[Paul B]

  After a discussion on UKC regarding the new SportClimbing+ book released by rockfax I began thinking (This is probably induced by revision boredom, so I apologise now if this is utter crap) about the historical developments and the progression caused by training for climbing.
  Although some people I'm sure will argue that sport climbing has had little or no progression since 1990, I beg to differ with the boundaries once again being pushed by those at the top. Bouldering is blatently progressing with Fnt8C being the 'new' top level, and so too is trad shown by James' new route, Macleod with Rhapsody etc. However the training used for climbing does not seem to have progressed much (if at all) since the development of campussing (late 80's?), the only real thing I can think of is 'Systems Training' being used by the Huber brothers but looking at the old skool pics thread Ben & Jerry appear to have been doing that for a while. So my question is this:

If the training hasn't changed, is it the way that people implement it, thats allowing the current advances to happen or something else?
What have been the historical advances of training and when did they happen:
the change from just climbing to training specifically for it, eliminates e.g. stoney/cragx, the first boards and indoor walls, the bachar ladder, campussing, systems training (when did deadhanging pop up?) etc. 

[Krank]

this is not not strictly training point but i believe that once someone has done something of a high difficulty and shown it is possible it makes it easier for others to do it. this is not climbing related but in freestyle moto X everyone said the backflip was impossible and just insane but as soon as someone completed one everyone can do them (professionals i mean) and Pastrana is even doin doubles. its like all the little kids who play Tony Hawk and then think that the tricks they do on the game are possible( checkout Nyjah Huston) in real life so they go out and do them its weird. I know training plays a massive part in achieving goals but the knowledge that it is possible and that it has been done can help an enormous amount.

[r-man]

Thinking out loud, but isn't it hard to say how much standards have improved?

Training is geared towards making strength and stamina gains, but the only way we measure these are with climbing grades - very different from using a stopwatch or a tape measure as in some sports. It's possible that the closer top climbers get to the limit of human ability, the smaller the difference in difficulty between grades, but the bigger it *feels*, so that the progression from y to z requires smaller strength gains than from x to y, but more effort to make the smaller gain.

Then again, grades are as good a way of measuring human ability as anything else. After all, what does 100m in 9.x sec really mean? It's all pretty arbitrary. The real competition, and the real entertainment for the observer, is between the athletes. It's about improving on what anyone has done before, about being bigger, stonger, faster - the grades and numbers are just the agreed parameters of comparison.

But it does make you wonder... Clearly, whatever records are set, no matter how amazing, someone will come along and beat them. The ultimate athlete does not exist. Except maybe Lance Armstrong. So if Moon and Moffatt were in their 20s today, would they still be at the top? Is it a cultural, pyschological thing to be the best, or were they climbers of their time, talented but not as talented as today's top climbers?

[Bonjoy]

If the training hasn't changed, is it the way that people implement it, thats allowing the current advances to happen or something else?

Training methods don't really have to improve to make gains if there is a large increase in numbers of participants, this coupled with consolidation of old methodology is enough.