[Banana finger]

Hello All,
              I was wondering how much having 'average strength' fingers limits one's climbing.....Of course, generally the stronger your fingers the harder you can boulder...but how hard can one boulder (generally of course......no smug replies about slabs    ) with average strength fingers.....for example does any one know of any wads (consistent 8b and >) who have average strength fingers (i mean relatively....such as they can't 1 armer a campus rung with a 10kg weight in their teeth etc)......Hmm.

 

[jwi]

I very much doubt that there is anyone with average finger-strength consistently climbing Fb 8B or harder. Loved to be proved wrong though.

[Banana finger]

I guess i mean average in the context of fairly strong climbers.....lets say couldn't 1 arm a 1/2 pad edge........obvs its pretty hard to quantify isolated finger strength!

[Doylo]

I think there are 8Bs out there that some people could do without being able to one arm a small edge.

[rodma]

I guess i mean average in the context of fairly strong climbers.....lets say couldn't 1 arm a 1/2 pad edge........obvs its pretty hard to quantify isolated finger strength!

who's 1/2 pad?

like a small metrolius rung (19mm) pi/12 overhanging?, or different depth for different finger length?

[Banana finger]

Taxi!

[bendavison]

Maybe not 'average' strength, given that the average grade in the UK is reportedly HVS. But Doylo's got it.

[rodma]

i can one-arm a smallish edge (at my current strength levels) but certainly can't climb anywhere near 8B at themoment

I think there are 8Bs out there that some people could do without being able to one arm a small edge.

this is also correct and doesn't contradict what i have written 

Edit: for clarity that's because a smallish edge is a whole pad edge for me, but a half-pad for normal sized humans

[Nibile]

I concur with Doylo.
I also think that one arm hangs aren't the best way to assess max fingers' strength. Too many other factors are involved: the instability of the body, arm and shoulder girdle strength, body positioning, etc.
I think that two armed hangs give a better and more accurate result. Or at least this is my experience.

[DAVETHOMAS90]

I think this is a very good question, for lots of reasons.

Generally, it can be very difficult to understand why a problem is hard. We often have a feeling for where we're failing - a sense of the weak point - but can we really say that's "why" we fail on a problem.

Just going back to your original post, it's worth remembering that many very good climbers - Ondra, McClure for example possibly qualify? - haven't been able to do a one arm pull-up at all, at times when they've been performing well - let alone on a "small" edge. Ondra and McClure are two people in particular, who have fairly recently realised that prioritising climbing was probably missing the point, and so trained specifically to achieve one-armer prowess.

In my own experience, the more slowly and statically I climb, the more any weakness in my fingers becomes apparent. In other words, it's variation in how we apply what we've got which has a great bearing on how we perform. In many situations, having relatively weak fingers will limit our ability to apply strength we have in other areas, but not all.

How do we define finger strength anyway? What's the metric?

Again, I can think of many climbers with what might be considered less than "ideal" build, who might perform poorly feet off on small edges, but for whom their relative high weight is far less a problem when they step onto the rock.

When I'm feeling rested, and have a higher power to weight ratio - let's say, a while after training arms and/or back - weakness in my fingers is far less apparent, and seems to be compensated through strength in other areas. I've always found this curious.

Of course, having "good finger strength" is a great advantage, but I think it's because we let go with our fingers, or fail to hold,  that we think it's "why" we've failed. Often it's not the case.

[Sasquatch]

I think this is a very good question, for lots of reasons.

Generally, it can be very difficult to understand why a problem is hard. We often have a feeling for where we're failing - a sense of the weak point - but can we really say that's "why" we fail on a problem.

Just going back to your original post, it's worth remembering that many very good climbers - Ondra, McClure for example possibly qualify? - haven't been able to do a one arm pull-up at all, at times when they've been performing well - let alone on a "small" edge. Ondra and McClure are two people in particular, who have fairly recently realised that prioritising climbing was probably missing the point, and so trained specifically to achieve one-armer prowess.

In my own experience, the more slowly and statically I climb, the more any weakness in my fingers becomes apparent. In other words, it's variation in how we apply what we've got which has a great bearing on how we perform. In many situations, having relatively weak fingers will limit our ability to apply strength we have in other areas, but not all.

How do we define finger strength anyway? What's the metric?

Again, I can think of many climbers with what might be considered less than "ideal" build, who might perform poorly feet off on small edges, but for whom their relative high weight is far less a problem when they step onto the rock.

When I'm feeling rested, and have a higher power to weight ratio - let's say, a while after training arms and/or back - weakness in my fingers is far less apparent, and seems to be compensated through strength in other areas. I've always found this curious.

Of course, having "good finger strength" is a great advantage, but I think it's because we let go with our fingers, or fail to hold,  that we think it's "why" we've failed. Often it's not the case.

Excellent post.  I always had very strong legs and core, so if a problem had decent feet or a heel hook, I could optimize both the amount of weight on my feet as well as using my body to make sure I was pulling on the holds in the optimal directions.  This is something that gets forgotten in the FB/campus world and is a combination of technique and body strength.  Even right now after doing two cycles of weight training, I can tell my body is moving better and more efficiently over the rock/wall.

[Rocksteady]

Again, I can think of many climbers with what might be considered less than "ideal" build, who might perform poorly feet off on small edges, but for whom their relative high weight is far less a problem when they step onto the rock.

When I'm feeling rested, and have a higher power to weight ratio - let's say, a while after training arms and/or back - weakness in my fingers is far less apparent, and seems to be compensated through strength in other areas. I've always found this curious.

Of course, having "good finger strength" is a great advantage, but I think it's because we let go with our fingers, or fail to hold,  that we think it's "why" we've failed. Often it's not the case.

Interesting, I do think there is a distinction between 'being strong' and being able to effectively 'apply' that strength. In climbing there is an enormous technique element in the effective application of the body's strength to the rock to hold you on in any given position, and more importantly, in moving between positions.

Rings a bell from when I used to train mixed martial arts, and earlier, judo. Sometimes smaller, skinnier people would be stronger in a grapple than guys who were bigger and undoubtedly could lift more weights - on paper, who were stronger. It was often to do with application of their strength in the right ways, using their bodyweight effectively with the right leverage. Same again with throwing a knockout punch. Doesn't really matter how much you can bench or deadlift, if you can't time your movements correctly you won't develop that one punch knockout power.

Sort of off on a tangent here, sorry. To bring it back to the op, in my view relatively weak fingers will hold a climber back more than anything else EXCEPT lack of effective technique/movement skills.

[AMorris]

Well, I consider myself relatively strong and my fingers to be the bit which allows me to actually be strong on the rock. Lots of hours on the BM 2000 have allowed me to 1 arm the small edges. However I cannot climb 8B by any means, in fact I have only just realised I can climb 7C+ so I think Ben Moons (or maybe it was malcs?) quote of "fingers, fingers, fingers" is only half the story. Whilst it's true that training finger strength helped me climb harder more than anything, to the point where I can perform similar feats of strength on small edges to a friend who has climbed 8B, there is a vast void of difference between that and actually being able to hang onto and move between holds on an 8B.

So ultimately I don't think you can climb hard without decent finger strength, but it doesn't matter how good your fingers are, if your technique and understanding of how to use holds and body positioning is bad you aren't getting up anything hard.

[rodma]

"fingers, fingers, fingers" is only half the story. Whilst it's true that training finger strength helped me climb harder more than anything, to the point where I can perform similar feats of strength on small edges to a friend who has climbed 8B, there is a vast void of difference between that and actually being able to hang onto and move between holds on an 8B.

there is still the major problam of perceiving that you have strong fingers when you don't, and/or strong shoulders when you don't. the number of people that will argue till they're blue in the face because they simply won't accept that they are too weak is both entertaining and tiresome.

i'd really like a dedicated "post up footage of locks/pulls/feats of what we believe is strength" thread so we could compare and contrast. i realise i could start such a thread, but i doubt there'd be many takers. if i'm wrong, let's do it :D

[abarro81]

Just going back to your original post, it's worth remembering that many very good climbers - Ondra, McClure for example possibly qualify? - haven't been able to do a one arm pull-up at all, at times when they've been performing well - let alone on a "small" edge. Ondra and McClure are two people in particular, who have fairly recently realised that prioritising climbing was probably missing the point, and so trained specifically to achieve one-armer prowess.

This is a bit of a mirage. Take Steve - he couldn't do a 1 armer, then he hurt his fingers so he trained 1 armers, a couple of months later he could do 3, from straight to top, with a pause at the bottom. This probably equals about 10 of what most people do when they 'do a 1 armer'. I'm happy to bet an obscene amount of money that that change was not predominantly because of a fundamental change in strength, but more because he learnt to apply his strength to doing 1-armers.
I guess my point is that whilst people who are good at footless feats need to learn to apply their strength to climbing, so too people who are strong climbing sometimes need to 'learn' to apply their strength to dumb feats, so will appear artificially weak on those tests, if you get my drift.

P.S. Anyone who can 1-armer the small BM2000 edges but climbs less than 8B+/9a+ is either really short or really bad at rock climbing! Sorry.

[AMorris]

"fingers, fingers, fingers" is only half the story. Whilst it's true that training finger strength helped me climb harder more than anything, to the point where I can perform similar feats of strength on small edges to a friend who has climbed 8B, there is a vast void of difference between that and actually being able to hang onto and move between holds on an 8B.

there is still the major problam of perceiving that you have strong fingers when you don't, and/or strong shoulders when you don't. the number of people that will argue till they're blue in the face because they simply won't accept that they are too weak is both entertaining and tiresome.

i'd really like a dedicated "post up footage of locks/pulls/feats of what we believe is strength" thread so we could compare and contrast. i realise i could start such a thread, but i doubt there'd be many takers. if i'm wrong, let's do it :D

Totally agree, maybe I am just weak
I seem to be able to do some pretty hard stuff on the hang board though, but we all know how poorly that translates to grades on rock!

Something like the feats of strength thread you mean? Though maybe with user videos would be good. I'd like to see that

[abarro81]

there is still the major problam of perceiving that you have strong fingers when you don't, and/or strong shoulders when you don't. the number of people that will argue till they're blue in the face because they simply won't accept that they are too weak is both entertaining and tiresome.

I'm happy to accept that my fingers and shoulders are weak. Can't hang the BM2000 middle edge 1 armed without cheating and wedging in the corner. Do I have to provide video evidence or will testimonials do? 

[DAVETHOMAS90]

Well, I consider myself relatively strong and my fingers to be the bit which allows me to actually be strong on the rock. Lots of hours on the BM 2000 have allowed me to 1 arm the small edges. However I cannot climb 8B by any means, in fact I have only just realised I can climb 7C+ so I think Ben Moons (or maybe it was malcs?) quote of "fingers, fingers, fingers" is only half the story. Whilst it's true that training finger strength helped me climb harder more than anything, to the point where I can perform similar feats of strength on small edges to a friend who has climbed 8B, there is a vast void of difference between that and actually being able to hang onto and move between holds on an 8B.

So ultimately I don't think you can climb hard without decent finger strength, but it doesn't matter how good your fingers are, if your technique and understanding of how to use holds and body positioning is bad you aren't getting up anything hard.

Some great discussion here.

Could a useful analogy in this context, be driving a car with very good tyres, a powerful engine, but crap chassis and suspension?

Good debate and discussion like this can be very revealing. I was considering Sas' post above where he makes the important point of the influence of good core. I've been reflecting on how I always seem to have better footwork when I'm conditioned well. This is a useful mirror image of what we're talking about here. Anyway, it was yesterday I considered just how worked my core gets, when I've been doing a lot of bar work, high intensity weight work etc, and I'd say that's probably why "feet and fingers" seem to work better at those times. Better core/stability.

You mention Ben Moon in your post. Watch his movement carefully when he climbs. I've noticed he always carries his body "high", with excellent poise and balance. You will obviously be aware of the importance of this through your martial arts practice.

So fingers/finger strength are very important as they are often the weakest link, but strength in other areas - such as good core - will help us utilise that resource to our best advantage.

Which is what you're saying 

Edit: re martial arts - I was thinking about Rocksteady's useful contribution at the same time. Sorry for the confusion. Still applies in my opinion.

[rodma]

there is still the major problam of perceiving that you have strong fingers when you don't, and/or strong shoulders when you don't. the number of people that will argue till they're blue in the face because they simply won't accept that they are too weak is both entertaining and tiresome.

I'm happy to accept that my fingers and shoulders are weak. Can't hang the BM2000 middle edge 1 armed without cheating and wedging in the corner. Do I have to provide video evidence or will testimonials do? 

need footage, probably find your can't is the same as some people's can 

[abarro81]

need footage, probably find your can't is the same as some people's can 

 

[AMorris]

Just going back to your original post, it's worth remembering that many very good climbers - Ondra, McClure for example possibly qualify? - haven't been able to do a one arm pull-up at all, at times when they've been performing well - let alone on a "small" edge. Ondra and McClure are two people in particular, who have fairly recently realised that prioritising climbing was probably missing the point, and so trained specifically to achieve one-armer prowess.

This is a bit of a mirage. Take Steve - he couldn't do a 1 armer, then he hurt his fingers so he trained 1 armers, a couple of months later he could do 3, from straight to top, with a pause at the bottom. This probably equals about 10 of what most people do when they 'do a 1 armer'. I'm happy to bet an obscene amount of money that that change was not predominantly because of a fundamental change in strength, but more because he learnt to apply his strength to doing 1-armers.
I guess my point is that whilst people who are good at footless feats need to learn to apply their strength to climbing, so too people who are strong climbing sometimes need to 'learn' to apply their strength to dumb feats, so will appear artificially weak on those tests, if you get my drift.

P.S. Anyone who can 1-armer the small BM2000 edges but climbs less than 8B+/9a+ is either really short or really bad at rock climbing! Sorry.

The latter I think! I don't really get out on the rock enough to know how hard I can actually climb, since I am still learning to drive (belatedly). I spend a lot of time maintaining my strength on my BM for the times when I can actually get into rock, so I think that is why. We all know climbing is just training for finger boarding anyway though

[DAVETHOMAS90]

I think the real "mirage" is the suggestion that any one thing is the silver bullet - and that works both ways, towards relative weaknesses, as much as relative strengths.

I don't think we can start extrapolating from very specific strengths, some sense of our, or others' intrinsic climbing ability - even if there were such a thing.

I meant to reply earlier, but was on the fingerboard. Seriously.

 

[a dense loner]

A few things.
1) whose money is barrows betting with?
2) rodma's on the money with some peoples can't is probably better than most people's can, but not barrows
3) if you can hang properly or do a one armer on the small BM holds you either need to go outside 3 times to enable you to climb an 8B or you need to quit climbing. This doesn't apply if you don't really climb

[jwi]

3) if you can hang properly or do a one armer on the small BM holds you either need to go outside 3 times to enable you to climb an 8B or you need to quit climbing. This doesn't apply if you don't really climb

^this.

Being able to one arm a small hold is not 'having average finger strength'.

[moose]

So fingers/finger strength are very important as they are often the weakest link, but strength in other areas - such as good core - will help us utilise that resource to our best advantage.

To paraphrase noted training guru Samuel Johnson "big guns impress small boys; strong fingers define the men; but he who aspires to be a hero must have the body tension of an ironing board"