[cjsheps]

Compared to most sports, there are very few large collections of data available regarding the physical conditioning of climbers at a given level. However, it would be really helpful to know if you're over/under-strong for your grade.

I reckon that a lot of UKB users would like to know where the imbalances in their conditioning lie compared to the average UKB user at their grade, and whether they are or aren't climbing as hard as they "should".

My proposition is to make an open-to-edit Google spreadsheet, in which people can enter some information (e.g. how many pull-ups they can do), and eventually accumulate a large sample which might yield some interesting insights.

Would people be happy to contribute to something like this? What sort of feats should be included?

I'm thinking something down the line of:
- Your hardest sport and boulder redpoints in the past 6 months.
- How many pull-ups you can do.
- How long you can hang some holds for (e.g. beastmaker crimps, medium campus rung)
- Campus feats: can you do 1,2,3; 1,3,5; 1,4,6; 1,4,7; ...

If anyone can think of a better way of capturing and manipulating this data, please share!

 

[joel182]

I'm sure I read an article recently that measured a few different factors (10mm edge hang time, maximum number of pull ups) and correlated them with sport climbing grade (I think it was American, since grades were 5.X) - but I can't find it at all now.
It would be quite a useful relevant article if anyone knows what I'm talking about?!

[Muenchener]

You mean some kind of Benchmarknig Survey?

[cjsheps]

Ah, it already exists. 

[cjsheps]

Would there be any chance of making the results openly accessible?

[slackline]

Would there be any chance of making the results openly accessible?

They already are

[cjsheps]

Oh dear, sorry all!

That's a great source of information, thanks a lot for putting all this together!

[lagerstarfish]

time for a follow up ?

more data = more fun

[cjsheps]

Sounds like a plan!

I'd be happy to do some work on this, but I'm not sure my undergrad physics bodge-it-in-matlab data presentation skills will do as good a job as Slackline.

[petejh]

As Slackers mentions in the pdf future benchmarking surveys would benefit from different data, by having different tests which a lot of people can easily attempt either at home or at a wall, which are specific to climbing and which are easily replicable. I'd also get rid of all weight-training benchmarks.

[lagerstarfish]

much as I might be amused by it, I do wonder what sort of data the Vaj/Slag-Board will throw up

[cjsheps]

I agree that the most useful tests would be those that anyone could easily do. For example:
- Max pullups (as already included)
- Max hang on Beastmaker edges, pockets etc.
- 1-arm lock-off time
- Max pullups on a medium campus rung

Also, some ancap/anpow data would be interesting. The obvious test would be max time hanging on a large, medium, small campus rung. Can anyone think of any other tests to add?

[abarro81]

Most fingerboard data is useless as setups differ too much IMO. A couple of degrees difference in mounting is a huge difference in hang times

[cjsheps]

It'd be a shame if we couldn't use the one piece of training equipment almost every climber has access to. Perhaps there's some way of minimizing the effect of this variation, such as using less fingers (or adding weight) using a more moderate hold.

[krymson]

Yeah more standardised stuff would be good. I have no idea how deep my fingerboard rail is and even if i did the texture/incutness of the holds make a huge difference.

I think the standard BM holds hangs or exercises on a medium campus rung would work well and be climbing relevant.

[nik at work]

Most fingerboard data is useless as setups differ too much IMO. A couple of degrees difference in mounting is a huge difference in hang times

Agreed, to an extent but...
A couple of degrees will have a massive effect on the slopers but I'd say less so on pockets. Also a couple of degrees is quite a lot, I'd expect most fingerboards hung with any measure of care should be within 1/2 -1 degree of vertical. Probably an equally distorting factor is the simple variability of the construction material, a 'sticky' BM hung at a wall with hundreds of grubby ppaws fondling it will feel like velcro compared to a slick home board. So what to do. Get volunteers in a room to perform on a standard board, impractical. Give up on the whole venture, defeatist. Or accept that as imperfect a tool it is the BM is probably the closest thing to a standardised measuring tool available and just accept the limitations of the results, sounds almost sensible so lets not do that.

[tomtom]

Problem is that most people train in different ways and have different benchmarks..

The only way I would suggest it work were to spend a week or so at the works and persuade people to try a range of specific exercises on the same facilities - and then look at how hard they can climb / age etc..

[Muenchener]

Most fingerboard data is useless as setups differ too much IMO. A couple of degrees difference in mounting is a huge difference in hang times

A couple of degrees will have a massive effect on the slopers but I'd say less so on pockets. Also a couple of degrees is quite a lot, I'd expect most fingerboards hung with any measure of care should be within 1/2 -1 degree of vertical.

I can confirm this: I just checked mine with a spirit level and it is dead vertical. This is pretty amazing given that it is on a free standing rig built with my severely limited carpentry skills, but shows what even the most amateur of amateurs can achieve. (How accurate is a small spirit level? Within a degree or two?)

Probably an equally distorting factor is the simple variability of the construction material, a 'sticky' BM hung at a wall with hundreds of grubby paws fondling it will feel like velcro compared to a slick home board.

That certainly makes a huge difference, but again more on the slopers.

[tomtom]

Also the equipment (finger boards) are not graduated enough to show any differences.

Eg if we compare bench press weights there is a continuous gradient - but to do the same for pull ups you would need to know people's max added weight and still pull up - which not many people know or do (I suspect). Number of pull ups is not that informative - as it just shows you how many pull ups you can do..  was the last time you did a boukder problem that needed more than 10 pull ups in it?

I could see this working with edge size - bit this must be finger size dependant and there are only going to be 3/4 categories of hold size. Angle of Sloper could work but again on the BM there are only 3 categories.

You could design a series of tests to do this really well but would require some slightly more specialised equipment - and everyone using the same equipment and methods..

[joel182]

So what to do. Get volunteers in a room to perform on a standard board, impractical. Give up on the whole venture, defeatist. Or accept that as imperfect a tool it is the BM is probably the closest thing to a standardised measuring tool available and just accept the limitations of the results, sounds almost sensible so lets not do that.

Getting some people together in a venue doesn't seem a totally bonkers idea - if it were possible to get a few groups together at different venues then it would be possible to compare the venues and see if people are over/underperforming? In terms of trend I wonder if although the venue might have a large effect on individual hang times, the differences between people might be large enough for it not to matter?

[petejh]

BM tests seems about as consistent across large numbers of people as is reasonable to expect.

How about what type of test? I was thinking it might provide more clear-cut data if you have 'Can/Can't' type tests rather than 'how long', 'how much weight' or 'how many'.

e.g.
BM top outside rungs, both hands, 4 fingers, 8-seconds hang unassisted. Yes/No
3min rest
BM (decide on a number system for pockets) both hands, back 2 in pocket 'xyz', 8-seconds hang unassisted. Yes/No
3 min rest
BM bottom middle rung, 4-fingers, 5-seconds one arm hang unassisted. Yes/No
3 min rest
BM bottom middle, back 3, 5-seconds one arm hang unassisted. Yes/No
3 min rest
etc.
etc.

[moose]

just a quick thought (passing through, whilst a bit pissed on bourbon... apologies if this is moot) - if this study is to apply to sport as well as bouldering ability - should there be a means of measuring resting / recovery.  Just returned from a sport climbing trip - what enabled me to get up all the routes I'd hoped to climb wasn't power or athleticism (obvious to anyone who has ever met me) but "shaking out on semi-okay holds ability". Not sure how it could be measured mind, without some blood analysis of lactate levels anyway.