[petejh]

The people now starting climbing will lap this stuff up. They are happy to pay for a coach, a lattice plan, a diet plan, guided technique lessons. It’s not like it used to be.

Why would a wall offer development classes for just the price of your entry when they could charge a tenner.

The same people are happy to pay £100 a month for some magic green powder so why not for access for coached sessions at a wall.

People are used to paying for guided sessions in most aspects of gym life and will happily do so for climbing. There is no doubt it would work.

.. replied Tom from Lattice Training, when asked by the bank’s commercial manager about market potential during his meeting to apply for a business loan.

The old romantic in me hates what lattice etc has done to climbing but can see why it’s happened. Anyone climbing less than 8a/A really doesn’t need to be so structured though.

However the businessman in me finds them absolutely fascinating. Only wish I had thought of it before them.

Computer automated training plans at 40 a month. Thanks very much sir.

Oh yeah I agree - it's an obvious and good business model. Don't mistake my jibbing for anything other than mild amusement at an easy target - a bit like the 'climbing goes mainstream' thread on here.

I do think that, as with most successful disruptive businesses, there will be unintended consequences of creating an environment where training, data and benchmarking are so much a part of climbing for newcomers. Taken to extreme you can imagine someone not believing they can do something unless the training data says so. But the flip side of that coin is the training will no doubt have helped loads of people achieve what they didn't think they could. Not saying its good or bad, it is what it is. While I'd never pay them anything, I like using a lattice board and I'm glad of their freely shared info, app, training boards etc.

Its similar in some ways to guiding in the alpine regions, where guides alter the fabric of the climbing environment to suit their business model.   

[gme]

I did say the romantic bit of me. I think modern climbing, walls, training, Olympics etc is amazing and the whole scene is very much alive and kicking. If you read my first post that’s what I was saying. Modern walls are just giving people what they want as it’s a different demographic now. If they offer a bespoke package for 500 a month some with think it’s worth it.


It’s just not the escapism most got into it for in the 80s. It’s mainstream but not saying that’s bad.

Real jumpers for goal posts is talking about broughton, the edge etc. they became relics and were not very good.

Jerry would have gone to lattice if it existed but it would have been secret and he wouldn’t tell anyone.

And you will not convince me ever that people climbing in the low grades up to high 7s or 8s need a training plan. Just fucking talk to people, watch and go climbing. The walls are full of people to learn from.

[gme]

Computer automated training plans at 40 a month. Thanks very much sir.

For what it's worth, every plan is written by a coach. Computer generated plans are hard to do to a high standard.

Lattices maybe but many are not and I’m pretty sure you will be working on AI to write them in the future. If you don’t you will be out of business.

[gme]

The people now starting climbing will lap this stuff up. They are happy to pay for a coach, a lattice plan, a diet plan, guided technique lessons. It’s not like it used to be.

Why would a wall offer development classes for just the price of your entry when they could charge a tenner.

The same people are happy to pay £100 a month for some magic green powder so why not for access for coached sessions at a wall.

People are used to paying for guided sessions in most aspects of gym life and will happily do so for climbing. There is no doubt it would work.

.. replied Tom from Lattice Training, when asked by the bank’s commercial manager about market potential during his meeting to apply for a business loan.

The old romantic in me hates what lattice etc has done to climbing but can see why it’s happened. Anyone climbing less than 8a/A really doesn’t need to be so structured though.

However the businessman in me finds them absolutely fascinating. Only wish I had thought of it before them.

Computer automated training plans at 40 a month. Thanks very much sir.

Oh yeah I agree - it's an obvious and good business model. Don't mistake my jibbing for anything other than mild amusement at an easy target - a bit like the 'climbing goes mainstream' thread on here.

I do think that, as with most successful disruptive businesses, there will be unintended consequences of creating an environment where training, data and benchmarking are so much a part of climbing for newcomers. Taken to extreme you can imagine someone not believing they can do something unless the training data says so. But the flip side of that coin is the training will no doubt have helped loads of people achieve what they didn't think they could. Not saying its good or bad, it is what it is. While I'd never pay them anything, I like using a lattice board and I'm glad of their freely shared info, app, training boards etc.

Its similar in some ways to guiding in the alpine regions, where guides alter the fabric of the climbing environment to suit their business model.

I don’t think there are any consequences the sport is booming and from what I can see in a really good way. If people want a training plan let them buy one. Just you don’t need it as it’s really not that complicated.

If you went to one of the good walls 4 times a week and tried hard you would get to a good standard in a few years.

[petejh]

Agree with most of your sentiments.

Wonder if there's a lattice equivalent for fell-running yet. A lot of the things that can be said about 'romantic old school reasons for getting into climbing' can be said about reasons for getting into fell-running. 

edit: Probably not.. as there isn't an equivalent to the 'indoor walls market' in fell running.

[Dingdong]

Agree with most of your sentiments.

Wonder if there's a lattice equivalent for fell-running yet. A lot of the things that can be said about 'romantic old school reasons for getting into climbing' can be said about reasons for getting into fell-running. 

edit: Probably not.. as there isn't an equivalent to the 'indoor walls market' in fell running.

There’s no lattice equivalent but there’s plenty of fell running coaches out there. Source: my partner who trains with a Team GB mountain runner. They’ve just not conglomerated into a company. But from what she has said after seeing the work lattice do with me through coaching she thinks running is really far behind climbing in terms of coaching.

[stone]

Several people I climb with get training plans/coaching etc. My impression is that it is part and parcel of their general enthusiasm with climbing. It seems to change what they are doing and they do seem to improve.

My only (slight) misgiving about it is whether it leads to people having a "burn brightly but quickly" trajectory to their climbing enthusiasm. Perhaps some people become super dedicated and improve a lot but then can't be arsed with that level of dedication long term and also get a further dent to their enthusiasm in consequently climbing less well than they were. That is all about the psychology of why we climb and what is all for anyway etc though I guess. It is a bit perverse to never climb well so as to never be disappointed in getting worse 

[Bradders]

Computer automated training plans at 40 a month. Thanks very much sir.

For what it's worth, every plan is written by a coach. Computer generated plans are hard to do to a high standard.

Lattices maybe but many are not and I’m pretty sure you will be working on AI to write them in the future. If you don’t you will be out of business.

This could only ever be said by someone who's never had a coach. The whole point is human connection and support; the minutiae of what to do and when is entirely secondary.

Obviously this doesn't apply to buy online training plans with no further ongoing support.

I do think that, as with most successful disruptive businesses, there will be unintended consequences of creating an environment where training, data and benchmarking are so much a part of climbing for newcomers. Taken to extreme you can imagine someone not believing they can do something unless the training data says so.

This has already happened. Their longstanding focus on the Lattice edge, and how much you can hang from it with one or two hands as a guage for climbing grade has had a definite impact on a lot of people's internal assessments of their capabilities. Was recently discussed on the Nugget podcast I think and I've spoken to a few people about it. Certainly for me it had a detrimental effect on my approach to climbing and training that took a long while to get past.

[User deactivated.]

I do think that, as with most successful disruptive businesses, there will be unintended consequences of creating an environment where training, data and benchmarking are so much a part of climbing for newcomers. Taken to extreme you can imagine someone not believing they can do something unless the training data says so.

I don't even think you're taking that to the extreme. When Lattice and others first started releasing finger strength data, I discovered that I had 7A fingers, so for years I prioritised finger boarding more than I should have and avoided crimpy boulders. Out of curiosity, I just checked the Lattice 'my fingers' test to see where i'm at now and the result is that my fingers are still "much weaker than expected" for my max bouldering grade. However, in recent times I've realised that I actually climb about as well as my mates on crimpy stuff - all of whom test much better than me on a fingerboard. This experience has finally given me back the confidence that I lost due to the data.

[jwi]

I suspect some people confuse coaching with a training plan.

[abarro81]

Given that how good you are at hanging 1/2 crimp off a 20mm edge often has little to do with how strong you are hanging off small crimps (or pockets, or anything else other than a decent half crimp edge), using a poor score on that metric to conclude you'll be bad at crimpy boulders seems like a fundamental misunderstanding of what you just measured... Plenty of people with "strong" fingers on one finger strength test and "weak" fingers on another.

[Fultonius]

I do think that, as with most successful disruptive businesses, there will be unintended consequences of creating an environment where training, data and benchmarking are so much a part of climbing for newcomers. Taken to extreme you can imagine someone not believing they can do something unless the training data says so.

I don't even think you're taking that to the extreme. When Lattice and others first started releasing finger strength data, I discovered that I had 7A fingers, so for years I prioritised finger boarding more than I should have and avoided crimpy boulders. Out of curiosity, I just checked the Lattice 'my fingers' test to see where i'm at now and the result is that my fingers are still "much weaker than expected" for my max bouldering grade. However, in recent times I've realised that I actually climb about as well as my mates on crimpy stuff - all of whom test much better than me on a fingerboard. This experience has finally given me back the confidence that I lost due to the data.

Out of interest, what's your current score on the fingerboard?  While warming up the other day a mate was testing some youth club kids on a Tindeq. He pointed me at it and said "have a pull" - I wouldn't say I was fully warmed up for max hangs but not far off. Managed 68kg right hand, left hand much worse but that's not surprising as I am a bit weak. I rarely do any fingerboarding these days as it's not really a weakness of mine for my grade/ambitions.

[petejh]

Given that how good you are at hanging 1/2 crimp off a 20mm edge often has little to do with how strong you are hanging off small crimps (or pockets, or anything else other than a decent half crimp edge), using a poor score on that metric to conclude you'll be bad at crimpy boulders seems like a fundamental misunderstanding of what you just measured...

OK (I agree btw)... so then why measure it and make it such a central part of the 'product'*? Why not measure using a metric that does correlate well with crimpy bouldering?


* because it's a common hold on many commercial fingerboards. Because it's not too grim to hold. Because it's more achievable than a rat edge. Because people are attracted to simple ideas (20mm hang) more than complicated stuff (body position, momentum, tension, determination, tactics). Insert other reasons...   

[petejh]

Interesting anecdotes Liam and Bradders. Have you both started climbing within the last 10 years? And did you quickly get into structured training rather than just going climbing?

[gme]

Computer automated training plans at 40 a month. Thanks very much sir.

For what it's worth, every plan is written by a coach. Computer generated plans are hard to do to a high standard.

Lattices maybe but many are not and I’m pretty sure you will be working on AI to write them in the future. If you don’t you will be out of business.

This could only ever be said by someone who's never had a coach. The whole point is human connection and support; the minutiae of what to do and when is entirely secondary.

Obviously this doesn't apply to buy online training plans with no further ongoing support.

I do think that, as with most successful disruptive businesses, there will be unintended consequences of creating an environment where training, data and benchmarking are so much a part of climbing for newcomers. Taken to extreme you can imagine someone not believing they can do something unless the training data says so.

This has already happened. Their longstanding focus on the Lattice edge, and how much you can hang from it with one or two hands as a guage for climbing grade has had a definite impact on a lot of people's internal assessments of their capabilities. Was recently discussed on the Nugget podcast I think and I've spoken to a few people about it. Certainly for me it had a detrimental effect on my approach to climbing and training that took a long while to get past.

You are correct. I have never had a coach for anything ( couple of golf lessons aside). I have had lots of people help me though in a mentoring way. Right from when I started up to the top climbers of the day so I understand the value.

I have also helped numerous people to improve in return, to the kind of levels I’m talking about and more but never coached anyone. Non involved fingerboarding or really measuring anything. All involved going climbing a lot.

[User deactivated.]

Given that how good you are at hanging 1/2 crimp off a 20mm edge often has little to do with how strong you are hanging off small crimps (or pockets, or anything else other than a decent half crimp edge), using a poor score on that metric to conclude you'll be bad at crimpy boulders seems like a fundamental misunderstanding of what you just measured... Plenty of people with "strong" fingers on one finger strength test and "weak" fingers on another.

You know that and I know that now, but as a naive, newer climber I didn't understand the intracacies of finger strength and that's the problem. The language they use is literally "Your score of X held makes you much weaker than expected for your bouldering grade"!

Out of interest, what's your current score on the fingerboard?  While warming up the other day a mate was testing some youth club kids on a Tindeq. He pointed me at it and said "have a pull" - I wouldn't say I was fully warmed up for max hangs but not far off. Managed 68kg right hand, left hand much worse but that's not surprising as I am a bit weak. I rarely do any fingerboarding these days as it's not really a weakness of mine for my grade/ambitions.

On a Tindeq, I pulled my best ever scores last week on my homemade edge (around 23mm): 74.5kg on the left and 73.9kg on the right. I'm still sitting in last place in the Top Gear style 'punters on a reasonably sized edge' leaderboard that I force all visitors to the board room to partake in

It might be relevant to state that I test much better on micros (relatively) e.g. I can do over 50kg on a 6mm edge full crimped.

Interesting anecdotes Liam and Bradders. Have you both started climbing within the last 10 years? And did you quickly get into structured training rather than just going climbing?

I think it was 8 years ago when I started, but I didn't start climbing outside and taking it seriously until about 4 years ago, I just went round the Depot circuits, for the socials mostly. I came into climbing with high general strength, but I didn't really start structured training for climbing (other than random bits of 4x4s and stuff at the wall) until I started climbing outside. As many will know, I've since become a complete training nerd. I genuinely enjoy it!

[yetix]

Given that how good you are at hanging 1/2 crimp off a 20mm edge often has little to do with how strong you are hanging off small crimps (or pockets, or anything else other than a decent half crimp edge), using a poor score on that metric to conclude you'll be bad at crimpy boulders seems like a fundamental misunderstanding of what you just measured... Plenty of people with "strong" fingers on one finger strength test and "weak" fingers on another.

You know that and I know that now, but as a naive, newer climber I didn't understand the intracacies of finger strength and that's the problem. The language they use is literally "Your score of X held makes you much weaker than expected for your bouldering grade"!

Out of interest, what's your current score on the fingerboard?  While warming up the other day a mate was testing some youth club kids on a Tindeq. He pointed me at it and said "have a pull" - I wouldn't say I was fully warmed up for max hangs but not far off. Managed 68kg right hand, left hand much worse but that's not surprising as I am a bit weak. I rarely do any fingerboarding these days as it's not really a weakness of mine for my grade/ambitions.

On a Tindeq, I pulled my best ever scores last week on my homemade edge (around 23mm): 74.5kg on the left and 73.9kg on the right. I'm still sitting in last place in the Top Gear style 'punters on a reasonably sized edge' leaderboard that I force all visitors to the board room to partake in

It might be relevant to state that I test much better on micros (relatively) e.g. I can do over 50kg on a 6mm edge full crimped.

Interesting anecdotes Liam and Bradders. Have you both started climbing within the last 10 years? And did you quickly get into structured training rather than just going climbing?

I think it was 8 years ago when I started, but I didn't start climbing outside and taking it seriously until about 4 years ago, I just went round the Depot circuits, for the socials mostly. I came into climbing with high general strength, but I didn't really start structured training for climbing (other than random bits of 4x4s and stuff at the wall) until I started climbing outside. As many will know, I've since become a complete training nerd. I genuinely enjoy it!

Flipping heck your leaderboard must be dead strong. I managed 52kg on my strong hand on a 20mm edge today (weighing in at 70kg this evening)

[User deactivated.]

Flipping heck your leaderboard must be dead strong. I managed 52kg on my strong hand on a 20mm edge today (weighing in at 70kg this evening)

Wow, is that peak (momentary) force too?

It's worth noting my leaderboard is done as % bodyweight. I'd be mid pack on an absolute scale. However, my mate in first place pulled a colossal 95kg from cold after a 10 hour shift of landscape gardening. He's never done any fingerboarding and his max outdoor grade so far is 7B!

My own score does tend to correlate with how well i'm going though. E.g. last week when I hit a PB it was after doing my warm up board problems and thinking everything felt very easy.

[jwi]

My own score does tend to correlate with how well i'm going though. E.g. last week when I hit a PB it was after doing my warm up board problems and thinking everything felt very easy.

Grip strength is commonly used in strength training to gauge CNS fatigue...

[Dingdong]

Given that how good you are at hanging 1/2 crimp off a 20mm edge often has little to do with how strong you are hanging off small crimps (or pockets, or anything else other than a decent half crimp edge), using a poor score on that metric to conclude you'll be bad at crimpy boulders seems like a fundamental misunderstanding of what you just measured...

OK (I agree btw)... so then why measure it and make it such a central part of the 'product'*? Why not measure using a metric that does correlate well with crimpy bouldering?


* because it's a common hold on many commercial fingerboards. Because it's not too grim to hold. Because it's more achievable than a rat edge. Because people are attracted to simple ideas (20mm hang) more than complicated stuff (body position, momentum, tension, determination, tactics). Insert other reasons...

These are all far more complicated to measure but lattice have even been working on it by attaching force plate to feet and handholds to see how weight is distributed by climbers.

I think the point of the test is to just have an additional piece of data that can be standardised across the board and measured against a similar cohort to then give you a metric you can improve upon, it’s not secret that those results don’t necessarily reflect how you climb, after all it’s a skill sport first and foremost. I’ve been climbing five years now and my max PB on a 20mm edge hang is +50kg at 68kg or around 165%ish BW which isn’t massive - I’ve also done a lift at 76.5kg on a 20mm edge and I’ve been able to one arm the 22mm middle edge beastmaker for 5 seconds… what this proved is that even fingerboarding is a skill in itself and and will improve the more you do that specific type of FB training, I retested my max hangs and they dropped 7kg after having done lifts for 6 months, you can’t specifically say a score = a grade but I think across a large dataset that’s what it might show

This data as well as strength and conditioning, flexibility etc all are part of a bigger picture which is meant to help you weed out any weaknesses to make you a stronger, more robust climber.

[stone]

lattice have even been working on it by attaching force plate to feet and handholds to see how weight is distributed by climbers.

That sounds so cool. It would be amazing to get a mockup of some "unclimbable" blank weirdness (such as https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crags/chee_dale_lower-10866/somehow_super-100030  ) and then get someone such as Steve McClure or Felix to levitate up it and then SCIENCE .

[Dingdong]

Yeah it was really interesting, they did a video too https://youtu.be/UvLeiqBjYM8?si=b9L1d9bx485TLqza

[jwi]

Here is a review of the litterature on using force plates to assess climbing

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9915606

[Muenchener]

Wonder if there's a lattice equivalent for fell-running yet.

Uphill Athlete surely?

[gme]

Judging on most of the recent replies to this I am right in thinking there really is a different person climbing these days to the past.

Even if this kind of info was available in the past I really don’t think anyone other than Gresh and Matt smith would have been bothered.

I really think this is counter productive to 99% of peoples progression.