[rich d]

Was doing some stuff at work and I got thinking about the resource that is UKB. Would there be any value in trying to benchmark feats of strength etc against worked grade eg can hang a 1cm edge for x amount of time, lock off x, campus y, do a front lever for, do so many pull ups and climbs grade x
Get loads of responses and then as an online training tool you could compare where you are to the average 7b climber across a variety of training measures and identify our weaknesses (or even strengths)
Worth it or not?

[a dense loner]

Not

[tomtom]

The Beastmaker folks kind of do that in their app... As in a 7AM workout etc.. It's with usual caveats of being and outline/rough guide etc..

[slackline]

...average 7b climber...

Mean, mode or median?

[Stubbs]

I think you'd have to get a lot of sample points to get balance the guys that can do 5 one armers but only climb 7C, etc.  I think there would be some correlation in there somewhere but a lotta noise!

[TobyD]

where you are to the average 7b climber across a variety of training measures and identify our weaknesses (or even strengths)
Worth it or not?

I think it might be entertaining but have no real value in term of a gauge of real performance. I was recently discussing campussing with another member of this forum: he thought he needed to do much more of it, to improve beyond his max.
Until it became evident that a) he could burn me off substantially on campus performance but b) my route max is 8 grades beyond his. He could probably wup my ass on a BM / cellar board as well. So either I am very, very fluky (possible) or ability to get up routes / problems isn't well described by easily measureable training media. I am currently discovering that I am shit at weights as well.
Having said that it might be moderately entertaining knowing ukB 'vitalstatistics'  ie time hang on 5mm edge; bench press, pull ups on a bar etc...

[Dexter]

I think theres a fair few variables such as height because if youre taller generally you will weigh more meaning smaller holds are worse but if you can hang them you should (in theory) be able to move further with them. I have been able to do a one armer for bout 3 years but only ever 1 as i never trained past this but my climbing has steadily gone up

[jwi]

In this article they report on a PCA they did of different suspected determinants for climbing performance.  I only skimmed through the paper, but I was unsurprised by their findings: mainly that "anthropometric" (length, arm-span, body fat %, etc) explain very little of the variation in performance, whereas trainable factors (relative muscular strength, endurance and power) explained a lot (60% of the variation in the sample).

[Sasquatch]

I actually think it would be very valuable. From personal experience, I never really realized how weak I was on crimping until seeing a few others from another state and reading about relative bm stuff on the forums.  Once I was aware of it, I've been able to easily pinpoint and address that weakness resulting in my best year of climbing ever. 

on the other side, it might help those beastly strong guys to see firsthand that they're not weak on the board and for best results focusing on technical aspects would be more beneficial.

Not to mention, I love being competitive.   

[abarro81]

Randall basically has this for route climbers with the results from his lattice board - there are some nice little graphs allowing you to see how your energy systems compare to others who've done the tests.

[Nibile]

I think that comparing training benchmarks to climbing is very difficult, but it could be useful to compare training benchmarks and climbing grades of various climbers, to better tailor one's training.
I mean, if I do 40 pullups and climb 7c while my mate does 20 and clmbs 8b, probably I have to readdress my schedule...

[r-man]

"anthropometric" (length, arm-span, body fat %, etc) explain very little of the variation in performance, whereas trainable factors (relative muscular strength, endurance and power) explained a lot (60% of the variation in the sample).

So anthropometric explained the other 40%? That's a lot.

I mean, if I do 40 pullups and climb 7c while my mate does 20 and clmbs 8b, probably I have to readdress my schedule...

Unless your mate is a foot taller than you are, or much skinnier, or has longer arms. Any sort of comparison is only going to work for people who are the same size and weight. I'm sure there's something to be gained by looking at stats, but shorties are always going to have to be better climbers to climb 90% of the things lankies do.

[SamD]

According to the study, anthropomorphic aspects accounted for 0.3% of the variance as an independant characteristic. Flexibility acounted for 1.3%. The rest is accounted for by "other factors" not analysed in the study.

[r-man]

I can't be bothered to read it and figure out what variables they have controlled and what they haven't, but that clearly doesn't ring true for most bouldering. Perhaps it has more relevance for steep limestone endurance routes (hence why Tom Randall's lattice is a useful tool).

[abarro81]

but shorties are always going to have to have a better strength to weight ratio to climb 90% of the things lankies do, which is convenient since they are inherently at an advantage when it comes to strength to weight.

Fixed.
A short 8c climber would be expected to out perform a tall 8c climber on foot-off strength-to-weight exercises (you can view this as the shorty 'having' to be stronger, or the lanky one having an inherent disadvantage when it comes to being strong at these exercises).

[a dense loner]

No r-man that counts mostly. If u were to get your average tall climber n your average midget on a granite roof I know where my money would be, n I only throw it away on a Saturday night. There are far too many variables in climbing for this to make any sense, maybe it does in routes

[abarro81]

Does anyone ever understand anything dense says on here?

[chris05]

Does anyone ever understand anything dense says on here?

I assumed he was speaking a different language?

[nai]

Surely for all the variables you can think of it'll come down to finger strength and finger endurance?

Struggling to remember Malc's exact quote, was it: "fingers, fingers, fingers"?

[slackline]

"anthropometric" (length, arm-span, body fat %, etc) explain very little of the variation in performance, whereas trainable factors (relative muscular strength, endurance and power) explained a lot (60% of the variation in the sample).

So anthropometric explained the other 40%? That's a lot.

No, there could be unobserved factors that explain variation.

Principal Components Analysis see section 3 for an explanation (more technical explanation)

[r-man]

but shorties are always going to have to have a better strength to weight ratio to climb 90% of the things lankies do, which is convenient since they are inherently at an advantage when it comes to strength to weight.

Fixed.
A short 8c climber would be expected to out perform a tall 8c climber on foot-off strength-to-weight exercises (you can view this as the shorty 'having' to be stronger, or the lanky one having an inherent disadvantage when it comes to being strong at these exercises).

I suspect you are thinking about Spanish sport climbing and I'm thinking about scrappy UK sitstarts. Perhaps things even out over a longer distance, but they don't seem to on boulders. I'm neither very short nor very tall, but having climbed with both, I know who usually has to do the most and hardest moves to get to the top. On most boulders, being able to reach a foot further outweighs the disadvantage of being heavier.

Not that I have any problem with this - that's just the nature of the game. We all do what we can with what we've got. But it means that for bouldering, comparing training strength to grades would need to account for a lot of variables before it had any sort of meaning.

[abarro81]

I suspect you are thinking about Spanish sport climbing and I'm thinking about scrappy UK sitstarts.

I was thinking in general. Short people have a natural advantage when it comes to strength to weight. (IIRC, strength scales with cross-section of muscles whereas mass scales with volume, giving shorties a dimensional advantage. There's a graph somewhere showing that whilst the biggest weight lifters are the strongest, the shorter ones have better strength to weight ratios. I suspect that the reliance of climbing on connective tissue strength rather than purely muscular strength accentuates this advantage too.) I'm not saying it's easier for short people to climb hard, but it is easier for short people to be stronger (in a strength-to-weight sense).

Perhaps things even out over a longer distance, but they don't seem to on boulders.

No doubt that the shorter the route/problem the more important it becomes about whether moves fit you or not.

I know who usually has to do the most and hardest moves to get to the top.

Yes, but the point is that a 'hard' move which is not height dependent is inherently easier for the short person due to their strength advantage, this is where any evening out occurs.

But it means that for bouldering, comparing training strength to grades would need to account for a lot of variables before it had any sort of meaning.

Agreed. It wouldn't really tell you much.

[tommytwotone]

Having said that it might be moderately entertaining knowing ukB 'vitalstatistics'  ie time hang on 5mm edge; bench press, pull ups on a bar etc...

...come on, how can you forget Powerball max rpm?!

[a dense loner]

Surely for all the variables you can think of it'll come down to finger strength and finger endurance?

Struggling to remember Malc's exact quote, was it: "fingers, fingers, fingers"?

[a dense loner]

Wtf happened there? Anyway b4 I was rudely interrupted by my iPad doing what it wanted, what I meant to write was. None of this performance nonsense takes into account all the variables or anything like most of them. For instance what was written above 'it's just finger strength n finger endurance' this is the most basic bizarre thing I've ever read. What about core, body positioning etc etc? Now are we talking about fingers strong in crimp, wide pinch, narrow pinch, undercuts. An undercut above say chest level doesn't care about how strong your fingers are, it cares more about your bicep or body position. It's no good taking malcs quotes out of context n using them as gospel. With him saying fingers fingers fingers that's ok cos his core n biceps etc are like pistons pistons pistons. What next are we gonna quote ondra as saying fingers don't matter it's biceps biceps biceps, cos that's where he struggles. Obviously they've done him no harm but if he was to point out his weaknesses that's where he'd identify.