[Dingdong]

As a hypothetical dingdong, let’s say coaching was no longer available to you. Would you still go climbing and try to improve ?

Yeah but I probably wouldn’t train anywhere near as much or be as structured with peaking at specific times in a cycle etc

[Moo]

Ok and do you think that as a result you’d end up enjoying climbing less ?

[spidermonkey09]

I've done various periods in my life of training a lot and others where I've barely trained. I'm probably in the middle of the two now. The points I've trained lots have delivered some of the best climbing experiences I'll ever have. I get why people do it. Paying for a training plan/coach obviously would have in no way devalued the outcome, but in my head, stylistically I'm still glad I didn't and that I worked it out for myself, even though it was inefficient, involved asking loads of people for advice, loads of trial and error etc etc. Maybe this is just me? A bit like how I'm always more pleased to do a problem or route ground up rather than throwing a rope down it. This is obviously a philosophical position so it's understandable that it isn't shared by everyone, but I sympathise with those who think that the commodification of training means something has been lost.

The type of training I've always done has been very specific. I've never remotely engaged with cycles, peaking for things etc. I'm not scientifically minded and a small part of me thinks that it hugely overcomplicates things. I continue to think that training isn't rocket science and it always seems pretty obvious to me what I need to train. Fingers weak? Do some fingerboarding.
  Not feeling fit? Get pumped on a circuit board /do some foot on campusing. If I want to climb Jason's roof I know I'll have to do some heel hook work, some stretching and climb some compression stuff. I get there's way more to it than that but I also do think people can tie themselves in knots about cycles etc thinking about cycles and what to train when more often an application of occams razor would suffice.

Crucially to pick up on Moos q to Dingdong I dont think I enjoy climbing any less when I'm not training as opposed to when I do.

[Dingdong]

Ok and do you think that as a result you’d end up enjoying climbing less ?

Not at all, but I love training and having Mina as a coach means I have a huge wealth of knowledge at my disposal and someone I can bounce ideas off

[spidermonkey09]

On reflection I've always had very specific routes and problems I want to do and have trained specifically for them having been on them and realised my many deficiencies. If I was interested in more generic improvement, I can see how one might lack the specific focus to work out what to train.

[mark20]

Oooh the annual Lattice bashing thread is early this year 
 
I know two people who did Tom/Lattice plans, one quit, the other went mad

[petejh]

I suppose the issue for Tim there being that he is a 40(?) something with two kids and a full time job etc. yet still manages to knock off 8Bs on his holidays.

This all feels very akin for me to people paying for financial advice, in the sense that at heart managing your money for most people is really very simple and can be boiled down to a few extremely basic principles. And yet, I suspect the number of people who make it through life without ever worrying about money is vanishingly small. So whilst it really is very easy to learn the principles yourself and apply these to all the scenarios you find yourself in, most people benefit from having an "expert" guide them, especially as those scenarios get more complex and intricate, or when ego overtakes income / wealth (ability / strength in climbing).

The issue, which is what clearly happens in finance, is if the industry then ends up overcomplicating things for people, which generally leads to poorer outcomes if regulation doesn't intervene. And there will always be people who are able to do it themselves, but I think it's fairly uncharitable for those lucky few to poor scorn on both those who need help and those trying to provide it. It's the climbing equivalent of Pete making success in day trading look easy and suggesting everyone could do the same (much as I respect both Tim and Pete!).

Regarding the idea that the general improvement in the population level climbing ability is down to the improvement in facilities; I think that's really simplistic and ignores the fact that the two things (improved facilities and improved training knowledge) have occurred at precisely the same time, so unravelling one from the other is impossible. I think they're so heavily linked you couldn't really have had one without the other and vice versa.

There's a lot in there that I agree with, except that I don't day trade (or I'd be penniless!).

A way I think about the effects of normalisation of climbing training as a go-to for people who get keen on climbing, is the effects of the normalisation of satnav on people's ability to read a map. Navigating around UK/Europe by reading a map / using google map on your phone in basic top-down 2D view is an acquired skill carried out without much thought by people of a certain age. Below that age being able to navigate using a basic top-down 2D map is seemingly becoming less common and a harder skill, as people rely on the more efficient option of satnav or allowing google map on your phone to direct you. It might be efficient but it leaves you dumber, and is only efficient when you have it available. Without developing less efficient skills of using a map to fall back on you can end up back to being a punter without the ability to find your way.

Training obviously works. And high end coaches have much expertise. But people making the point that some climbing coaches are highly-qualified experts are missing the wider point. They might be highly qualified, but if this level of expertise isn't required to coach a basic task then you're probably overpaying - it doesn't require a professional tradesperson to efficiently change a plug, but you can hire one and your plug will be efficiently changed. It's Bradders' 'over-complication of basic financial advice'. I view the talk about requiring 'expertise' in the same sentence as talking about training below a certain level of difficulty as selling fashionable snake oil.

I'd be interested in the consensus on what level of 'expertise' is involved in being able to give effective training advice to anyone below the low 8th grade. My guestimate, about the level of 'expertise' of doing a GCSE, i.e. something most reasonably motivated people with a basic grasp of a topic could handle! Above a typical plateau in the low 8s I think it's probably a very different story.

BTW however nice and on-trend Duncan's mates are is irrelevant to the question and a bit of a straw man. I doubt anyone suspects they *aren't* nice and hard-working people, most people are when you get to know them. It's just a completely meaningless 'halo' in a discussion about the value of 'expertise' and whether expertise is actually necessary.

[User deactivated.]

If I want to climb Jason's roof I know I'll have to do some heel hook work, some stretching and climb some compression stuff.

That would probably be enough for you to climb Jason's Roof. But let's say you climb it and decide that you really enjoy compression boulders, and your long term goal is now to climb The Big Island. Do you think you might start training a bit differently? Potentially entertaining the idea of periodization?

[Paul B]

Those guys all have natural talent and have worked hard, they might have got there without. But they might have also not. Schrödinger’s boulderers.

See, this is one of the things about Lattice that's most bothered me in the past ('bothered' is a bit strong but I can't currently think of  better wording); onboarding of climbers that have already performed to a high level and associating that success with the brand. Perhaps I'm wrong but I'd attribute Aiden's training success (if we're taking his own effort for granted) to being a prodigy of Carlisle Slapper (not a particular slouch when it comes to training)? Am I wrong here, was Bosi actually trained by Lattice far far earlier than I was aware? He seemed to be on a steep upward trajectory before I associated him with the brand.

Another thing I've been a little unsure of (and again, this is from memory so I could be mistaken) was selling Lite Plans aimed at 6a climbers (was there a 6a, 7a and 8a)? Neither of these things are anything new in other sports or business (yes JWI, I know, I know... no evidence that climbing/climbers should be different) and as I get older I realise this is probably more me / my feelings on the way climbing has evolved (when T_B explained the philosophy regarding The Fell Running Association with regard to growth [i.e. not something they actively pursue] I thought that sounds perfect, which I'll admit isn't the consensus view). I've discussed why I think selling plans to people at the lower end is IMO shortsighted with respect to their long-term performance. That's not my thinking about coaching though. I think coaches can have a place if there's a heavy focus towards skills (isn't that why good beta was to climb with people better than you as you'd either learn by osmosis or by them bluntly telling you what you're doing wrong?).

In terms of Tom driving a McLaren, I couldn't care less how people choose to spend their money (although something like a Noble M12 would be a better fit?). From what I understand he had a job in finance before his job was in climbing and one thing I've learnt from my neighbours is that some people appear to have lots of money but actually are just insanely leveraged (who TF finances a BBQ purchase?) so you shouldn't read anything into appearances. Whatever your opinions it's hard to ignore that Lattice is successful and likewise the Wideboyz brand. Also, climbers finding ways to remain in climbing for work isn't something that's overly new.

Tom's always been pretty generous towards me in the early days of Lattice with knowledge sharing (and fairly receptive to criticism) and trying to look into things like critical power IMO is fascinating stuff (again, I think people took my scepticism of it's applicability currently the wrong way in a previous thread). It's also hard to argue that the Crimpd app isn't really quite good and remains free to access (I'm sure it's also developed a lot since I last downloaded a copy).

People needing to pay a fee to be accountable blows my mind but isn't something new.

[Dingdong]

Those guys all have natural talent and have worked hard, they might have got there without. But they might have also not. Schrödinger’s boulderers.

See, this is one of the things about Lattice that's most bothered me in the past ('bothered' is a bit strong but I can't currently think of  better wording); onboarding of climbers that have already performed to a high level and associating that success with the brand. Perhaps I'm wrong but I'd attribute Aiden's training success (if we're taking his own effort for granted) to being a prodigy of Carlisle Slapper (not a particular slouch when it comes to training)? Am I wrong here, was Bosi actually trained by Lattice far far earlier than I was aware? He seemed to be on a steep upward trajectory before I associated him with the brand.

Another thing I've been a little unsure of (and again, this is from memory so I could be mistaken) was selling Lite Plans aimed at 6a climbers (was there a 6a, 7a and 8a)? Neither of these things are anything new in other sports or business (yes JWI, I know, I know... no evidence that climbing/climbers should be different) and as I get older I realise this is probably more me / my feelings on the way climbing has evolved (when T_B explained the philosophy regarding The Fell Running Association with regard to growth [i.e. not something they actively pursue] I thought that sounds perfect, which I'll admit isn't the consensus view). I've discussed why I think selling plans to people at the lower end is IMO shortsighted with respect to their long-term performance. That's not my thinking about coaching though. I think coaches can have a place if there's a heavy focus towards skills (isn't that why good beta was to climb with people better than you as you'd either learn by osmosis or by them bluntly telling you what you're doing wrong?).

In terms of Tom driving a McLaren, I couldn't care less how people choose to spend their money (although something like a Noble M12 would be a better fit?). From what I understand he had a job in finance before his job was in climbing and one thing I've learnt from my neighbours is that some people appear to have lots of money but actually are just insanely leveraged (who TF finances a BBQ purchase?) so you shouldn't read anything into appearances. Whatever your opinions it's hard to ignore that Lattice is successful and likewise the Wideboyz brand. Also, climbers finding ways to remain in climbing for work isn't something that's overly new.

Tom's always been pretty generous towards me in the early days of Lattice with knowledge sharing (and fairly receptive to criticism) and trying to look into things like critical power IMO is fascinating stuff (again, I think people took my scepticism of it's applicability currently the wrong way in a previous thread). It's also hard to argue that the Crimpd app isn't really quite good and remains free to access (I'm sure it's also developed a lot since I last downloaded a copy).

People needing to pay a fee to be accountable blows my mind but isn't something new.

Aidan started climbing at 13 and by 15 had already made team GB where Tom was a coach I believe? Someone correct me if I’m wrong through!

[crimpinainteasy]

I agree that this is probably the biggest driver in general top-end improvements - bigger pool of people taking up the sport younger.

Exactly so it chafes a bit to see companies and individuals charging large amounts of money for "expertise" in a phenomenon which they likely had little or no influence over

Ah, here's where I think our views differ. I think the key driver in the change in top-end performance (e.g., the number of people climbing 9b or 8C+ or more) between 15 years ago and now is likely to be the larger pool of talent and younger starting age. However, I think it is much easier for an averagely-talented and quite motived climber to achieve 8c now that it was 15 years ago, and a key driver for that is kneepads much more accessible knowledge on how to improve at climbing and train for climbing (and widespread testimonies of the improvements that that can bring)

Also, the more I think about it the more strange that argument is. While I have had little to no influence in the expansion of solar PV deployment, if you want me and my company to model manufacturing costs for a prospective US PV factory we will still charge you for it. A doctor may not have personally had any influence on improving treatments for disease X, but I still expect them to get paid for advising me on how to treat disease X (if only so I don't have to go to med school for 5 years).

Larger pool of talent had definitely role in the rate of grade progression but to me I think the evolution of training methodology has surely played an equally important part. The difference is so stark that guys at the top end like Will are sending boulders in a couple tries that were right at the cutting edge and taking the top climbers of yester year multiple seasons of work to send.

[jwi]

I don't think knowledge about physical training has improved that much from the late 80s to be honest. At least not for sport climbing. I doubt many coaches today know a lot of things that JiBe did not know in 1987. And two the three 9c climbers in the world never had much or any formal coaching.

What has changed a lot is mass access to decent year round training facilities, and quick dissimination of efficient movement patterns, first through cheap travel to international hot-spots, then later through video and finally on-line video.

[teestub]

The difference is so stark that guys at the top end like Will are sending boulders in a couple tries that were right at the cutting edge and taking the top climbers of yester year multiple seasons of work to send.

The 9A grade is best part of a decade old now, so the difference isn’t that stark!

[Hoseyb]

I'd be interested in the consensus on what level of 'expertise' is involved in being able to give effective training advice to anyone below the low 8th grade. My guestimate, about the level of 'expertise' of doing a GCSE, i.e. something most reasonably motivated people with a basic grasp of a topic could handle! Above a typical plateau in the low 8s I think it's probably a very different story.

All the work I've done as a coach has been for sub 8 climbers.

The ceilings they've been butting their heads against have not been an issue of training, but technique and tactics. It's not so much the "how to" they benefit from, as the "why it works" and how that can be examined, experimented with and MacGyvered into a variety of situations.

I struggle with the term expertise, but I've worked quite hard not only to understand how climbing movement works, but how to communicate this to people who ' haven't learnt the language yet '.

I do agree that training knowledge is rarely the limiting factor for people climbing below low 8's , at least in sport climbing.

[remus]

Perhaps I'm wrong but I'd attribute Aiden's training success (if we're taking his own effort for granted) to being a prodigy of Carlisle Slapper (not a particular slouch when it comes to training)? Am I wrong here, was Bosi actually trained by Lattice far far earlier than I was aware? He seemed to be on a steep upward trajectory before I associated him with the brand.

Aidan was already operating at a high level when he started working with Lattice (around 2020 I think?), but I'd argue he's continued to improve since then https://climbing-history.org/climber/227/aidan-roberts Obviously I don't want to make it sound like this is solely due to Lattice's input, as there's a huge amount of graft and skill required from a climber at this level to continue making improvements at the top level, but I know Ollie T has put a lot of time and effort in to coaching and training him and changed how he trained.

Bosi has been working with Tom / Lattice since I started there around 2015. Likewise, Toby Roberts was working with Ollie for a long time before his mega comp season last year.

To my mind, those three are the best climbers in the UK right now.

[remus]

The difference is so stark that guys at the top end like Will are sending boulders in a couple tries that were right at the cutting edge and taking the top climbers of yester year multiple seasons of work to send.

The 9A grade is best part of a decade old now, so the difference isn’t that stark!

Burden took Nalle 100+ sessions over three years, not including sessions spent training. Will did the second ascent in 14 sessions, plus 10 sessions training on the replica. That's a big difference imo.

[Fiend]

None of which means that focusing on specific training plans is ideal for newish / inexperienced climbers at 6A rather than 9A....

[Moo]

I think you’d need to look at the speed a comparable first ascent was done rather than a first ascent versus a repeat. ( I’m not saying that would prove you wrong ).

I’d also note that burden isn’t something which I’d typically say was nalle’s style. I wonder how bosi would get on with doing the black circuit at cuisiniere that’d be a really interesting challenge to watch him take on.

[stone]

In terms of Tom driving a McLaren, I couldn't care less how people choose to spend their money

I wonder whether part of what makes me feel so fiercely defensive of Lattice etc (even though I'm not a customer) is that paying for coaching exemplifies where luxury consumerism has to shift to, if our planet is to have a hope. IMO paying for coaching is the perfect environmentally friendly luxury.

I'm full of admiration for climbers such as Zippy who don't have a car.

[stone]

Perhaps Lattice etc have especially helped the least-clued-up 50% of climbers.

I remember when I first moved to the Peak just over 20years ago, I went to Hobson Moor as it's close to me. I asked people there about sport climbing. I was told that decent sport climbing in the Peak started at about 7b+ and in order to climb like that it was necessary to do lots of campus-boarding and most people would just get injured from such training. The guy who told me this, said he had given it a whirl, had done a 7b+ but had also got catastrophic bad elbows from all the campus-boarding. Anyway he was up for doing some trad and I did go trad climbing with him quite a few times.

I also mooched around at the Tor, and from that, it was very apparent that that campus-boarding spiel was nonsense.

I'm thinking though that thanks to Lattice etc, such whack notions are now much less likely to take hold with anyone. A very cursory google would now contradict them.

[36chambers]

I think you’d need to look at the speed a comparable first ascent was done rather than a first ascent versus a repeat. ( I’m not saying that would prove you wrong ).

I'm pretty sure Nalle spent most of time using a duff sequence on Burden.

I've done various periods in my life of training a lot and others where I've barely trained. I'm probably in the middle of the two now. The points I've trained lots have delivered some of the best climbing experiences I'll ever have. I get why people do it. Paying for a training plan/coach obviously would have in no way devalued the outcome, but in my head, stylistically I'm still glad I didn't and that I worked it out for myself, even though it was inefficient, involved asking loads of people for advice, loads of trial and error etc etc. Maybe this is just me? A bit like how I'm always more pleased to do a problem or route ground up rather than throwing a rope down it. This is obviously a philosophical position so it's understandable that it isn't shared by everyone, but I sympathise with those who think that the commodification of training means something has been lost.

I'm exactly the same. I also can't help but romanticise the idea of an uncoached crusher, despite how ridiculous that is.

Although I'm certain that if my mates all started getting coached I would quickly follow suit for fear of them leaving me behind

[Paul B]

...To my mind, those three are the best climbers in the UK right now.

My point was regarding the onboarding; at the time it felt like Aiden's successes (to use him as an example) were linked to the brand in a way that felt a touch disingenuous (but not unique in that other sports and businesses do similar things).

Was I wrong about the Lattice Lite plans? It feeds into Stone's comment:

I'm thinking though that thanks to Lattice etc, such whack notions are now much less likely to take hold with anyone. A very cursory google would now contradict them.

I think this discussion is becoming very cylic; the counter point to this is people now Google and decide they need a periodized training programme. As GME pointed out on another thread, there was originally a grade barrier to entry.

[stone]

My impression (happy to be corrected) is that such a 7a+ redpoint climber aspiring for 7b+ might now read/pay-for Lattice stuff, do a mix of shoulder conditioning and timed bouldering/circuits and get into the 8s relatively untroubled by injuries.

Just having a go at >7b+ routes and doing some limestone bouldering would also probably be fine for many people in that situation. But evidently that guy didn't take that path in the days before Lattice.

Might periodisation also help to prevent injuries even for those starting from a weak/under-trained starting point? I'm so ignorant about all of this.

Ondra's video course looks to be entirely targeted at the other criticism people have with commercial training in that it seems to be all about movement efficiency. And yet people said he was just a grifter too.

[spidermonkey09]

My impression (happy to be corrected) is that such a 7a+ redpoint climber aspiring for 7b+ might now read/pay-for Lattice stuff, do a mix of shoulder conditioning and timed bouldering/circuits and get into the 8s relatively untroubled by injuries.

On what are you basing this impression? It's completely unprovable either way. Plenty of people get injured training.

[stone]

My impression was that for a relatively weak climber to be using campus-boarding as a mainstay (as that guy was), was vastly more likely to cause injury than whatever Lattice would advise.

PS, Paul was quoting a bit from my comment: https://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,33916.msg689414.html#msg689414