UKBouldering.com

Benchmarks to help create a training plan (or just give a bit more focus!) (Read 17932 times)

IanP

Offline
  • ****
  • forum abuser
  • Posts: 700
  • Karma: +34/-0

I know a few people like this. Every single time I belay them they are climbing so well and making it looks so easy I think 'they're going to piss this' and then inexplicably they seem to fall off/let go!

As said I probably fall into this type of climber to an extent - I often get told either that it looked easy when I rp something or that I looked like I was cruising until I fall off.  To some extent I think this relates to my climbing abilities - if I'm good at anything in climbing its remembering beta and then executing that beta accurately, my answer to the 'it looked easy until you fell off' is 'that's why I fell off, it got hard!'.

I think the problem with being this sort of climber is that I do sometimes struggle to access that extra try hard that might get you through a few extra moves when the going gets difficult.  I have at times had some improvements with the type of training on lead walls that JWI talked about above, I'm thinking of trying to include some of that sort of thing in my training this winter.  Also starting to us the new boards at Depot Manchester and wondering if some work on limited rest boulder problems on there might help as well.

ps Stu almost certainly won't remember but in 2009 when I did Baboo as my first 8a he said something along the lines of 'you looked really smooth on that, you should be crushing the 8a's this summer' - it was actually 9 years later that I did my second 8a!

KeithScarlett

Offline
  • *
  • newbie
  • Posts: 22
  • Karma: +1/-0
An exact plan depends on what volume of training you are used to, and what time you’ve got available, but if you’re balanced, the idea would be to get a balanced amount of training in each area.

For example, I might make myself a plan where I do strength work on Tue and Thursday mornings and an ancap session and aerocap session on both Tue/Thur evening. That might be too much or too little for some, and you might not be able to split the day up… But you could start with Alex’s sport climbing training PDF and balance the amounts in each area and not go far wrong.

When I asked about the specificity of the boulder problem its because it’s quite possible to be able to smash in blobby steep 7B indoors quite easily, but struggle on more vertical techy 7Bs outdoors, and the latter are more similar to UK route cruxes, so you need to think about whether you lack strength in a specific style
Thanks Stu; I have downloaded Alex's PDF (thanks Alex - I will send you a message to sort out payment for this) and will digest this.

I absolutely take your point on 'blobby 7B' v. technical 7B but I think it's important to keep context here: I think no 8a I've been on has a 7B crux. And jwi's idea is that being able to perform 7B in 5 tries is consistent with quick redpoints at 8a therefore I should be able to offset any deficiency I have in this area by having more tries / taking longer? But this seems to make little difference.

KeithScarlett

Offline
  • *
  • newbie
  • Posts: 22
  • Karma: +1/-0
A reflection on what's been said so far is that I'm surprised there isn't more information readily available on performance benchmarks. It seems such a basic / obvious thing i.e. if a climber is aiming to climb grade x then they probably need to attain the following levels across strength, power, aerobic capacity, anaerobic capacity or whatever.

Otherwise it perhaps becomes a bit headless / directionless; there seems little point in aspiring to something if there's been little or no understanding of the component parts of performance. I would level this at myself, my approach has been: climb lots, always at the next grade and put in massive effort in the knowledge (or rather belief) that I will be getting a training benefit.

Or maybe performance in climbing is such a multi-faceted thing that what I'm advocating is an over-simplification. Yes, it might be useful but it's actually a only small part of what contributes to progress?

I wanted to post the Self-Coached Climber table here (in case it's of interest / helps discussion) but it doesn't seem straightforward to insert / attach an image - assistance?

Paul B

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 9626
  • Karma: +264/-4
A reflection on what's been said so far is that I'm surprised there isn't more information readily available on performance benchmarks. It seems such a basic / obvious thing i.e. if a climber is aiming to climb grade x then they probably need to attain the following levels across strength, power, aerobic capacity, anaerobic capacity or whatever.

Part of the problem with this IMO is that there are simply so many ways to cut it; not only do people differ from technically brilliant but totally weak to strong as an ox but a technical dunce (and every shade between); then you have the routes too which in the UK can be as short as a long problem (if that's your thing) to reasonably long. The combinations of climber and route are endless. Even in my own climbing over the years I can see that I've changed how I get things done. If you'd measured my 'metrics' 5-10 years ago you'd be getting very different results to today yet my RP/OS grade remains largely unchanged*.

duncan

Offline
  • *****
  • Global Moderator
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 2952
  • Karma: +332/-2
A reflection on what's been said so far is that I'm surprised there isn't more information readily available on performance benchmarks. It seems such a basic / obvious thing i.e. if a climber is aiming to climb grade x then they probably need to attain the following levels across strength, power, aerobic capacity, anaerobic capacity or whatever.

Isn't this exactly what lattice (and others) are trying to do and good for them for trying.

Except that the lattice model is currently very poor (in scientific terms; it's genius marketing) because...

Or maybe performance in climbing is such a multi-faceted thing that what I'm advocating is an over-simplification. Yes, it might be useful but it's actually a only small part of what contributes to progress?

... the lack of "kill switch" for example.


Perhaps precise measures like fingerboard tests appeal to those from a hard science background (Stu) whereas messier but more functional tests appeal to quasi-/applied-/hardly at all- scientists like me.

Choose a set of measures that seems credible to you, use them as a guide, but recognise their limitations.


 

abarro81

Online
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 4288
  • Karma: +341/-25
Or maybe performance in climbing is such a multi-faceted thing that what I'm advocating is an over-simplification.
Yes, very much so.
Worth bearing in mind that even attempts to create benchmarks are a guide of where you are vs others at a certain grade/level, which does not necessarily represent where you need to be to operate at that level.
Can you climb 8a+ with no fitness? Yes (but you'll need to be relatively good or strong, and pick short ones). Can you climb 8a+ with shit technique? Yes (but you might need to be disproportionately strong and fit). Can you climb 8a+ while only being able to boulder 7A? Yes (but you'll need to be relatively fit and pick the right one). The more you fall into one extreme the more you'll have to make up for it in other areas or will find that you can only climb hard on very particular routes.

Think of "benchmarks" as just being a very rough guide to help you work out weaknesses - no more, no less. I've seen people who'd be able to hit all the benchmarks for climbing 9a.. apart from the "being good at getting up hard rock climbs" benchmark, at which they sucked, meaning that they climbed 8a.

If you do want to benchmark against others then you can either do it organically (2 options: 1. observing what the differences are between you and most of the people who are where you want to be; 2. observing what you feel that you lack in order to be where you want to be- I think this is more useful) or try to do it with numbers (this only covers the physical aspects) in which case your easiest option is something like Lattice.

seankenny

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1007
  • Karma: +114/-11
Perhaps precise measures like fingerboard tests appeal to those from a hard science background (Stu) whereas messier but more functional tests appeal to quasi-/applied-/hardly at all- scientists like me.


Poor quality data measuring an indeterminate outcome with a massive ommitted variable issue? What you need for this sort of nonsense is a social scientist! (Or perhaps everything looks like a nail to a man with a hammer.)

A model of bouldering performance might be a better bet for a starter model than one of route performance, given Alex's points above, and it would be interesting to hear if Lattice or their clients find their data driven approach works better for bouldering.


2. It may be more mental than physical and seeking to ensure I consciously engage aggression / fight and tolerate sketching through something could be a big step forward (and one that I think can be trained).

This is an excellent thread.

Re point 2. I'm always thinking about this  ;D and was last night, trying to focus on output doing campus pulls on the fingerboard.


I'm definitely someone who needs to improve their "try hard" ability. I can do it, but much too infrequently, and I want to be able to turn that tap on more often. My best performances are often when I randomly try something, the "I'll just take a look at this" effect, so perhaps I have to kid myself into trying hard/not sabotaging myself.

I always get the impression that climbers with a surfeit of "killer instinct" have it from the get go. Has anyone had this as a weakness and then cultivated it in their training?





spidermonkey09

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 2814
  • Karma: +159/-4

A model of bouldering performance might be a better bet for a starter model than one of route performance, given Alex's points above, and it would be interesting to hear if Lattice or their clients find their data driven approach works better for bouldering.


I bet if you were to see how effective/accurate their model is for bouldering by rock type, then it would work pretty well for limestone bouldering, perhaps not so well gritstone.

MischaHY

Offline
  • ***
  • obsessive maniac
  • Posts: 496
  • Karma: +64/-1
I always get the impression that climbers with a surfeit of "killer instinct" have it from the get go. Has anyone had this as a weakness and then cultivated it in their training?

I improved at this significantly by doing a lot more onsights/flash/2nd go redpoints with minimal beta refining which helped me get used to doing something that felt really hard but hanging on and then recovering mentally and carrying on. For me it was more about letting go of the outcome and just thinking about getting through the next move or two. I moaned about being bad at this for years and then improved quite quickly once I'd decided to do something about it.

Yossarian

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 2354
  • Karma: +351/-5

I always get the impression that climbers with a surfeit of "killer instinct" have it from the get go. Has anyone had this as a weakness and then cultivated it in their training?

Personally, I find this correlates directly with who I'm climbing with. There are a few people I climb with from time to time whose presence (especially when belaying) sends me into a "you're probably going to fall off pretty quickly / this is not going to go well" mindset, and the last time I climbed with one in particular, it took about 20 minutes before I was terminally depressed / terrified/  in an "announce on social media I'm so fed up I want to sell my rack" meltdown.

Conversely, on the infrequent occasions when I climb with someone really good, someone with sykejuice seeping out of every pore, warming up on the 7b that I've driven 200 miles to "just have a look at", I generally become largely fearless, completely trusting in their belaying, running it out, holding on until my fingers finally peel off.

remus

Online
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 2857
  • Karma: +146/-1
it would be interesting to hear if Lattice or their clients find their data driven approach works better for bouldering.

Bouldering performance correlates more strongly with physical metrics (finger strength, upper body conditioning etc.) than route climbing.

mrjonathanr

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5377
  • Karma: +242/-6
  • Getting fatter, not fitter.
For me it was more about letting go of the outcome and just thinking about getting through the next move or two.

This.

i_a_coops

Offline
  • ****
  • forum abuser
  • Posts: 521
  • Karma: +51/-2
    • Ian Cooper
it would be interesting to hear if Lattice or their clients find their data driven approach works better for bouldering.

I think a lot of people assume that if you can't predict what grade someone 'should' climb from a metric then it's not useful. I think the best use of the data is more to be able to compare metrics to other people climbing at a similar level to you, or to people who climb at the level you want to achieve.

E.g., a couple of years ago I realised that my max finger strength was really low for the level I was climbing. My initial reaction was 'oh these tests are bullshit, clearly other things are way more important than finger strength' but then I realised that meant working on my fingers was likely to be one of the easiest ways for me to get better. I then did a bunch of fingerboarding and jumped 2 boulder grades (for short actual boulder-y things) in about 6 months. And now my fingers are spot on average for the grades I climb, which means I should probably shuffle my training priorities around a bit.

That said, the predictive power of metric based models does go up quite a lot if you include things like 'how many years have you been climbing obsessively?', or 'what grade do you boulder in the style of the route you want to do?'. 'What grade of homogenous plastic route can you do laps on?' totally fits into that style of metric imo!

petejh

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5778
  • Karma: +622/-36
I wanted to post the Self-Coached Climber table here (in case it's of interest / helps discussion) but it doesn't seem straightforward to insert / attach an image - assistance?

Easiest way is open an imgur or flickr account, upload to there, copy the link, past here, encompass within the 'insert image' thingy (looks like a portrait).

Wellsy

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1405
  • Karma: +102/-8
For bouldering the idea of a benchmark is really hard for me to wrap my head around in many ways because boulder problems can be so hugely different. Like there's a world between say Tiger 6B and Appliance Friction 6B. You could so easily do one in 3-4 goes and not get anywhere in 40 goes on the other.

jwi

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 4219
  • Karma: +331/-1
    • On Steep Ground
That said, the predictive power of metric based models does go up quite a lot if you include things like 'how many years have you been climbing obsessively?', or 'what grade do you boulder in the style of the route you want to do?'. 'What grade of homogenous plastic route can you do laps on?' totally fits into that style of metric imo!

Are you sure it is not the other way around, that the predictive power of various suggested explanatory variables goes down when you control for "time spent training"? At least that was what I found.

My memory might be shot though ... 🤷🏼‍♂️

petejh

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5778
  • Karma: +622/-36
I always get the impression that climbers with a surfeit of "killer instinct" have it from the get go. Has anyone had this as a weakness and then cultivated it in their training?

My hunch is if you got a load of climbers to self-report on their perceived 'killer instinct scoreTM' and got a climbing partner to do likewise, the results would show an association with free testosterone levels. Easy blood test to take. Research idea for someone?

Maybe it would be possible to train the mindset by signing for a beginner's boxing club and learning how to continue performing a difficult athletic activity requiring co-ordination while getting punched in the face.

 

jwi

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 4219
  • Karma: +331/-1
    • On Steep Ground
I always get the impression that climbers with a surfeit of "killer instinct" have it from the get go. Has anyone had this as a weakness and then cultivated it in their training?

My hunch is if you got a load of climbers to self-report on their perceived 'killer instinct scoreTM' and got a climbing partner to do likewise, the results would show an association with free testosterone levels. Easy blood test to take. Research idea for someone?

Not so sure as most climbers I know with real tenacity and never-give-up attitude are women.

petejh

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5778
  • Karma: +622/-36
They may still have high free testosterone compared with other female climbers who aren't as tenacious... (but I'm defo not trying to say T is a magic bullet or the only factor involved)

i_a_coops

Offline
  • ****
  • forum abuser
  • Posts: 521
  • Karma: +51/-2
    • Ian Cooper
Are you sure it is not the other way around, that the predictive power of various suggested explanatory variables goes down when you control for "time spent training"? At least that was what I found.

Interested to hear more about what you were doing there!

I think we're both right - if you include years of experience, the overall predictive power of a multi-factor model goes up (quantified by adjusted r^2 or something comparable, depending on what method you're using), but each individual metric like max hang or box splits or whatnot has less weight attached to it in the final model, so less predictive power.

SA Chris

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 29221
  • Karma: +630/-11
    • http://groups.msn.com/ChrisClix

Maybe it would be possible to train the mindset by signing for a beginner's boxing club and learning how to continue performing a difficult athletic activity requiring co-ordination while getting punched in the face.

Sounds more like training for winter climbing to me.

mde

Offline
  • *
  • regular
  • Posts: 34
  • Karma: +14/-0
I think we're both right - if you include years of experience, the overall predictive power of a multi-factor model goes up (quantified by adjusted r^2 or something comparable, depending on what method you're using), but each individual metric like max hang or box splits or whatnot has less weight attached to it in the final model, so less predictive power.
For what's quoted in bold face: not necessarily true, it can go in both directions.

For example: if all those climbing for a long time are weak and all those who just started recently are strong, but both strength and experience contribute to better climbing ability, then using both variables in the model ups the predictive power of strength.

I know the example is unrealistic... maybe someone can think of a better one with the same effect.

i_a_coops

Offline
  • ****
  • forum abuser
  • Posts: 521
  • Karma: +51/-2
    • Ian Cooper
totally agree. if you do principal component analysis, then in theory you end up with a set of new variables that should be reasonably independent of each other and avoid that kind of double counting, which is what I was thinking of when I said the weighting of each individual metric would go down - such are the dangers of taking off the top of your head without rigourously checking everything first  ;D

jwi

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 4219
  • Karma: +331/-1
    • On Steep Ground
Are you sure it is not the other way around, that the predictive power of various suggested explanatory variables goes down when you control for "time spent training"? At least that was what I found.

Interested to hear more about what you were doing there!

Just a preliminary data exploring on some material I gathered from n ≈ 50. I wanted to figure out what tests to do for a bigger study (that I of course couldn't be arsed to do). I found some stuff that everyone finds who collect data finds (that finger strength measured by deadhangs is a good predictor of climbing performance, that a reasonable measure of LT2 predicts onsight peformance, etc etc) and some stuff that I haven't seen which can of course be down to sample errors.

Preliminary I found that climbing tests (similar to those I mentioned above) and dead hangs on an edge are probably the only test worth doing as all physical tests (pullups, core, general endurance etc) can be covered by just asking how many hours a week someone do general physical preparation. (I also found that test protocols using repeater protocols are meaningless, they lowered the predictive power when adjusting for number of variables —I am not sure I have seen that somewhere else.)

It would be cool to collect panel data on a test battery with a) test that are easy to self administer and I believe to be supported by evidence and b) estimates of how much time is spent on different modalities. Could answer some natural questions about causation. E.g. something that I have been wondering about is if you increase the proportion of time spent on finger boarding at the cost of doing less limit bouldering, does your sport climbing grade go up or down (on average)?

Fultonius

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 4315
  • Karma: +138/-3
  • Was strong but crap, now weaker but better.
    • Photos
Although, as a follow up I should note that it won't answer the question posed by the OP; which was along the lines of "what marks do I need to hit, if I want to do grade X". In that case, JWI's benchmarks are much more useful than anything you can do on a fingerboard.

It does rather beg the question though, since it would take a few days to do all those tests, why not try an 8a instead and see if you can do it?

I guess the idea is, that it's easy to go and fail on an 8a - but why?

Doing the tests might help tease out which aspect is problematic. Like most have said, you'd think by the 8a stage you knew what your weaknesses were, but I suppose these change over time and you might not be that honest with yourself?

For me, I'd guess I'm off the "8a in 5 or so tries" mark, more like 7c, and 7c+ would be 10-15 tries I'd guess.

I would, at a guess, manage this:

1. (Lactate treshold test/Endurance) Climb a 7a of 30 moves 10 times with 1 minute rest between the laps
2. (Anaerobic capacity at 80% of max/Strength endurance) Climb a 7b of 30 moves 6 times with 8 min rest between the laps
3. (Anaerobic power at 85% of max/Strength endurance) Climb an 7c of 30 moves 2 times with 30 min rest between the laps. More likely at 7b+
4. (Strength) Do a technically basic 7B of about 5-6 moves in five tries 7A+ deffo, 7B would be pushing it.

I might be wrong on the first one....

I was intrigued to go back and read this third post Lattice Test, Post Crit Force and I clearly had less of an understanding of my current level than I thought...  Clearly at the time I thought my aerobic endurance (test 1) was fine. To be fair, in November it might have been a bit better than now, 2.5 months on, but still - I'm much less of an aerobic endurance beast than I thought....   But my CF test does seem to point to me being quite poor in endurance!  (32% of max force)

I've been doing AnCap and strength. My AnCap and strength has improved....but it's not been a serious big block so I can't imagine it's improved loads and I have no real benchmarks / gauges to see if it has. My max hangs have gone up about 4kg, so my 70% level is now a bit harder and I can still complete it.

As a thought experiment, right now at the start of 4-6 weeks of base endurance transitioning into quality latter on, I would put myself at:

1. (Lactate treshold test/Endurance) Climb a 7a 6b+/6c of 30 moves 10 times with 1 minute rest between the laps
2. (Anaerobic capacity at 80% of max/Strength endurance) Climb a 7b 7a of 30 moves 6 times with 8 min rest between the laps
3. (Anaerobic power at 85% of max/Strength endurance) Climb an 7c 7b of 30 moves 2 times with 30 min rest between the laps. More likely at 7b+
4. (Strength) Do a technically basic 7B of about 5-6 moves in five tries 7A+ deffo, 7B would be pushing it.  No change there then

It doesn't feel like I've upped my bouldering level by much. Maybe a + grade or a full letter. Bit disappointed in this, that said, I've definitely upped my bouldering flash grade/quick send grade since number by a letter to 1.5 letter grades.

From the above, and the CF test I guess F7c fairly quickly should be achievable after 2 months endurance work, but my planned F8a project is going to be a full blown siege!  I do have some kg to lose though, so that should help.

I did have to easy off a few weeks due to brachialis niggles and a sore wrist from falling over on the way back from winter climbing, so I suppose all in it's not *too* bad.

 

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal