[2 Tru]

As Slackline's recent survey suggests there are probably still a lot of UK climbers out there that resemble Dave Mcloud’s strong but unhappy ape and yet the thread posts are full of advice on deadlifts, deadhangs and finger injuries but very little advice on how to improve your technique.

The main response is just climb more but is that not the same answer people give when talking about training? There are more structured ways of improving.

The point of this thread is to have a place to post links on technique and skills training. 

Here are a few to start the ball rolling.



http://www.onlineclimbingcoach.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Technique%20Drills

Caveat. I am a punter with no technique or strength, there are many that climb a lot harder and know a lot more than me, this is mainly a selfish ploy to save hours of internet trawling.

[iain]

Lalalalalalala, not listening.

Where's a fingers in ears smiley when you need one ...

good post

[nai]

Nice, something to watch between reps on the fingerboard later

[slackline]

 

[erm, sam]

http://www.selfcoachedclimber.com/

A mixed amount of stuff, but quite a bit about techniquey movement stuff..

[shark]

Technique training is as big a subject as physical training when you consider that even the most basic moves such as campus laddering have an element of technique. The challenge of moving efficiently is multiplied by the wide variety of features, textures and angles climbing presents you with. Breaking it down you would want to sub-divide the components of technique and think about those most important to the type of climbing you do. Elements of technique include pace, balance, reading sequences, movement initiation, momentum and body positioning but the solution is the same - repeated practice of those specific moves and sequences by bouldering and working routes and thinking hard about how to refine them. However, we all fall into habits and I think its useful to try and notice (or listen to criticism) and try to break out of the repertoire of moves you are locked into. Failing that, just get strong. 

[thekettle]

As others have pointed out, this is a huge and complex subject with relatively little (quality) research in it. In the resources thread are pretty much all the links you'll find useful. I'm starting a postgrad research degree in climbing movement next year, and have an article on technique training here.
http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=4383

[andy_e]

I'm starting a postgrad research degree in climbing movement next year

At the University of Boulders?

[slackline]

I'm starting a postgrad research degree in climbing movement next year

At the University of Boulders?

No its the University of Colorado thats in Boulder.

[robertostallioni]

[andy_e]

 

[SpanishJuan]

A mathematical theory of climbing - Piero Villaggio

[shark]

I'm starting a postgrad research degree in climbing movement next year, and have an article on technique training here.
http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=4383

Good article.

[mrjonathanr]

I think its useful to try and notice (or listen to criticism) and try to break out of the repertoire of moves you are locked into.

Watching other -good- climbers can do wonders..not so as to copy them exactly, but to see what they're doing that you're not.

I once watched Andy Pollitt get up to the powerful crux of Oyster on the Orme, look really smooth as he pulled through - and fall off. 20 minutes later he did exactly the same thing. 30 minutes after that he again looked to be cruising through the lock off but still fell without warning.

Then it hit me: he was giving his all to stay focussed on controlling the move to the point that there was no shaking, no irrelevant movement, no stressed behaviour as he felt it slide out of reach (like me), just 100% calm effort till the moment he had the hold or took flight.

100% focus. Amazing what you can learn sat on a wall eating sandwiches. Watch what the good ones do- but you need to understand it first, then try to put it into your practice.

[Sasquatch]

Lets start with a generic definition of rock climbing technique:

             The methods of applying strength, momentum, and balance to move across stone.

Anyone have any good comments on the above definition?  Remember that there are no good or bad techniques, a technique is simply a technique.  I think what we as climbers are looking for is "effecient" technique.  This can be found in many ways, but generally this comes back to the individual climber.  I distinctly remember Boone Speed talking about this with Dale Goddard in the "Fast Twitch" Video after watching a young Chris Sharma break all the classic "technique" rules, and it's always stuck with me. 

That said, if we go back to Shark's Comment on the complexity of technique, then we find

Elements of technique include pace, balance, reading sequences, movement initiation, momentum and body positioning...

So if we start from there (although I disagree that reading sequences is a matter of technique), then how do we identify and measure technique efficiency for these? 

A starting point would be to test yourself vs. a partner and see if you are relatively weak or strong at these.  Compare yourself on difficult routes/boulders, and see if there is a particular set of movements that you have issues with.  Once you find it, then learn the most efficient way and practise, practise, practise.....

A few lessons applicable to all training:

1.  Quantity is worthless if it is not quality.  i.e., a pile of shit is still a pile of shit no matter how big you make it or how much shit you add to it. 
2.  All training should have a specific intent to it.

How these apply to technique training:

1. If you intend on practising a technique, you must first know how to do it correctly.
2.  You should determine specific techniques to work on, learn them, then train them.
 

[iwasmexican]

Lets start with a generic definition of rock climbing technique:

             The methods of applying strength, momentum, and balance to move across stone.

Anyone have any good comments on the above definition?  Remember that there are no good or bad techniques, a technique is simply a technique.  I think what we as climbers are looking for is "effecient" technique.  This can be found in many ways, but generally this comes back to the individual climber.  I distinctly remember Boone Speed talking about this with Dale Goddard in the "Fast Twitch" Video after watching a young Chris Sharma break all the classic "technique" rules, and it's always stuck with me. 

that being said i think it definitely applies to whatever the individual finds most effective, body-types, strengths, weakness etc all mean that what's "most effective" can vary from person to person

[shark]

So if we start from there (although I disagree that reading sequences is a matter of technique), then how do we identify and measure technique efficiency for these? 

Sequency moves are technical moves and IMO reading them correctly and quickly is a technical skill gained at a conscious level and unconscious one (engrams).   

[tomtom]

I think you need to make a distinction between learning technique (ie discovering or being taught a new way of doing something) and practicing or refining a technique. (Forgive me if someone's already said this)

[moose]

 And not to forget, that "strength" is often mistaken for "technique". Hanging on and implementing the required sequence can be more a matter of physical power and tenacity than any mystical physio-kinetic sense (you'll never be able to kick in that funky egyptian if you can't hang the holds beforehand).
Like everything else in climbing, "good technique" is so subjective it is almost meaningless. For campus board lovers with no core, going footless is often the best way to quickly dispatch a hard roof section. Myself, a spaghetti-legged weakling, prolonged crimping with much foot-faffery will be the solution.

[iwasmexican]

And not to forget, that "strength" is often mistaken for "technique".

Lack of technique is still technique, just maybe not very good...   

[chris j]

Like everything else in climbing, "good technique" is so subjective it is almost meaningless. For campus board lovers with no core, going footless is often the best way to quickly dispatch a hard roof section.

Just possibly, by training some "good technique", that might change and they might find a more efficient way... 

[2 Tru]

Certain techniques will be subjective and dependant on body type. The Dura Dura section in the real rock tour shows Sharma having to Dyno past all of the awkward moves that Adam floats up.

However it is lazy to say technique is meaningless, at it's heart good technique is about reducing the amount of force you must apply using your hands buy using your feet. Regardless of your soma type we are all designed to walk on our feet and not our hands.

Put your forearm next to your thigh and you realise you already have all the power you need; you just need to work out how to use it.

[abarro81]

The Dura Dura section in the real rock tour shows Sharma having to Dyno past all of the awkward moves that Adam floats up struggles on extensively.

[shark]

Put your forearm next to your thigh and you realise you already have all the power you need; you just need to work out how to use it.

Kneebar ?

[slackline]

Put your forearm next to your thigh and you realise you already have all the power you need; you just need to work out how to use it.

Kneebar ?

 

[tomtom]

are you saying my legs are fat?

[r-man]

Like everything else in climbing, "good technique" is so subjective it is almost meaningless. For campus board lovers with no core, going footless is often the best way to quickly dispatch a hard roof section.

Just possibly, by training some "good technique", that might change and they might find a more efficient way... 

Not always. Knowing when not to use feet is as important as knowing when to use them. "Technique" doesn't translate to keep feet on at all costs, though clearly some people seem fixated on that idea.

When thinking about technique on a particular problem, you also have to consider your time scale. Do you want the easiest sequence for your current abilities, or do you want to invest time in gaining the required skills and strengths to make a different technique work 6 months down the line? The second option is usually what people resort to when a)they get shut down on option 1 and b)they are dedicated enough to focus on training.

[rant]

People always go on about how technique is the best way to make things easier and cut down on the amount of strength used. This seems to me to be a bit short-sighted (for those who seriously want to improve). Surely it should be about adding different strengths to compliment those you already use. If you are focussing on movement skills, you shouldn't just be rehearsing movements, you should be improving the strength of those movements. We can all heel hook with a bit of practice, but how much power can you put into your heel? Everybody can stand up on a smear if they try it enough, but how many people actually work on their balancing muscles?

Technique* is not a magic ability that only zen-like communion with the rock will impart. Yes, we need to rehearse movement skills, but unless we train specific movement strengths, we are just playing at improving. Which is fine. Playing is fun, and I'm no different to most people in my lack of technique training dedication.** But training technqiue seriously would entail training specific strengths. It seems strange that most technique advice repeats the old mantra of "practice movements that you find difficult". That should be flippin' obvious to anyone who has been climbing more than twice. Where are the articles about how to improve your balance whilst standing on one crimped foot on a fence-post, or weight-assisted one heel pull-ups, or egyptianing in a door-frame with 10 theraband resistance compressing your legs, or increasing the range of motion in your high-step through deathscream-yoga, or developing leg power whilst in the box split position?

[/rant]

*For the purposes of this rant, I'm pretending technique does not include upper body stuff. Nonsense, but this seems to be a thread about footwork.

**I occasionally stand on one leg with my eyes closed, between fingerboard reps. When I remember. Poor show.

[Sasquatch]

Sequency moves are technical moves and IMO reading them correctly and quickly is a technical skill gained at a conscious level and unconscious one (engrams).   

Why does sequency = technical? I've seen rose campus moves that are extreemly sequential, but amazingly non-technical.....  Hell, a straight up ladder route in a gym can be sequency without being technical.

IMO -  I think route reading is a key skill for climbing, but not in the "technique" category. 

Certain techniques will be subjective and dependant on body type. The Dura Dura section in the real rock tour shows Sharma having to Dyno past all of the awkward moves that Adam floats up struggles on extensively.

However it is lazy to say technique is meaningless, at it's heart good technique is about reducing the amount of force you must apply using your hands buy using your feet. Regardless of your soma type we are all designed to walk on our feet and not our hands.

Put your forearm next to your thigh and you realise you already have all the power you need; you just need to work out how to use it.

Who said technique is meaningless? 

Using your feet well to minimize the weight on your hands is 1 type of technique that is important, particularly for new climbers, but I disagree that "good technique is about reducing the amount of force you must apply using your hands buy using your feet"?   A prime example of this can be toehooking, where you can actually increase the force on your hands by changing the direction of pull and allowing use of holds that otherwise are not usable. This isn't reducing the force on your hands, yet can be exceptionally good technique.  Using a dropknee with a sidepull isn't reducing the force on your hands, it's changing the direction of pull such that the hold your hand is on is relatively better. 

And if you read my earlier post, you'll see that my take is that we need to stop saying "good" or "bad" technique.  We need to look at effeciency based on body type....

[petejh]

Good thread.. I think the word 'technique' should die a death in climbing training because, as someone said, it's such a vague fuzzy concept that it's close to being meaningless in discussions about training - after all one of the core principles of training is for it to have measurable benchmarks.
'Efficient movement training' might be a better description. There's no doubt about there being more and less efficient ways to move over rock in terms of effort expended. But efficiency can also mean how long it takes to succeed on something - then it becomes context-dependent. You could spend a certain amount of time perfecting the 'most efficient way' to climb a 10m power route but the 'most efficient way to succeed' - in terms of time taken to send - might involve overpowering instead of being weaker but close to perfectly efficient. I'd imagine a lot depends on your start state - i.e. levels of fitness (encompassing strength/power and endurance) versus proficiency in efficient movement patterns. Obviously the climber high in both will be a better climber than someone over-weighted in one or the other.
The most sensible option (to me) is to work out in which contexts movement efficiency are likely to take you furthest and in which contexts fitness will take you furthest. 'Furthest' being defined by sending desired routes/problems.


...unless you're trying to be efficient by wrapping yourself in rubber matting on boulder problems in which case you're being far too efficient for this guidebook-writing self-important twat.

[Oldmanmatt]

Certain techniques will be subjective and dependant on body type. The Dura Dura section in the real rock tour shows Sharma having to Dyno past all of the awkward moves that Adam floats up.

However it is lazy to say technique is meaningless, at it's heart good technique is about reducing the amount of force you must apply using your hands buy using your feet. Regardless of your soma type we are all designed to walk on our feet and not our hands.

Put your forearm next to your thigh and you realise you already have all the power you need; you just need to work out how to use it.

Shirley, that's just an example of two different "techniques", used to solve the same problem; by two climbers with very different physical attributes.
Latching a Dyno is a skill, after all.
(I might be wrong, but that read as if you meant a Dyno was a "lower value" move compared to Adams moves).

[Pebblespanker]

Doesn't this all tie up to 'weak for the grade' and 'strong for the grade??

i.e.  weak for the grade = punter but good technique
strong for the grade = a beast but with crap technique

[2 Tru]

Shirley, that's just an example of two different "techniques", used to solve the same problem; by two climbers with very different physical attributes.
Latching a Dyno is a skill, after all.
(I might be wrong, but that read as if you meant a Dyno was a "lower value" move compared to Adams moves).

No, I was agreeing with the previous poster, the correct i.e. most efficient technique may be subjective depending on your body type. Adam Ondra even says he thinks Sharma's way is more impressive but simply would not work for his body type.

My point was that even though there is no universal methodology for good technique that is no excuse to say  it I'm going off to fingerboard instead.

Again I am a weak inexperienced punter so I except I could be wrong. Perhaps your body type and genetics predetermines how significant technique is to you. So if you are an Ectomorph like Ondra or McClure your time will be well spend working on technique where as a Mesomorph would get faster gains from strength training?
 

[petejh]

Again I am a weak inexperienced punter so I except I could be wrong. Perhaps your body type and genetics predetermines how significant technique is to you. So if you are an Ectomorph like Ondra or McClure your time will be well spend working on technique where as a Mesomorph would get faster gains from strength training?

Perhaps, but a lot of current training literature goes against that idea - including what I would guess are the two most popular training books in this country (Macleod's and SCC). The basic idea being that working your weaknesses is the quickest way to make gains. Both Ondra and McClure are on record saying their weakness is strength/power versus efficiency being one of their strengths (I know, relatively!).
Someone correct me but didn't John Dunne - classic Mesomorph body type - have v.good efficient technique?

[mrjonathanr]

Pjh - Donne had outstanding technique, balletic even.  Think Darcy Bussell in a bear suit.

I think there's a useful distinction to be made between strategy and technique - ie how you decide to approach a sequence or route, and how you actually execute it.  I tried Privilege at Ceuse years ago and struggled sustaining the effort through the two lock-offs at the top. So I decided to shake out my left arm thoroughly the move before, in a semi-crucifix position, resulting in an horrendously pumped right arm. As the locks were off the left I redpointed it okay. The much stronger French guy trying it around the same time was still falling off at the top when we left a week or two later.  I'd say that strategy was successful for me.

[petejh]

Funny, I'd never thought about doing this on redpoints until yesterday, after reading this interview by Peter Beal with Ondra:

'Do you look at video of yourself to improve aspects of climbing? If so what do you look for and how do you try to use video to improve?
It is good to watch videos in order find out where I could be more efficient. To find a sections where I was too slow. Or it helps me to find certain things (examples below), which can be found even without video, but watching it might help you to find them and realize them.

Is the route more demanding for one hand than the other? Are there more clips from one hand than the other (often aretes, traverses)? Try to find a way to get the other hand more involved.
Tiny things might make the difference that might make you stay on the rock instead of falling off. Even useless clipping, even though from the jug, might make you feel a bit more tired in the crucial moves.

If you keep falling off one single move, try to think of some way to get there with the hand, which you are making the crucial move from, a little more fresh. For example: a little shake out a couple of moves below, even though it makes the other hand completely pumped, might help to break through the next move because the hand essential for the crucial move is fresher.'

From: http://www.mountainsandwater.com/2012/03/interview-with-adam-ondra.html

Then you mention the same thing a day later. Seems you're in good company 

Pjh - Donne had outstanding technique, balletic even.  Think Darcy Bussell in a bear suit.

I often do 

[shark]

Pjh - Donne had outstanding technique, balletic even.  Think Darcy Bussell in a bear suit.

Nice image. Dunne is often the elephant in the room in these discussions.

I'm not totally convinced that smooth is always more efficient though. Are smooth climbers like Dunne or Owen in fact being super-efficient? or just that they had the luxury of being able to climb that way because they were so fucking strong?

Difficult to say one way or the other but my suspicion is that not-so-smooth climbers like Moffat who would shake and throw one on may have been more efficient and climbing closer to their real limit. Speed is an important element of climbing efficiency.   

[mrjonathanr]

Nice image. Dunne is often the elephant in the room in these discussions.

 

FWIW  I think John's new route list speaks for itself, but re control vs scappy all-out, I think right thing at the right time, both have a place. Monolithic adherence to one style smacks of rigid thinking. (according to me, punter not master it must be said).