aimed at holding me back, which I took, because I am an idiot.

When I used to work at the wall I tried to place a temporary ban one of the youth because his fingers were already badly injured, but he would not stop training (in this case it was massively dynamic bouldering between crimps on a 45 board, and I really mean massive, like, over a metre for each move), or take any of the advice that the staff were handing out. The management at the wall wouldn't back me up with the ban and said that all we could do was keep trying to give him advices. Although that was not the final straw for his hands, which I believe happened at a BRYCS final. To be honest even if I could have had the ban enforced, I reckon he would have found some other way to keep on training. He was phenomenally strong and talented and was outclimbing all of the local wads at the time.

What do you do, eh. I certainly don't know. I find it hard enough to listen to my own body (with the exception of wine/beer/snacks that is). 

[Lund]

Without being too arsed to read the whole thing in any detail:

- It's common knowledge that various kinds of exercise is bad for you if you're still growing.  c.f. most gyms (the weights and vests kind) being over 16 only or whatever.
- Dense, you may be a leg end in many ways and have probably achieved more than me, and you certainly are a grumpy yorkshireman and queer for whippets, but I think you're off page here old bean.
- Campus boarding is a quite shit exercise unless you know what you're doing, because you'll a. get good at campusing but stay shit at climbing, and b. break yourself.  Big fuck off notices saying "don't use this if you're fat" don't stop porkers using it, and tearing themselves more extension in their elbow joint.

Frankly, I don't think kids should be using the campus board.  I don't think they should be doing any non-bodyweight exercises (c.f. the gymnastic questions) unless it's very carefully designed.  Also, someone has to guide coaches in this country because there isn't really a decent coaching qualification, not enough applied SCIENCE to climbing coaching out there as literature for people trying to be good coaches, and if the BMC don't come out with it nobody else will.

Most importantly, fat knackers wearing a harness and a punter tattoo on their forehead should not use the campus board.

Oh, and everyone should do more yoga.
 

[a dense loner]

good god i'm from lancashire lund!
as an aside i said the study of what was wrote up til that point was nonsense, as it is. any fool knows that repeatedly doing the same movement causes injury, pulling on a small hold is more likely to cause injury than pulling on a big one n so on n so forth. so a study that says campussing is bad for the fingers is a bit like reading a study that says eating more food makes you fatter. no shit sherlock. taking steroids is bad for you but a lot of people take them. everyone makes their own decisions, some of them informed some not. i am lead to believe that most under 18's fall into the latter category. strangely i also don't see any under 18's campussing, 10 minutes to show off to little women by monkeying up big holds doesn't count.
my umbridge was with the bmc having t-shirts that told people watch out this guy/girl is about to blow your socks off cos he/she's fucking good. so i wasn't off the mark before i just didn't have a point to the story apart from the t-shirt which i thought made the young lad look like a right cock, which made my blood boil, then run cold.
god thats a boxing glove smiley, i thought it was a wiping tears from the eyes smiley

[shark]

How does the gymnastics community handle this? As theres plenty of children doing exercises not that different from climbing there...

Re. gymnastics, certainly for the youngest 5-10, every "active" second of training is monitored by a coach, either prescribed exercises or observed drills so barely a second of any training, be it in the gym or at home is unregulated.

It is perfectly regulated for each participant, with obvious graded progression, but is a fairly 2 dimensional sport. ie much less complexity than climbing.

Came across this quote of a study in an 8a.nu discussion from 1996 titled Physical and Emotional Problems of Elite Female Gymnasts:
 
Within the past five years, two U.S. female gymnasts at the Olympic level, Christy Henrich and Julissa Gomez, died from medical problems related to their sport. Christy died from complications of anorexia nervosa and Julissa from complications of spinal trauma due to a vaulting injury.

In this Olympic year, it is timely to discuss the psychological and physical problems associated with competitive women's gymnastics. Women's gymnastics provides a useful framework for viewing worrisome trends in other competitive youth sports. In the United States, organized athletic programs involve at least 20 million children and adolescents each year, with more than 2 million participating in all levels of competitive gymnastics.

The development of gymnastics champions involves hard training, stringent coaching, and often parental pressure, ostensibly in the best interest of the child. Overtraining, injuries, and psychological damage are common consequences.Parents and coaches, in collusion with the young athlete, may seek to experience vicariously the success of the child, a behavior that could be called “achievement by proxy.” The recent death of seven-year-old Jessica Dubroff during her abortive cross-country airplane flight has been cited as a glaring illustration of this behavior. Its hallmark is strong parental encouragement of a potentially dangerous endeavor for the purpose of gaining fame and financial reward. We suggest that in its extreme form “achievement by proxy” may be a sort of child abuse.

Elite gymnasts throughout the world begin training between the ages of five and seven years. They are often involved in serious, regimented training by the age of 10. During this critical stage of development, children experience rapid physiologic,
neurologic, and psychological growth. Participation in Olympic-level gymnastics may place inappropriate physical and psychological demands on these children, which may have long-term, indeed lifelong, adverse consequences.

Ian R. Tofler, M.B., B.S., Barri Katz Stryer, M.D., Lyle J. Micheli, M.D., and Lisa R. Herman, M.S.

N Engl J Med 1996;
335:281-283July 25, 1996

Makes you think.... (of eggs Paul?)

[Paul B]

My point was that Binney likening it to eggs against a wall is a crock of shit. Organic, free-range or battery reared, throwing eggs at a wall will result in an uncooked scramble on your floor. I made a point when this first popped up but apart from self-congratulatory back patting I didn't see any retort?

Where is the wake of devastated youngsters (represented here by an eggy mess), as all I see are examples of the proverbial eggs that didn't smash?

The names to beat on the junior circuit when I was appropriately aged are the same names I hear of today doing impressive things.

Furthermore, I went on a BMC trip to Font years ago. At the time the group of us were probably going well to climb Font 7a, Nige Callendar showed up and showed us all what strong really meant. I'm fairly sure this was campus related.

I'm also fairly sure that Ty had been pointed towards foot-off and campus training by Zippy?

What about Hamer? That guy campus' crimped.

So, I ask again, where are all the wasted yolks?

[Jaspersharpe]

What about Hamer? That guy campus' crimped.

There's another way? 

[shark]

Binney didnt say that we in the UK are at that point. But it is a direction that other sports/countries have gone down where achievement is paramount. The coaches at PYB generally didnt have the stomach for that approach and neither do I.

The yolks don't make the press but they are covered in Schaffers study of the junior Austrian team. You are contesting the conclusions of a study based on what you assume Ed and Tyler have done and also your unsurprising lack of contact with other youngsters who don't turn up crushing at the Tor/Font/Works because they got injured. I accept they may not exist. Perhaps the UK kids arent training hard enough for this to happen. Climbing is potentially a fulfilling lifelong sport. How many early dropouts from injuries caused by dynamic campussing is acceptable? One, a hundred, none ?   

Binney also showed a video at the Symposium of a report Steve Redgave on the training of child gymnasts in China. No doubt they will get amazing results at the Games as a team but not something I would let my kids endure. 

[robertostallioni]

My quote was in relation to monitoring the sport-specific physical  development of the young athletes. Sure, Gymnastics at even local level is fiercely competitive and very mentally challenging for young minds. Its hard to watch sometimes, as barely a session goes by without tears from one kid or another. There are good and bad coaches in every sport and if you're throwing your kids into any sport surely  its you as a parent who need to take responsibility for what your kids do, ie educating yourself in the activity.

We have a six year old who does gymnastics and we are currently considering upping the volume(number of weekly sessions) at the minute. We are told 5-6yo is the tipping point between good/great. He enjoys it, but whats right and whats wrong? What is pushing too hard? What is providing opportunity?

We all look back and say "Oh, i wish I started climbing X years before I did" but its gets messy when it comes providing sport to youngsters. I had knee problems at the end of my teens due to too much sport. But do I blame my fairly sports-educated dad for providing me those opportunities? Nope. I say educate yourself and your kids, then you can monitor your them without these one-size-fits-all blanket bollocks.

[SA Chris]

Can you get one size fits all bollocks blankets?

[robertostallioni]

Can you get one size fits all bollocks blankets?

Loads of 'em round your neck of the woods

[SA Chris]

Not sure they are OSFA.

[Paul B]

Binney didn't say that we in the UK are at that point.

your original post:

The consensus at the symposium was strongly against campus boarding until after growth stops. Not every young climber will suffer injury as a consequence but the evidence that exists points to it being risky. Dave Binney likened this sort of training as throwing eggs against a wall. Are you prepared to sacrifice 99 athlete' careers for potentially one Olympic champion?

Seemed to relate to campussing rather than 'the way in which the Austrian team campus', maybe I misunderstood. It also suggests a 1% success rate from campussing sub-18, which seems to be a bit melodramatic as I first said.

Your suggesting the people I cited are complete conjecture; that's far from correct.

The coaches at PYB generally didn't have the stomach for that approach and neither do I.

and neither do I. I sat at the bottom of a crag in Margalerf where two contrasting styles of parenting were being carried out. One girl, crushing the sh*t out of everything was smiled at, given a 'well-done' whilst a similar aged boy hung on the rope crying (literally) to come down, whilst his (fat, never climbed in his life [I assume]) father refused to lower him until he'd topped out.

Despite this, until we become Austria, I don't see the need for a blanket advisory note on campussing. No more so than other common sense related training issues. I'd need a lot of convincing to believe that boards are less damaging than the more controlled excercise of campussing.

[Jaspersharpe]

whilst a similar aged boy hung on the rope crying (literally) to come down, whilst his (fat, never climbed in his life [I assume]) father refused to lower him until he'd topped out.

Fucking hell, that's disgusting.

[Tommy]

Hi Paul, I've come across quite a few in my time who are U18 and have had problems with use of campus boards. They're generally kids you don't hear of because they're not unbreakable and hence tend to "go out of the game" quite quickly due to the injuries and as a result no one notices them down the wall. I can certainly see your point and most people may think the same, but I can assure you when you work with it really regularly and see people from all over the place the pattern is there...

It's not a mega serious issue in some ways - i.e. we don't have 99 broken eggs and one super egg - more that there are 15 broken eggs and one super beast 

However, the medical evidence and the studies out there really don't support the use of campussing in physically unmatured U18s. Overall I think it's best to err on the side of caution when supporting and guiding a child through their development. Still, we could argue on this all night until the point where you can get 100 kids and I get 100 and we put them through 5 years of your ideas and 5 years of mine and see who wins in a super-duel at the end!!





 

[Tommy]

Dense. Just saw your reply above.... ha ha ha! I could expect nothing less from you 

I'm going to laugh my head off though if I ever see you in the future with 5 kids under your wing telling them they're all champs and if they're winning in the mind, they're winning in the field.

[slackline]

Still, we could argue on this all night until the point where you can get 100 kids and I get 100 and we put them through 5 years of your ideas and 5 years of mine and see who wins in a super-duel at the end!!

Make sure they're randomised to training arms.

[Bonjoy]

any fool knows that repeatedly doing the same movement causes injury....

Okay, gotcha.

  So why does your wrist still appear to work?

…pulling on a small hold is more likely to cause injury than pulling on a big one n so on n so forth

Oooh, right, that'd explain it. Thanks

[Paul B]

It's not a mega serious issue in some ways - i.e. we don't have 99 broken eggs and one super egg - more that there are 15 broken eggs and one super beast 

Good reply.

[cjsheps]

For those under 18


Younger climbers benefit more from improving their flexibility, co-ordination and technique.

There is NO NEED TO CAMPUS feet-off or dynamically!

Well surely strength is just as important an asset as these others. It's not merely a shortcut to climbing harder, but a genuine means, - people like to tiptoe round it without admitting that they're hold back by brute strength - pure and simple.

For those over 18

Don’t use a campus board with your feet off, or dynamically, unless you are an experienced climber and fully understand what you are doing.

Through being introduced to the power of the board slowly, I've assimilated knowledge of how to warm up etc. Now at 16, can you say to me that I'm more likely to be injured than the guy thrashing about with no warmup? Don't underestimate it as a valuable training tool.

[Lund]

Through being introduced to the power of the board slowly, I've assimilated knowledge of how to warm up etc. Now at 16, can you say to me that I'm more likely to be injured than the guy thrashing about with no warmup? Don't underestimate it as a valuable training tool.

It's not about getting an acute injury, youf.  It's about stunting your growth and future development.  There's a decreasing but not entirely zero risk that you'll end up with weak tendons, ligaments and affected bone plate growth because you're still growing.  At 16, that risk is low - much lower than if you were, say, 14 - but it's still non-zero.

[ghisino]

The point is, what exactly is being advocated here? Is is that all hard, dynamic climbing should be avoided until you're 18? Just a campus board? Is some hard dynamic climbing ok? If so how much? And all of this set against a background in which the best kids are climbing 9a at 14 and font 8b+ at 15/16 or whatever, involving hard dynamic climbing on small holds.

i guess it's just as for many other sports (with the exception of female gymnasts and a few others)

the current vision is that as someone said above, a pre-puberty kid will be best at learning technique and motor skills, not that good in terms of strenght developement, and that several injuries might be worse at his age rather than as adult.
(one example i know, shoulder luxation or subluxation : you are 100% sure to develop chronic instability and need surgery if it happens before the end of your skeletal growht around 20 yrs old...if it happens later, you might be lucky and conservative treatement might be enough).
Moreover, too much strenght developement (in the sense of hypertrophy) might put a brake on skeletal growht

btw when thinking about those young wonders, i ask myself
a) how hard do they really dyno. (I don't remember all-points-off from enzo oddo, neither from ondra at his age)
b) how small holds really are compared to their hands size and body weight...
c) how hard do they push themselves on single moves in general. Again, i think of the ondra vid on some 9a he did at 13 or 14 : he looked like every move was so easy for him...

In the end i think that these are just general guidelines that need to be adjusted individually.
If a particular 8b boulder move looks "easy and safe" for a specific kid, let him/her do it!

[ghisino]

It's not a mega serious issue in some ways - i.e. we don't have 99 broken eggs and one super egg - more that there are 15 broken eggs and one super beast 

yeah one alternative vision could be to get as many children (age 7 to 10) as possible on a campus board and force them to do a serious campussing cycle.

then you take those that don't break and try to turn them in future beasts...

as for those that brak, well, just bad genes for climbing...