[i.munro]

Having made the mistake of posting this elsewhere(I should have known better) I'm trying on here in the hope of getting some sense or ,at least, a better class of abuse.

IMO the  current style of climbing walls (non-featured panels + bolt ons) was, in part, an attempt to create a tool for training strength by de-emphasising technique.

The next step is a campus board which attempts to remove technique from the equation altogether so you can measure gains in strength.

I'm now wondering if there's any mileage in the opposite (ie a tool designed to de-emphasise strength)?
I was thinking about something like connecting strain gauges to each hold on a board
with a limit set so a buzzer goes off if you exceed a pre-set load.

You could then repeat problems training yourself to put progressively less force through the hand holds, producing measurable improvements in technique.

Any thoughts?

[GCW]

Slabs.

[philo]

agree'd. slabs. next topic!

[GCW]

The next step is a campus board which attempts to remove technique from the equation altogether so you can measure gains in strength.

I would say that a campus board does require technique.  True, it isn't bouldering techinque, but there is a technique to campussing.
I can see where you are coming from.  But there are other ways of improving technique at the wall, they just require discipline.

[lagerstarfish]

Percy has already sorted this out by not pinning holds on his new circuits until they have been up for several days. This causes them to spin if I place too much of my not inconsiderable mass on the wrong part of the hold causing me to fail to flash the problem 

[cofe]

or you could just go climbing.

[i.munro]

[I can see where you are coming from.  But there are other ways of improving technique at the wall, they just require discipline.

 True, but they don't give measurable improvements.

[Paul B]

one of the uni's I visited (possibly leeds?) had a section of moulded wall with strain gauges all over it in the civil engineering department, they also had some tool jumping around on it in socks.

[slackline]

[I can see where you are coming from.  But there are other ways of improving technique at the wall, they just require discipline.

 True, but they don't give measurable improvements.

They are quantifiable, but just on a binary scale, i.e. you can either do it, or you can't, whereas campusing and one-armers are perhaps a more quantitative scale if you see what I mean 

[i.munro]

They are quantifiable, but just on a binary scale, i.e. you can either do it, or you can't, whereas campusing and one-armers are perhaps a more quantitative scale if you see what I mean 

So they can tell you whether your training has worked (after say several weeks) but not if it is working now, if you see what I mean. That's whats great about fingerboards & weights IMO you can monitor the gains you are making & adjust what you're doing if it isn't working.

[GCW]

whereas campusing and one-armers are perhaps a more quantitative scale if you see what I mean 

Not sure about that either.  Yes, 1-4-7 is better than 1-4-6 but how do you know you're improving in between these steps?  If you see my point.

[Jaspersharpe]

Sounds like you're trying to quantify something that is not quantifiable. Technique certainly isn't all about pulling less.

[slackline]

whereas campusing and one-armers are perhaps a more quantitative scale if you see what I mean 

Not sure about that either.  Yes, 1-4-7 is better than 1-4-6 but how do you know you're improving in between these steps?  If you see my point.

I do see your point, but there's more categories on something such as a campus board (e.g. wimp 1-2-3-4-5, you've eaten some spinich 1-3-5, improving 1-4-7, beastly 1-5-9) than on something which requires pure technique, which is binary.  Thus theres more quantification available to measure your improvement.

Sounds like you're trying to quantify something that is not quantifiable. Technique certainly isn't all about pulling less.

Aye, I agree its not about pulling less, and its a lot harder to quantify technique, but if its about being able to do a given problem that requires technique (which may itself require pulling, but without the technique is nigh on impossible), then you'll only be able to do that problem once you've got your technique down (with the pre-requisite strength), whereas some problems require less technique, but just brutal strength and you can quantify your strength through weights, campusing etc.

Anyway,  I'm not sure I make sense to myself and I've probably gone a bit 

[GCW]

There's always a balance between technique and power.  Many (most?) moves can be done using technique.  They can also be blasted with no technique but uber power.  Power (up to a certain level) can mask poor technique.  Therefore isolating one at the wall is impossible.  That's my 5s 6d worth.

[i.munro]

Sounds like you're trying to quantify something that is not quantifiable. Technique certainly isn't all about pulling less.

true, but imagine two identical climbers. One works with my machine for a couple of weeks & learns to habitually optimise hip position etc such that he puts a little bit less weight through his hands most of the time.

Then put these two, physically identical, climbers on a problem at their limit & this one looks like he's a bit stronger

[account_inactive]

There's always a balance between technique and power.  Most moves can be done using POWER.   

[Moo]

sounds like just too much hassle for too little in return, hammering some rungs to an overhanging board on the other hand....................

[Stubbs]

There's always a balance between technique and power.  Most moves can be done using POWER.   

Word, I think you got a little confused there GCW...

[Serpico]

Bottom line is: power impresses chicks, while technique makes you look a bit effeminate.

[saltbeef]

Bottom line is: power impresses chicks, while technique makes you look a bit effeminate.

word to that man.
well thats what our macho brains would like to think.
power is no substitute for more power etc..

[Johnny Brown]

I'm now wondering if there's any mileage in the opposite (ie a tool designed to de-emphasise strength)?
I was thinking about something like connecting strain gauges to each hold on a board
with a limit set so a buzzer goes off if you exceed a pre-set load.

Sounds genius. We won't understand technique until peeps try more stuff like this. I think the main reason folk just train power is cos they don't know how to train technique.

Bottom line is: power impresses chicks, while technique makes you look a bit effeminate.

word to that man.
well thats what our macho brains would like to think.
power is no substitute for more power etc..

In my experience, what impresses chicks is topping out what others can't, not one armers.

[Houdini]

In my experience, what impresses chicks is new shoes.

[Johnny Brown]

New shoes that are stood on the top.

[Jim]

There's always a balance between technique and power.  Most moves can be done using POWER.   

I'd like to see that applied to lay by arete at slipstones

[account_inactive]

There's always a balance between technique and power.  Most moves can be done using POWER.   

I'd like to see that applied to lay by arete at slipstones

Most