UKBouldering.com
places to visit => indoor walls => Topic started by: Nails on January 11, 2024, 02:52:04 pm
-
Deal struck in Wythenshawe for ‘Europe’s largest climbing centre’
Big Depot
https://www.placenorthwest.co.uk/deal-struck-in-wythenshawe-for-europes-largest-climbing-centre/?fbclid=IwAR13PbpsI06dV0eJELD4S_k-RB01do4wx4TCTToSwt_mPXjkyBbNG203qts (https://www.placenorthwest.co.uk/deal-struck-in-wythenshawe-for-europes-largest-climbing-centre/?fbclid=IwAR13PbpsI06dV0eJELD4S_k-RB01do4wx4TCTToSwt_mPXjkyBbNG203qts)
-
I didn't really have a good comparison for the size so measured up the sheffield depot which is about 22,000 sq ft. This new building is 51,000 sq ft according to the article, so about 2.5x the size of the sheffield depot. That's a lot of bouldering.
-
Bouldering and leading, the full Olympic setup. Nice! I presume anyway since its being referred to as a Big Depot, like the Leeds one.
Still a bit gutted Steve didn't opt for the numerous cheap industrial estates around Bury but there we are...
-
A quick Google has found Kletterzentrum Innsbruck, DAV Munich Sud and Ratho to be contenders for biggest wall in the world. Given they're all also in Europe, anyone know the biggest in the world which this new one won't be bigger than?
Sounds cool though. Is it aiming to be a new GB base too?
In another article, it says there will be "50 parking spaces". That seems... not many.
-
Still a bit gutted Steve didn't opt for the numerous cheap industrial estates around Bury but there we are...
Surely we're only a few years away from the Depot Ramsbottom
-
I have floated the idea but he didn't seem keen, wonder why...
-
In another article, it says there will be "50 parking spaces". That seems... not many.
That’ll be plenty in Wythenshaw…..
-
Presumably being right next to Manchester airport is part of the consideration if they’re hoping to host big competitions.
-
A quick Google has found Kletterzentrum Innsbruck, DAV Munich Sud and Ratho to be contenders for biggest wall in the world. Given they're all also in Europe, anyone know the biggest in the world which this new one won't be bigger than?
The DAV claimed Munich Süd was the biggest years ago. As a regular there and occasional visitor to Innsbruck, I'd say Innsbruck feels bigger, but that might just be down to a more modern and spacious layout - Munich has lots of bits & pieces of wall spread over two (soon to be three) separate buildings.
Innsbruck claims 5,000㎡ of floor area and 5,750㎡ of wall surface (versus Munich 5,550㎡), which is a bit more than 51,000 square feet,
-
Pondering whilst resting... Do people enjoy these massive walls? I have found with the modern larger centres I don't enjoy them as much as smaller venues. Then again I am prone to esoteric venues outside and tend to stay away from the Strange and Almscliff's of the world.
-
Yes, I do (or did). If your local wall is quite small then the busy nights (Tue/Thur) can be a bit rubbish and you need a high turnover of problems for it not to get boring. Walls that reset areas and are small result in honeypotting in the areas that have just been reset.
-
Pondering whilst resting... Do people enjoy these massive walls? I have found with the modern larger centres I don't enjoy them as much as smaller venues. Then again I am prone to esoteric venues outside and tend to stay away from the Strange and Almscliff's of the world.
I like them from a practical perspective. Larger walls tend to have a bit more space so you don't feel like you're going to land on someone when it gets busier. Larger walls also tend to have more dedicated training space which works better than having it mixed in with the rest of the wall area.
-
from the Strange and Almscliff's of the world.
Embrace the Strange! :)
Are the big ones all really cold? Due to the nature of its construction, Ratho is usually bloody freezing
-
Bigger wall = colder = better connies obviously :lol:
-
You've never been to Ratho to do routes midwinter?
-
You've never been to Ratho to do routes midwinter?
I haven’t, is it an ice axe jobby? :lol:
-
Irony is that before they built the wall, Ratho quarry was a really nice midwinter perma-dry suntrap venue (and free to use too obviously).
-
Perhaps, like Stanage, you'll only have to walk a bit further to the far end and see no one all day.
-
Pondering whilst resting... Do people enjoy these massive walls? I have found with the modern larger centres I don't enjoy them as much as smaller venues.
RIP Broughton.
I like Blochaus in Openshaw, for the reasons you put above.
(although the Depot is quite good
-
Pondering whilst resting... Do people enjoy these massive walls? I have found with the modern larger centres I don't enjoy them as much as smaller venues. Then again I am prone to esoteric venues outside and tend to stay away from the Strange and Almscliff's of the world.
Personally I find it a bit of a mixed bag. Pros and cons like anything.
For instance Armley Depot is a big space, but with the way they've set the climbing to follow big features it means it doesn't feel like there's actually any more climbing than Pudsey Depot.
I really dislike the modern, massive, woody boards and wish Armley had put in a Kilter Board. The 30 at Armley is okay but the 45 is horrible. It's just too big and the hold selection is poor, plus I don't think the foothold set up (a large number of specific large or small footholds) lends itself to good movement.
Main issue is I find large walls don't have the same community feel to them. Because you can be so spread out it's easier for everyone to just ignore one another and crack on with whatever they're doing, which makes it all feel less fun. Especially so with the setting as when climbing in a mixed ability group it's harder to all climb on the same bit of wall. Conversely I went to Yonder in London on Saturday, and despite being part of a big group trying problems spanning 7 V grades there was always something for everyone on any given section.
But Remus and Paul make good points and I wouldn't swap the Armley Depot gym for the pitiful excuse Pudsey Depot offers in a million years!
-
You've never been to Ratho to do routes midwinter?
I haven’t, is it an ice axe jobby? :lol:
Not far off. I've seen icicles hanging off the "roof"
-
Irony is that before they built the wall, Ratho quarry was a really nice midwinter perma-dry suntrap venue (and free to use too obviously).
I never travelled to the Central Belt to climb in a quarry, but I have heard the same.
-
I really dislike the modern, massive, woody boards and wish Armley had put in a Kilter Board. The 30 at Armley is okay but the 45 is horrible. It's just too big and the hold selection is poor, plus I don't think the foothold set up (a large number of specific large or small footholds) lends itself to good movement.
I think one of the main problems with training boards at commercial climbing walls is that they are often set by the setters at the wall, who are trained and skilled at setting circuits. Often they have not have had the many years of using boards that is absolutely necessary to set a good board. I noticed this phenomena in many walls in France at least.
I could set a woody, but I would never set a Japanese style spray wall for others without training on one first. (Well I did, in 2005-2007 but .... that was a long time ago...)
That is one of the reason its better for gyms just to buy a moonboard and a Kilter. That way customers will actually use the boards.
-
There seems to be no end of demand for new walls. This one can’t be more than 15 mins from the other depot.
Another on the way in Newcastle as well where you have 5 within 10 mins of each other already.
On the big is better front it’s a no brainer. The modern depot style walls are a level up from anything built more than 10 years ago and only going to get better.
Health club clientele need health club level facilities.
-
Pondering whilst resting... Do people enjoy these massive walls? I have found with the modern larger centres I don't enjoy them as much as smaller venues.
RIP Broughton.
I like Blochaus in Openshaw, for the reasons you put above.
(although the Depot is quite good
What even was Broughton? Seen loads of nostalgia for it on ukc as well.
-
I guess access is decent from the West (M56) and South and West Manchester - but I'd have thought its catchment area overlaps quite heavily with the Trafford Park Depot. Its also in a shit area. I wouldn't want to walk too far around there after dark. Strange they didn't go for the East side of town.. Maybe not as many wealthy suburbs that side - but would tie into the Stockport/Ashton side of town.
Who knows - maybe they got the lease for a steal!
I like BlocHaus too.
-
Do people care about walls being in dodgy areas? Depot Sheffield isn’t exactly in a nice area. But you can store a bike inside so whilst it’s a bit of a weird place to walk to, once you’re there it feels very secure. Obvs most ppl drive. The Hanger and Awesome Walls also in fairly grim locations. Seems to be less crime around the Foundry nowadays (my office is next door).
These new walls should have dedicated stretching areas. The amount of stretching that now goes on blows me away!
-
Pondering whilst resting... Do people enjoy these massive walls? I have found with the modern larger centres I don't enjoy them as much as smaller venues.
RIP Broughton.
I like Blochaus in Openshaw, for the reasons you put above.
(although the Depot is quite good
What even was Broughton? Seen loads of nostalgia for it on ukc as well.
An old wall, never visited myself but some reminiscing here https://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,8313.0.html
-
These new walls should have dedicated stretching areas. The amount of stretching that now goes on blows me away!
I find this fascinating too. Pay a tenner to use a bit of floor for half an hour. Guess i am time poor though..
-
hopefully will take some strain off the trafford park depot which is rammed in the evenings.
-
Pondering whilst resting... Do people enjoy these massive walls?
I walked into the new Onyx for the first time recently and thought “this is a bit small”. That was the last time I thought about it.
Admittedly, a rainy midweek afternoon, might be more crammed at busy times but no shortage of problems to keep me busy.
There’s probably a market for both independent corner shops and hyper markets.
-
What even was Broughton? Seen loads of nostalgia for it on ukc as well.
Steep Bendcrete spray on concrete/resin onto mesh with loads of stone edges inserted. Picture Rubicon, with more pockets, and always dry. And crap footholds- like a crag. Numbered holds so it had a guidebook full of eliminates.
I guess access is decent from the West (M56) and South and West Manchester - but I'd have thought its catchment area overlaps quite heavily with the Trafford Park Depot. Its also in a shit area. I wouldn't want to walk too far around there after dark. Strange they didn't go for the East side of town..
People managed to survive visiting Loiwer Broughton…
Wythenshawe location is minutes off the M60, M56, M6 and as someone posted above, the airport. It’s a killer choice for access.
-
People managed to survive visiting Lower Broughton…
And before that, Cheetham Hill for the Abraham Moss
-
I reckon some folk come down TCA just to do frog stretches and some muscle ups then go home. I swear I've never seen some of them on a problem.
-
I used to love the bendcrete panels at Huddersfield leisure centre, and the taped on circuits from Carl. That and the old roof at the OG depot.
-
Irony is that before they built the wall, Ratho quarry was a really nice midwinter perma-dry suntrap venue (and free to use too obviously).
It still is - or at least was 5 years ago! Some genuinely great routes in there.
I think I prefer medium walls - like Rock Over Shartson (RIP as they will be ground into loose scrittle under the tank tracks of the Depot behemoth), or at least spacious ones like Bloc Haus (I like Bloc Haus too). I don't need Depot Manc giga-size and can find it a bit overwhelming and hard to focus. Onyx is tiny and could be a nightmare when busy but nice when quiet. Pudsey I find a bit pokey. I think I prefer openess to overall wall surface area.
I like having a stretching area as I am 427 times more likely to motivate myself to stretch at the wall or gym than at home. And goddamn do I need to keep doing it.
-
[Rock Over Shartson (RIP as they will be ground into loose scrittle under the tank tracks of the Depot behemoth)
Are there any walls that have actually had to close due to a competitor opening close by? For example Depot Armley opened about 500m from the Lab and maybe 1km from City Bloc, but all 3 seem to be doing well.
-
hopefully will take some strain off the trafford park depot which is rammed in the evenings.
Was going to say, the big plus point for big walls is we desperately need them given the sheer number of people climbing now. Having three Depots and three independents all within about three miles of each other in Leeds seems to have caused no problems whatsoever.
These new walls should have dedicated stretching areas. The amount of stretching that now goes on blows me away!
I find this fascinating too. Pay a tenner to use a bit of floor for half an hour. Guess i am time poor though..
I find it kind of inspiring in a way. There seem to be so many people all working away trying to do good things for themselves etc. Pretty cool I think. Although I do always wonder how much all the bizarre things you see people doing actually helps their climbing.
-
Are there any walls that have actually had to close due to a competitor opening close by? For example Depot Armley opened about 500m from the Lab and maybe 1km from City Bloc, but all 3 seem to be doing well.
The Edge in Sheffield and the Matrix in Sheffield Uni both closed. In both cases it was due to dwindling custom wasn't it? Was it the same with the Broughton wall in Manchester?
-
Rokt in Brighouse has had to close to the public. Last time I looked it was only open for specific bookings so very limited. Extenuating circumstances there though, not least the continual flooding.
-
Are there any walls that have actually had to close due to a competitor opening close by? For example Depot Armley opened about 500m from the Lab and maybe 1km from City Bloc, but all 3 seem to be doing well.
The Edge in Sheffield and the Matrix in Sheffield Uni both closed. In both cases it was due to dwindling custom wasn't it? Was it the same with the Broughton wall in Manchester?
Given the success of the depot and the hangar, both of which opened relatively recently, I'd say competition was only part of the reason they closed.
-
Although I do always wonder how much all the bizarre things you see people doing actually helps their climbing.
Agreed. Dangling off an edge to get better at rock climbing is a waste of time ;)
-
The Edge in Sheffield and the Matrix in Sheffield Uni both closed. In both cases it was due to dwindling custom wasn't it? Was it the same with the Broughton wall in Manchester?
Broughton was very much an old school wall in a sports centre (in the 90s we used to share the hall with the badminton players!), it's closure was related to the closure of the school on the same site and the subsequent decline of the sports centre.
-
I would guess that the Hangar opening near an axjsitnf wall is probably bad news, as there middle seems to be a race to the bottom. Basic wall, lower price membership than the incumbent.
I've not been to a depot, but by the sounds of things they're trying to go for quality and expansion of provision over undercutting? So maybe more likely to lead to the market growing and other walls continuing to manage?
-
I would guess that the Hangar opening near an axjsitnf wall is probably bad news, as there middle seems to be a race to the bottom. Basic wall, lower price membership than the incumbent.
I've not been to a depot, but by the sounds of things they're trying to go for quality and expansion of provision over undercutting? So maybe more likely to lead to the market growing and other walls continuing to manage?
The Matrix Sheffield was the arch undercutter though. It was £60 per six months for <5pm weekdays (ie 16:55h entry then stay as long as you want) plus weekends, £80 for peak times included. It was the only wall I've been to since 2010 I think ;D
-
Health club clientele need health club level facilities.
Speaking of, the bouldering at this place opens today in Huddersfield:
https://www.bigboxleisureclub.co.uk/
-
Health club clientele need health club level facilities.
Speaking of, the bouldering at this place opens today in Huddersfield:
https://www.bigboxleisureclub.co.uk/
A place like that with a couple of boards rather than a terrible looking bit of wall would be decent. There seems to be a few places like this in the states https://adventurefitdojo.com/ which must have a pretty high monthly cost to make business sense. Would love something like this locally
-
The Edge in Sheffield and the Matrix in Sheffield Uni both closed. In both cases it was due to dwindling custom wasn't it? Was it the same with the Broughton wall in Manchester?
Broughton was very much an old school wall in a sports centre (in the 90s we used to share the hall with the badminton players!), it's closure was related to the closure of the school on the same site and the subsequent decline of the sports centre.
I made one nostalgic return visit this century, just before it closed, having previously been there regularly in the early 90s. It had become appallingly polished, which is always going to be an issue with walls where the climbing is on permanent features, especially natural stone.
The only wall of that kind that's still in use that I'm aware of is Glossop, which still seems to have a following. I wonder what state that's in?
-
60 quid a month for that Huddersfield one seems a lot of cash, even if it did have a couple of decent boards. You'd have to be going minimum twice a week to make it worth it I'd have thought. Admittedly it would be nice to have a board session and then a nice swim though!
-
They’ve got a sauna and plunge pool too, they’re the sort of warm down facilities I’d pay extra for!
-
Broughton was very much an old school wall in a sports centre (in the 90s we used to share the hall with the badminton players!), it's closure was related to the closure of the school on the same site and the subsequent decline of the sports centre.
I made one nostalgic return visit this century, just before it closed, having previously been there regularly in the early 90s. It had become appallingly polished, which is always going to be an issue with walls where the climbing is on permanent features, especially natural stone.
The only wall of that kind that's still in use that I'm aware of is Glossop, which still seems to have a following. I wonder what state that's in?
I live five minutes walk from Glossop Wall. I went once when we first arrived 22 years ago. It seemed awful to me. Almost like a League of Gentlemen style surreal experience. It is on a narrow balcony above the hall where they were doing aerobics. The aerobics lesson was incredibly loud through a distorted tannoy. It was worse than Avon traffic noise. I didn't get the impression that it would be safe to fall off with the balcony wall etc. The climbing seemed grim too.
Perhaps I would have come to love it if I had persisted.
-
A place like that with a couple of boards rather than a terrible looking bit of wall would be decent. There seems to be a few places like this in the states https://adventurefitdojo.com/ which must have a pretty high monthly cost to make business sense. Would love something like this locally
Agreed.
I think they're not targeting climbers, it's an extra for health club punters. All the photos so far people aren't even wearing climbing shoes.
Why would you paint it bright orange anyway!
-
Glossop Wall ... I didn't get the impression that it would be safe to fall off with the balcony wall etc.
Yep, I always found that aspect of it quite character building, even by the general standard of the hard floor matless bouldering walls of the time.
-
I would guess that the Hangar opening near an axjsitnf wall is probably bad news, as there middle seems to be a race to the bottom. Basic wall, lower price membership than the incumbent.
I've not been to a depot, but by the sounds of things they're trying to go for quality and expansion of provision over undercutting? So maybe more likely to lead to the market growing and other walls continuing to manage?
I’m intrigued by this post, why do you think this? There’s a Hangar and a Depot in Sheffield and whilst the two walls are different I don’t know that “race to the bottom” would describe either of them. Or have I misunderstood your post?
-
The Hangar’s monthly membership is crazily cheap (£30/month) so I think that is what is meant by the race to the bottom… I don’t know how many other walls offer a month of climb for £30. There individual entry is £14 though so basically if you are going to the wall more than twice it makes sense to sign up.
I’m never really blown away by Hangar climbing walls in general, with the only exception being the OG one which I do think is decent (but maybe that’s because I have always been on decent jobs in Liverpool so I’m in a better mood when I go to the wall.
-
I had the hangar down as expensive in my head, but that's because I go about twice per year so only ever pay the (very pricey) one time fee...
-
I would guess that the Hangar opening near an axjsitnf wall is probably bad news, as there middle seems to be a race to the bottom. Basic wall, lower price membership than the incumbent.
I've not been to a depot, but by the sounds of things they're trying to go for quality and expansion of provision over undercutting? So maybe more likely to lead to the market growing and other walls continuing to manage?
I’m intrigued by this post, why do you think this? There’s a Hangar and a Depot in Sheffield and whilst the two walls are different I don’t know that “race to the bottom” would describe either of them. Or have I misunderstood your post?
I must caveat that I've never been to the Hangar. (or any wall in sheffield for that matter). Just heard things about their strategy, seen the monthly pass prices etc.
I suspect their MO is sell passes at a loss/breakeven, hoping that people with passes bring in day-payers, make money from them and the cafe?
It's difficult to make any money out of passes at £30/mo.
-
It's a £30 rolling direct debit and just like many people who get gym membership they expect people will forget or can't be bothered to cancel during the lean seasons.
-
Health club clientele need health club level facilities.
Speaking of, the bouldering at this place opens today in Huddersfield:
https://www.bigboxleisureclub.co.uk/
A place like that with a couple of boards rather than a terrible looking bit of wall would be decent. There seems to be a few places like this in the states https://adventurefitdojo.com/ which must have a pretty high monthly cost to make business sense. Would love something like this locally
Christ. You’re not kidding. $497/month for 3 sessions a week… That includes coaching but I can’t see an option to just use the boards. I guess that’s how they can keep the group limited to 20.
https://adventurefitdojo.com/training/
-
It's a £30 rolling direct debit and just like many people who get gym membership they expect people will forget or can't be bothered to cancel during the lean seasons.
Gone up to £32.99 now. Still seems like a decent deal in Liverpool where you have access to two walls that are both quite different. Also the expansion of the South wall and kilter board has added even more value.
Also what is great for me is that there is no minimum 12 month term. I have taken out membership starting October and will cancel at the end of March (or April if the weather is particularly poor). Then will probably take out another membership next winter.
-
Christ. You’re not kidding. $497/month for 3 sessions a week… That includes coaching but I can’t see an option to just use the boards. I guess that’s how they can keep the group limited to 20.
https://adventurefitdojo.com/training/
Well fuck that puts £60/month or whatever into perspective!
-
Christ. You’re not kidding. $497/month for 3 sessions a week… That includes coaching but I can’t see an option to just use the boards. I guess that’s how they can keep the group limited to 20.
https://adventurefitdojo.com/training/
:jaw:
And that's the cheapest option! $700pm for 5 sessions a week! Mental.
-
Salaries in the US…
https://x.com/jmhorp/status/1639324427572609029?s=20
-
author=Muenchener link=topic=33865.msg687019#msg687019 date=1705140902]
Glossop Wall ... I didn't get the impression that it would be safe to fall off with the balcony wall etc.
Yep, I always found that aspect of it quite character building, even by the general standard of the hard floor matless bouldering walls of the time.
https://www.ribapix.com/sports-centre-university-of-liverpool-the-climbing-wall_riba88085# (https://www.ribapix.com/sports-centre-university-of-liverpool-the-climbing-wall_riba88085#)
You’d have enjoyed the old Liverpool Uni Sports Centre wall then, on a balcony 20 odd feet above the gym. No mats and nice exposure.
-
You’d have enjoyed the old Liverpool Uni Sports Centre wall then, on a balcony 20 odd feet above the gym. No mats and nice exposure.
I did, although only a couple of times. I wasn't officially able to get in since I wasn't a student when I lived in Liverpool
-
Christ. You’re not kidding. $497/month for 3 sessions a week… That includes coaching but I can’t see an option to just use the boards. I guess that’s how they can keep the group limited to 20.
https://adventurefitdojo.com/training/
:jaw:
And that's the cheapest option! $700pm for 5 sessions a week! Mental.
I met Zach in Abella some ten years ago, he seemed very focused on finding a way to make a profession out of climbing. Well off people in Lake Tahoe are increadibly rich, so fair game to him.
-
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.
-
What even was Broughton? Seen loads of nostalgia for it on ukc as well.
Steep Bendcrete spray on concrete/resin onto mesh with loads of stone edges inserted. Picture Rubicon, with more pockets, and always dry. And crap footholds- like a crag. Numbered holds so it had a guidebook full of eliminates.
I guess access is decent from the West (M56) and South and West Manchester - but I'd have thought its catchment area overlaps quite heavily with the Trafford Park Depot. Its also in a shit area. I wouldn't want to walk too far around there after dark. Strange they didn't go for the East side of town..
People managed to survive visiting Loiwer Broughton…
Wythenshawe location is minutes off the M60, M56, M6 and as someone posted above, the airport. It’s a killer choice for access.
Broughton was mega, and in a proper shite area, but dirt cheap, just over twenty quid a month or something.
More than once the local yoofs burst in with the security guard chasing.
Provided a certain edginess to the sesh...
-
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.
-
.. 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.
He’s gone from an Aston to a McLaren, maybe he’ll be in a Veyron by this time next year!
-
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.
-
Back in 1999 only a handful of people were privy to training and how it was done. It’s great that companies like lattice have normalised it and made pretty much all that information public and FREE across their YouTube videos. A massive resource that anyone can access. if you want to someone to take the hassle of building a plan then you can pay the extra. I think it’s well neat if you want to improve and also I don’t subscribe to the idea that you need to be climbing 8A for a plan. 8A is fucking well hard :lol:
-
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.
-
I agree with GME's sentiment that there are people who don't need a training plan but putting a number grade on it makes no sense. Everyone's starting point and genetic ceiling is different. There are people who have been climbing and training on their own for a decade maxing out at 7A and there are others who climb 8A in their first couple of years without looking at a fingerboard. The former group might do well with a bit of assistance.
-
.. 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.
Have they, though? Done something to climbing? Could they have just offered what people have been wanting since Owen Glynne Jones lifted iron during Manchester winters way back when? ie clear and structured knowledge about how to get better with training? It seems to me Lattice have not forced it on the masses, rather it's the people who go climbing who have lapped it up and who are responsible for the success of Lattice (amongst others).
And I'm about as 'jumpers for goalposts' as you can get. (I think)
Here's a question: what would Jerry do, if he were 16 now?
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ;D
-
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.
-
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.
-
I suspect some people confuse coaching with a training plan.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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?
-
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.
-
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 ;D
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!
-
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 ;D
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)
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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 (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 .
-
Yeah it was really interesting, they did a video too https://youtu.be/UvLeiqBjYM8?si=b9L1d9bx485TLqza
-
Here is a review of the litterature on using force plates to assess climbing
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9915606
-
Wonder if there's a lattice equivalent for fell-running yet.
Uphill Athlete surely?
-
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.
-
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.
…
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 …
Things is, climbing well is a very big picture. I’d use an analogy of a bell curve for sport 8a success that covers a huge range of ‘single test result x’. And people in the lattice training way do seem to place a lot of emphasis on their 20mm edge ability. This is natural - it’s been turned into another badge of status. It’s just another grade system to stratify ourselves, by another name (%BW).
I wonder if you were to widen the focus of a study to encompass favourite ice-cream flavour and month born, whether the correlation between ‘x-flavour ice cream, x-month born’ and ‘x-grade climbed’ would massively differ statistically, compared to lattice edge and grade climbed. It probably would.. at least it should! But would be interesting to see just how much statistical significance lattice edge ability has for predicting climbing grade.
But of course there’s now also a behavioural bias introduced for some climbers - people can read on forums like this what they should be able to climb, or talk to their friends who use the edge test data which suggests what they should be able to climb (or not climb, in the case of Liam and Bradders above).
This isn’t meant to knock, I’d be genuinely curious to see some robust significance.
-
That’s a fair point Gav. I used to think about people who spent a lot of time training, if they liked climbing so much, why didn’t they do more of it? That wouldn’t be the case nowadays.
-
Not sure I could climb more, I've spent every day available (3-4 days a week) climbing on rock that I can since covid and pre covid was doing the exact same thing...
-
Why not measure using a metric that does correlate well with crimpy bouldering?
Presumably because crimpy bouldering on small holds is actually quite a small subset of climbing, especially if you include route climbing? I quite rarely pull on <10mm holds outdoors. No a single hold that small on something like a Moonboard.
Especially for sport climbing I think what you can do on a decent edge with 1-arm is usually more relevant than rat crimps (though maybe 15mm would be more relevant than 20mm above a certain level?). Ideally you'd test 1/2 crimp, F3 drag and F3 half-crimp on a decent edge, F2, M2, mono, half-crimp micros, full-crimp micros... but the testing would become unwieldy to be used commercially.
"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." - yeah this doesn't surprise me. I know a few people who could easily burn me off on micros but I would burn off on a decent edge. Unsurprisingly this follows through to climbing - they would generally do better than me on small hold vert while I would do better than them on steeper stuff on OK edges. Ditto people who test unusually well on pockets tend to be good at pocket climbing (what a surprise). I agree it would be much better to have wording that reflects this on any testing results, even if only in the form of a caveat "You suck and have weak fingers on this test. However, you may have unusually strong fingers on different hold/grip types like pockets or rat crimps", you could even use it as a way to push an expanded testing package to those who test unusually well or badly on the normal test!
I really think this is counter productive to 99% of peoples progression.
I broadly agree with the sentiment here - maybe not that it's counterproductive per se, but that it's a distraction. Most climbers suck at climbing and need to gain experience doing purposeful climbing on rock (especially for route climbing and even more so for onsighting). I include myself in that, despite having done a lot of climbing rocks in my life and having probably achieved a fair amount for my physical level - I'm bad on slopey feet, bad on small feet, bad at bridging, bad at heels, not that good at knees compared to the people who are really good at them... and the key is just to spend more time developing these skills on rock rather than anything else I think. But as yetix points out, spending more time rock climbing on rocks of the right style can be quite hard if you also have a job!
-
Having dead strong fingers only helps so much. I was able to hang for 4 seconds on one straight arm from the 20mm edge last year, and my max two-armed added weight for ten seconds was 47.5kgs. I'm told that this is way beyond 7A+/7B which is my peak, but I honestly can barely pull onto techy vert crimp 7As on grit
It is a technical sport. I doubt there's anything that Lionel Messi could do in the gym that would convince you he's the best football player in the world if you didn't already know, but on the pitch he is something else. Ondra is the greatest route climber of all time, maybe even just the greatest climber of all time, but I bet if you went through the school rooms membership list you could find plenty of people with higher objective strength metrics than him.
-
Most climbers suck at climbing and need to gain experience doing purposeful climbing on rock
…
I'm bad on slopey feet, bad on small feet, bad at bridging, bad at heels, …
key is just to spend more time developing these skills on rock rather than anything else I think.
…
spending more time rock climbing on rocks of the right style can be quite hard if you also have a job!
I think if we’re honest we have ample time to improve, but little inclination to spend it on climbing we suck at. Therefore plateau.
When did you last purposely spend time on those styles of climbing you say you suck at, versus spending time doing styles you’re good at and enjoy?
-
I will say, when trying something exceptionally hard it’s quite easy to get injured if your body isn’t robust enough - a lot of the times this can be offset by training along with climbing, which is what I mostly use it for, since training my shoulders and elbows have become bulletproof compared to a few years back where I’d get elbow tendinitis from doing compression problems around 7B, I can now project 8A compression without issues
-
I quite rarely pull on <10mm holds outdoors. No a single hold that small on something like a Moonboard.
Especially for sport climbing I think what you can do on a decent edge with 1-arm is usually more relevant than rat crimps (though maybe 15mm would be more relevant than 20mm above a certain level?).
Interesting. As a Yorkshire based boulderer (predominantly on gritstone), I rarely pull on a good flat edge that would be relevant to a 20mm max hang test. Instead they're either really small (micro / full crimp strength) or really large (sloper / wrist strength) and obviously it's more about making sure you time your attempts with the passing of clouds, brushing off scrittle and praying for luck, etc... When there is a good edge, I can't think of any examples where you'd need one arm hang levels of strength on it as your feet should be taking much of the load. I'd probably take extra hip mobility over more max hang strength. TLDR - I agree that climbing is specific.
-
I think if we’re honest we have ample time to improve, but little inclination to spend it on climbing we suck at. Therefore plateau.
When did you last purposely spend time on those styles of climbing you say you suck at, versus spending time doing styles you’re good at and enjoy?
Yeah, probably true! Though I spend a lot of time kneebaring and still am not actually that good compared to the wizards.
Realistically the last time I did it with heels consistently was 2016, driven by being in areas with lots of heels so it happened naturally rather than having to hunt it out. With vert it's endlessly on the to do list and never happens consistently, just bits and bobs here and there!
As a Yorkshire based boulderer (predominantly on gritstone), I rarely pull on a good flat edge
Yeah, 1-arm on a 20mm is probably a test that's much more relevant for Euro sport climbing or jumping around in Rocklands than Yorkshire grit!
-
This leads to a business opportunity missed by lattice. GME you may want to take note.
You could guarantee to improve a client’s grade. The caveat is it would be specific to styles of climbing they suck at. The training? Going climbing on styles they suck at. It wouldn’t be enjoyable to begin with.
-
You could guarantee to improve a client’s grade. The caveat is it would be specific to styles of climbing they suck at. The training? Going climbing on styles they suck at. It wouldn’t be enjoyable to begin with.
I've been bashing my head against a gritstone wall for the last 3 years and Im still just as shit as I ever was. Where do I get my refund?
-
T&C’s:
Doesn’t apply to gritstone.
-
This leads to a business opportunity missed by lattice. GME you may want to take note.
From memory Jerry had an article over on CragX which consisted of a spider diagram with the idea being you printed it off and gave copies to your mates/peers to score you on the areas listed and then you'd get feedback on what your actual weaknesses were to go and redress.
I really think this is counter productive to 99% of peoples progression.
I broadly agree with the sentiment here - maybe not that it's counterproductive per se, but that it's a distraction.
I'm with Gav; at the lower end of people being sold training plans (and this week alone I've seen a F7a personalised training plan testimonial!) it's a shortcut to achieving 'a thing' (e.g. a given grade) without ample consideration of what that might mean for the future. I led myself down this path by prioritising training and board climbing to the detriment of actually climbing and it's demoralising, quite hard and slow to correct those issues in the future when you're used to simply relying on being stronger than what's in front of you.
-
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.
Kind of, with things like the BGR there's a long tradition of paying it forward, people helping out randoms from around the country to get to know the route, pace, etc, meeting the first time Dunmail Raise layby at 2am. Then the same treatment when you fancy a pop yourself.
It's a lifetime tick now along with UTMB, Ironman and stuff now. You can pay someone to guide you around the whole thing now for a chunky fee. Same sort of debate as on here.
Skiddaw Fell Race: tenner on the day, Keswick AC.
Skiddaw Mountain Run: £42.50, Keswick Mountain Festival. Same thing, with more carefully crafted copywriting and chip timing.
Most of the N Wales I do are around a fiver with prizes like a bag of potatoes, wine, beer, chocolate, or a watering can.
-
This leads to a business opportunity missed by lattice. GME you may want to take note.
You could guarantee to improve a client’s grade. The caveat is it would be specific to styles of climbing they suck at. The training? Going climbing on styles they suck at. It wouldn’t be enjoyable to begin with.
ts easy. You do your tests at the tor and the foundry, 3 month retests in Yorkshire, 6 months in wales and the end of year in Kalymnos. I guarantee you a 4 grade improvement.
-
A mate of mine runs a "mountain running guide service" in Norway. People actually pay to be shown where to go for a run. The mind boggles. :blink:
-
A mate of mine runs a "mountain running guide service" in Norway. People actually pay to be shown where to go for a run. The mind boggles. :blink:
Is this much different from mountain guides in the UK? My only view into Norwegian mountain running is watching Kílian’s vids, but I assume there’s a lot of potential for scrambling terrain etc.?
-
I will say, when trying something exceptionally hard it’s quite easy to get injured if your body isn’t robust enough - a lot of the times this can be offset by training along with climbing, which is what I mostly use it for, since training my shoulders and elbows have become bulletproof compared to a few years back where I’d get elbow tendinitis from doing compression problems around 7B, I can now project 8A compression without issues
I like this, this is what I need the most - have found for a number of years that when I step up training/try hard projects I get injured with shoulders and elbows being weak links.
Do you mind sharing what sort of exercises you did to achieve bulletproofing? Thanks.
-
I will say, when trying something exceptionally hard it’s quite easy to get injured if your body isn’t robust enough - a lot of the times this can be offset by training along with climbing, which is what I mostly use it for, since training my shoulders and elbows have become bulletproof compared to a few years back where I’d get elbow tendinitis from doing compression problems around 7B, I can now project 8A compression without issues
I like this, this is what I need the most - have found for a number of years that when I step up training/try hard projects I get injured with shoulders and elbows being weak links.
Do you mind sharing what sort of exercises you did to achieve bulletproofing? Thanks.
Just generally strengthening doing things such as progressively loading wide pull-ups, isometric one arm hangs on a bar, weighted one arm shrugs, shoulder rotations seated and probated, Arnold press etc more than anything it’s just about that consistency
-
I like this, this is what I need the most - have found for a number of years that when I step up training/try hard projects I get injured with shoulders and elbows being weak links.
Do you mind sharing what sort of exercises you did to achieve bulletproofing? Thanks.
weighted one arm shrugs, shoulder rotations seated and/or pronated, Arnold press
Done heavy and slow. Making my shoulders more stable resulted in happier elbows.
-
Dingdong and mrjonathanr have reminded me to be more assiduous with such injury prevention conditioning exercises. I know what they say about this is spot on. I think this is especially true for "naturally weaker" people such as myself. I've also noticed that keen middle aged women climbers seem especially likely to be into doing such training (basically everyone in that demographic who I know/climb-with is).
-
It’s pivotal unless you’ve been climbing since 5 years old or are a genetic freak. I started at 28, 32 now so I’ve had to put the extra work in to make my body capable of handling what I throw at it.
This year I’m working towards my first 8A and opened accounts on 2-3 different ones that suit me well and my body has felt like it can keep up with the demand whereas a few years ago i was getting injured on lower graded climbs in similar styles (power/compression).
It also helps that Mina is my coach and she understands that climbing comes first so all my training is centred around getting out 3 times a week where weather permits and then training around that. Works well for me anyways!
-
Dingdong and mrjonathanr have reminded me to be more assiduous with such injury prevention conditioning exercises. I know what they say about this is spot on. I think this is especially true for "naturally weaker" people such as myself.
I've made it habit to do shoulder work with kettlebells in front of the TV, doesn't eat into free time and stops me dozing off.
-
I'm with Gav; at the lower end of people being sold training plans (and this week alone I've seen a F7a personalised training plan testimonial!) it's a shortcut to achieving 'a thing' (e.g. a given grade) without ample consideration of what that might mean for the future. I led myself down this path by prioritising training and board climbing to the detriment of actually climbing and it's demoralising, quite hard and slow to correct those issues in the future when you're used to simply relying on being stronger than what's in front of you.
I'm very unsure when I read stuff like this. My impression (happy to be corrected) is that there are several dimensions to people's climbing talents and climbing/training history.
I've climbed regularly for 35 years, always been slow to read-the-rock and never been "a strong climber". I've sort of drifted between different styles of climbing, partly driven by circumstance. In my early 20s I was totally focussed on Alpine and Scottish winter climbing. I had a go at non-technical Yosemite big wall climbing. I then did a bit of "gritstone bouldering circuits" stuff. Then I got into easy sport onsight climbing in Portland and trad in Dorset and Pembroke. I then moved to the Peak and settled on sport epic-sieging.
I've never had a go at the "focussed beast-mode" training that Paul B was renowned for and now says he regrets. My guess is that even if I had tried that in my 20s, I would have had to have been very careful and would have needed to have done a lot of injury prevention conditioning exercises or I would have broken. It is not at all clear to me though that it would have made my climbing movement efficiency etc even worse. My impression is that some people are naturals when it comes to that and some are not. Everyone can improve by getting more experience but I still think individuals are different.
I remember when Keith Bradbury and Rich Simpson were really into training and occasionally emerged to go to the crag. At the time, Keith was terrible on rock. He was as bad as me despite being incredibly strong. Rich Simpson (supposedly) was able to emerge and send. I remember thinking to myself that if I was dedicated at training I would be bound to be like Keith not Rich. Obviously what actually then happened was that Keith spent some time in Font and translated his strength into climbing ability. I had seen Paul B as being another inspiring example of that. To me, someone climbing Voyager has to have done something right.
Perhaps Paul you get frustrated with not being able to easily read the rock and not being at your PB strength to overcome that by just beasting past anyhow. I'm not sure though that previously getting super strong can actually be blamed for that. Perhaps if you had never got strong, you would still find reading the rock a challenge just as I do.
When I was 40yo I went bouldering a couple of times at Almscliffe after not having bouldered there since my 20s. At 40yo, I could do Demon Wall Roof and Stu's Left Hand whilst they were beyond me when I was in my 20s. I guess pottering at the Tor (what I was doing when 40yo) is more strenuous than the bouldering circuits I was doing at Caley and Almscliffe in my 20s and that had caused me to actually find grit bouldering easier than when it was what I was spending my time doing. My impression is that training can be just an extension of that principle.
-
This isn’t meant to knock, I’d be genuinely curious to see some robust significance.
To balance the (good and necessary) skepticism of the 20mm test on here, it's worth pointing out that Lattice did release the data (or at least a screenshot of it) from their testing.
https://www.facebook.com/latticetraining/posts/free-data-release-did-you-know-that-you-can-access-our-database-and-finger-stren/1114657262199930/
Assuming the box-and-whisker plot uses standard settings, those little grey boxes show the range covered by 25-75% of climbers, so half of the population lie inside this box, half outside.
So - apart from a decent number of outliers - most 8A climbers can pull 150-175% of their bodyweight on a 20mm edge. From my point of view this is a pretty reliable metric and you probably already know if you are an outlier (great technique/flexibility, massive, tiny, etc).
Obviously it's not perfect but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater
-
p.s one thing that people don't notice or comment about in this dataset is the way that the distributions are mostly pretty symmetric, apart from the grade range around V10-V11, where the outliers tend to be stronger than the median.
Lots of strong but crap climbers tend to reach ~V10 as a level is my reading of this.
-
Stu as a person of science, can you comment on the bias of the Lattice data? I try and get my head around this occasionally but get confused.
They only get to have results from people who approach them for training (maybe get several results from people over the years as their grade and finger strength progress) and as such these are a subset of climbers who are interested in training. Do you think this would lead to in inherent bias toward people with strong fingers for their grade vs the archetypal grit Jedis who may have climber to a high level but would likely test poorly on an edge?
-
p.s one thing that people don't notice or comment about in this dataset is the way that the distributions are mostly pretty symmetric, apart from the grade range around V10-V11, where the outliers tend to be stronger than the median.
Lots of strong but crap climbers tend to reach ~V10 as a level is my reading of this.
Is it also possible that V10 is the grade at which people are most likely to be doing loads of fingerboarding? Those fingerboard specialists then become the outliers at that grade. Perhaps if a bunch of V14 or V4 climbers were to switch over to being fingerboard specialist, they would then become V14 or V4 climbers who were uncommonly good at fingerboarding for that grade?
-
I have to be honest, I don't see anything that different about the data in the v10-v11 range at all. The only thing that is maybe noticeable is that at the higher grades the data is noisier, which is unsurprising since the sample sizes will be much smaller at the end of the chart.
To answer teestub question. Yes the data is definitely biased towards people that are interested in training and specifically a lattice training plan etc. But there is no way of knowing if this means they will have inherently stronger fingers that the 'grit jedis' without actually testing it. But I wouldn't be surprised if there was a bit of difference.
In all honestly I think once you get to hard boulder problems you tend to need to be quite good at everything. You can't really get away with weak fingers, or poor technique. Hard problems tend to need it all working together. Or at least that is my impression.
-
This isn’t meant to knock, I’d be genuinely curious to see some robust significance.
To balance the (good and necessary) skepticism of the 20mm test on here, it's worth pointing out that Lattice did release the data (or at least a screenshot of it) from their testing.
https://www.facebook.com/latticetraining/posts/free-data-release-did-you-know-that-you-can-access-our-database-and-finger-stren/1114657262199930/
Assuming the box-and-whisker plot uses standard settings, those little grey boxes show the range covered by 25-75% of climbers, so half of the population lie inside this box, half outside.
So - apart from a decent number of outliers - most 8A climbers can pull 150-175% of their bodyweight on a 20mm edge. From my point of view this is a pretty reliable metric and you probably already know if you are an outlier (great technique/flexibility, massive, tiny, etc).
Obviously it's not perfect but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater
I don't think anyone was suggesting there isn't something in the idea of pulling X amount to climb grade Y. It's that it's a dramatically oversimplified way of tackling the objective (that being to help people climb harder things). And, for me personally, because it was the main thing that was pushed out in the early days of Lattice, and because it is such a simple concept, it had an outsized effect on how many people both approached training and, more importantly, saw themselves.
-
(I don't have time to do this today, but I'll check soon).
If you want to know if you are strong enough to do 8a I suspect that best boulder grade is a better predictor than finger strenght measured on hangboards?
I'm not sure what the point is of benching finger strenght? Who does not need stronger fingers? Is getting stronger fingers not a priority for everyone in the world except that Japanese chap on instagram (and that Canadian chap whose name also escape me at the moment)?
-
Stu as a person of science, can you comment on the bias of the Lattice data? I try and get my head around this occasionally but get confused.
I think Highlander spoke about this in one of his mega-long videos. I've had a quick look but can't readily find it although I did note he looks to have been tested relatively recently.
I've never had a go at the "focussed beast-mode" training that Paul B was renowned for and now says he regrets. My guess is that even if I had tried that in my 20s, I would have had to have been very careful and would have needed to have done a lot of injury prevention conditioning exercises or I would have broken. It is not at all clear to me though that it would have made my climbing movement efficiency etc even worse. My impression is that some people are naturals when it comes to that and some are not. Everyone can improve by getting more experience but I still think individuals are different.
Firstly, I did break, and a LOT (and not just the 'Works' incident or the car accident the year after). My fingers were pretty much permanently wrecked.
To flip this around using arbitrary numbers; if a person (A) spent 90% of their time board climbing and 10% scratching around on rock, would you find it surprising that person becomes best at climbing steep things, generally with positive holds and relatively big moves? Conversely, if a person (B) spent 90% of their time scratching around on rock and 10% of their time board climbing, would it be surprising if that person had much better understanding of body positioning and the subtleties that grit requires?
My other point is that person A will struggle to gain the movement efficiency of B in the future as you can't simply turn off that training and over-reliance on strength. My thought these days is that at a certain grade, focusing on training and 'easy' wins in terms of strength is detrimental for anything other than the short term 'win' of ticking F7a (or whatever grade is appropriate here).
The best climbers that are slightly younger than myself that came through Sheffield got out loads, on every type of rock going and then applied a fingers first approach to training. I think their success from comps to pioneering hard new problems with no topo and an e-bike approach speak for themselves. The equivalent mistake in this instance would be people only seeing the fingerboarding and training to be able to one-arm pinky monos ignoring all of the groundwork on rock that came first.
I don't think anyone was suggesting there isn't something in the idea of pulling X amount to climb grade Y.
At times, that's exactly what people have said. What I think Highlander said was something along the lines of people start aiming for this metric and thus training for it which skews the data, presumably because when it was first tested, this ability was a subset of someone's skills (a byproduct?) rather than a specific aim or measure.
-
At times, that's exactly what people have said. What I think Highlander said was something along the lines of people start aiming for this metric and thus training for it which skews the data, presumably because when it was first tested, this ability was a subset of someone's skills (a byproduct?) rather than a specific aim or measure.
This is such a common problem in education that 'teaching to the test' is a commonly used criticism of certain approaches. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teaching_to_the_test
The same I'm sure could be true in training. Spend too long trying to improve certain training metrics that you lose out on a broader rock climbing 'education'.
-
Stu as a person of science, can you comment on the bias of the Lattice data? I try and get my head around this occasionally but get confused.
I think Highlander spoke about this in one of his mega-long videos. I've had a quick look but can't readily find it although I did note he looks to have been tested relatively recently.
I've never had a go at the "focussed beast-mode" training that Paul B was renowned for and now says he regrets. My guess is that even if I had tried that in my 20s, I would have had to have been very careful and would have needed to have done a lot of injury prevention conditioning exercises or I would have broken. It is not at all clear to me though that it would have made my climbing movement efficiency etc even worse. My impression is that some people are naturals when it comes to that and some are not. Everyone can improve by getting more experience but I still think individuals are different.
Firstly, I did break, and a LOT (and not just the 'Works' incident or the car accident the year after). My fingers were pretty much permanently wrecked.
To flip this around using arbitrary numbers; if a person (A) spent 90% of their time board climbing and 10% scratching around on rock, would you find it surprising that person becomes best at climbing steep things, generally with positive holds and relatively big moves? Conversely, if a person (B) spent 90% of their time scratching around on rock and 10% of their time board climbing, would it be surprising if that person had much better understanding of body positioning and the subtleties that grit requires?
My other point is that person A will struggle to gain the movement efficiency of B in the future as you can't simply turn off that training and over-reliance on strength. My thought these days is that at a certain grade, focusing on training and 'easy' wins in terms of strength is detrimental for anything other than the short term 'win' of ticking F7a (or whatever grade is appropriate here).
The best climbers that are slightly younger than myself that came through Sheffield got out loads, on every type of rock going and then applied a fingers first approach to training. I think their success from comps to pioneering hard new problems with no topo and an e-bike approach speak for themselves. The equivalent mistake in this instance would be people only seeing the fingerboarding and training to be able to one-arm pinky monos ignoring all of the groundwork on rock that came first.
I don't think anyone was suggesting there isn't something in the idea of pulling X amount to climb grade Y.
At times, that's exactly what people have said. What I think Highlander said was something along the lines of people start aiming for this metric and thus training for it which skews the data, presumably because when it was first tested, this ability was a subset of someone's skills (a byproduct?) rather than a specific aim or measure.
I think this is 100% what I have done. I'm not sure I really know how to fix it tbh
-
Was thinking; Wythenshawe is a funny old name isn't it, sounds like something out of Tolkein.
Where did the post split anyway?
-
Stu as a person of science, can you comment on the bias of the Lattice data? I try and get my head around this occasionally but get confused.
I think Highlander spoke about this in one of his mega-long videos. I've had a quick look but can't readily find it although I did note he looks to have been tested relatively recently.
I've never had a go at the "focussed beast-mode" training that Paul B was renowned for and now says he regrets. My guess is that even if I had tried that in my 20s, I would have had to have been very careful and would have needed to have done a lot of injury prevention conditioning exercises or I would have broken. It is not at all clear to me though that it would have made my climbing movement efficiency etc even worse. My impression is that some people are naturals when it comes to that and some are not. Everyone can improve by getting more experience but I still think individuals are different.
Firstly, I did break, and a LOT (and not just the 'Works' incident or the car accident the year after). My fingers were pretty much permanently wrecked.
To flip this around using arbitrary numbers; if a person (A) spent 90% of their time board climbing and 10% scratching around on rock, would you find it surprising that person becomes best at climbing steep things, generally with positive holds and relatively big moves? Conversely, if a person (B) spent 90% of their time scratching around on rock and 10% of their time board climbing, would it be surprising if that person had much better understanding of body positioning and the subtleties that grit requires?
My other point is that person A will struggle to gain the movement efficiency of B in the future as you can't simply turn off that training and over-reliance on strength. My thought these days is that at a certain grade, focusing on training and 'easy' wins in terms of strength is detrimental for anything other than the short term 'win' of ticking F7a (or whatever grade is appropriate here).
The best climbers that are slightly younger than myself that came through Sheffield got out loads, on every type of rock going and then applied a fingers first approach to training. I think their success from comps to pioneering hard new problems with no topo and an e-bike approach speak for themselves. The equivalent mistake in this instance would be people only seeing the fingerboarding and training to be able to one-arm pinky monos ignoring all of the groundwork on rock that came first.
I don't think anyone was suggesting there isn't something in the idea of pulling X amount to climb grade Y.
At times, that's exactly what people have said. What I think Highlander said was something along the lines of people start aiming for this metric and thus training for it which skews the data, presumably because when it was first tested, this ability was a subset of someone's skills (a byproduct?) rather than a specific aim or measure.
I think this is 100% what I have done. I'm not sure I really know how to fix it tbh
Get out on as many rock types and styles as you can, as much as you can. You’ll learn loads.
-
Stu as a person of science, can you comment on the bias of the Lattice data? I try and get my head around this occasionally but get confused.
I think Highlander spoke about this in one of his mega-long videos. I've had a quick look but can't readily find it although I did note he looks to have been tested relatively recently.
I've never had a go at the "focussed beast-mode" training that Paul B was renowned for and now says he regrets. My guess is that even if I had tried that in my 20s, I would have had to have been very careful and would have needed to have done a lot of injury prevention conditioning exercises or I would have broken. It is not at all clear to me though that it would have made my climbing movement efficiency etc even worse. My impression is that some people are naturals when it comes to that and some are not. Everyone can improve by getting more experience but I still think individuals are different.
Firstly, I did break, and a LOT (and not just the 'Works' incident or the car accident the year after). My fingers were pretty much permanently wrecked.
To flip this around using arbitrary numbers; if a person (A) spent 90% of their time board climbing and 10% scratching around on rock, would you find it surprising that person becomes best at climbing steep things, generally with positive holds and relatively big moves? Conversely, if a person (B) spent 90% of their time scratching around on rock and 10% of their time board climbing, would it be surprising if that person had much better understanding of body positioning and the subtleties that grit requires?
My other point is that person A will struggle to gain the movement efficiency of B in the future as you can't simply turn off that training and over-reliance on strength. My thought these days is that at a certain grade, focusing on training and 'easy' wins in terms of strength is detrimental for anything other than the short term 'win' of ticking F7a (or whatever grade is appropriate here).
The best climbers that are slightly younger than myself that came through Sheffield got out loads, on every type of rock going and then applied a fingers first approach to training. I think their success from comps to pioneering hard new problems with no topo and an e-bike approach speak for themselves. The equivalent mistake in this instance would be people only seeing the fingerboarding and training to be able to one-arm pinky monos ignoring all of the groundwork on rock that came first.
I don't think anyone was suggesting there isn't something in the idea of pulling X amount to climb grade Y.
At times, that's exactly what people have said. What I think Highlander said was something along the lines of people start aiming for this metric and thus training for it which skews the data, presumably because when it was first tested, this ability was a subset of someone's skills (a byproduct?) rather than a specific aim or measure.
I think this is 100% what I have done. I'm not sure I really know how to fix it tbh
Get out on as many rock types and styles as you can, as much as you can. with weaker/better climbers than youYou’ll learn loads.
Fixed that for you.
-
I think this is 100% what I have done. I'm not sure I really know how to fix it tbh
Get out on as many rock types and styles as you can, as much as you can. with weaker/better climbers than youYou’ll learn loads.
Fixed that for you.
Don't do it Wellsy, keep your head down and aim straight for that V10 ceiling. It's beautiful up there..
-
My other point is that person A will struggle to gain the movement efficiency of B in the future as you can't simply turn off that training and over-reliance on strength.
I think this is 100% what I have done. I'm not sure I really know how to fix it tbh
I'm still puzzled by this. If it is just about long-term damage to the fingers from repeated severe training injuries, then that is easy to understand. But you (Paul and perhaps Wellsy) seem to be saying that there is more to this than that. That being strong before being experienced at climbing causes almost irreversible impairment to the capacity to gain efficient climbing technique in the future. That is what I'm struggling to get my head around.
If you were to plug away at doing techy problems at somewhere likely Caley (or I guess Font though I've never been), I'm struggling to see how the prior hyper-training would cause any problem other than the possible opportunity cost of having not been learning when young and receptive. Imagine two identical twins, one goes board training from age 18 until 40 and the other plays computer games or whatever. If they were then to both embark on a mission to become maestros at techy slab/wall Caley bouldering, the board climbing background wouldn't be an impediment would it?
Many many people spend a lifetime doing volume of techy slab/wall climbing and resolutely remain pretty crap at it and also remain even worse at steep positive stuff. That is normal. My impression is that steep positive climbing may be amenable to training and that may lead to some people becoming disproportionately good at that style. That doesn't mean their potential to climb techy slabs was ruined by their training or even by missing out on climbing that stuff when young. They may simply be like normal people when faced with that style whilst being used to being vastly better than normal for steep positive stuff.
-
That being strong before being experienced at climbing causes almost irreversible impairment to the capacity to gain efficient climbing technique in the future. That is what I'm struggling to get my head around.
My understanding of this would be that a heel hook required for doing a 6B (where general strength does not surpass 6B [whatever that may mean]) is much easier to learn the basic mechanics and nuances of than it is to skip learning at this level and then try to apply it to 7C heel hooks. By being "too strong for the grade", one doesn't get the opportunity to develop the pathways or understanding of how to apply these techniques when suddenly your general strength no longer surpasses the grade of the climb you're attempting. When all else is equal, and your technique is several grades lower, you're done for. It's hard to "go back" and relearn on easier things, because your strength will typically hinder your ability to learn it properly.
Once you know how to one-arm your way out of a tricky position, that's the default choice.
-
I think this is 100% what I have done. I'm not sure I really know how to fix it tbh
If I were being flippant I'd say find a partner who's relatively new to climbing, quit your jobs and go travelling around Europe sport-climbing with a bit of bouldering before venturing onto some more adventurous multipitch stuff and a bit of trad. Fall in love with the Verdon Gorge and return repeatedly to terrify yourself each time vowing never to return. Get engaged and realise that weddings are expensive but not in Vegas ($120!!!). Get married in the parking area for Lev 29 and then spend the next 6-7 months living out of a Ford E-150 mostly doing trad and then finally in 2019 book a trip to Madagascar to climb run out techy MP routes. Get bitten by a dog on the first day, require hospital treatment and suddenly realise that you might have pushed it too far taking your adventures to a third world country where it could all get a bit Blood Moon (https://shorturl.at/hsIPQ). /selfindulgence
Less flippantly stop focusing on training geekery (and I mean it, step away), prioritise getting out (including when the weather is less certain) with other people who are better technically as climbers, embrace failure and enjoy the journey. Repeat problems you feel you might've overpowered in the past. Look at things like flexibility that might mean you choose to climb things in an inefficient manner without realising it (an example of this was a trip to the NW slate quarries with a member of this forum where it was evident his hip flexibility made thin rockovers significantly easier!) etc. etc.
I'm still puzzled by this. If it is just about long-term damage to the fingers from repeated severe training injuries, then that is easy to understand. But you (Paul and perhaps Wellsy) seem to be saying that there is more to this than that. That being strong before being experienced at climbing causes almost irreversible impairment to the capacity to gain efficient climbing technique in the future. That is what I'm struggling to get my head around.
The GP this week scared me a bit when I went in for a screening and she was immediately fascinated and quite alarmed by my fingers ("have they always looked like this") as apparently I have 'clubbing'. I checked with a physio I hold in high regard and he said it's common in climbers due to repeated trauma from training. When people Google, no they don't look like the severe images you first see!
A good example Stone would be Noir Desir (accepting you've not been to Font). The first few moves are through a small roof then there's a series of slaps up a wall with scooped holds. A Frenchman turned up and pulled on from after the roof and cruised the top (and I mean absolutely p*ssed it) including some faux hold on the right with a flat palm as he adjusted his body. We chatted for a while and he said he simply couldn't do the first move. I was absolutely astonished by this but that was the case, he spent the entire session not doing the first few basic pulls. Meanwhile I thrashed away for the entire session pulling far too hard on everything following the start moves as it's incredibly hard not to rely on that strength and know how little you can get away with if you really nail the positions.
I tried to look for a video on Bleau.info and found one of Willackers absolutely brutalising it. Instead this one perhaps is a bit closer to my experience although he doesn't milk the heel in the same was I'm remembering etc.:
https://vimeo.com/244134429
-
Everyone should be made to climb with Alice Thompson at some point so they can realise just how shit their flexibility and footwork really is.
-
Less flippantly stop focusing on training geekery (and I mean it, step away), prioritise getting out (including when the weather is less certain) with other people who are better technically as climbers, embrace failure and enjoy the journey. Repeat problems you feel you might've overpowered in the past. Look at things like flexibility that might mean you choose to climb things in an inefficient manner without realising it (an example of this was a trip to the NW slate quarries with a member of this forum where it was evident his hip flexibility made thin rockovers significantly easier!) etc. etc.
Alternatively:
So, kids, the motto is: Don't learn your craft. Don't get experience on rock. Don't focus on technique and skill. Don't do laps of Stanage highball slabs. You can pick all that crap up when you're old, injured, decrepit, out of training action. Be a Goal Climber, not a Soul Climber - the soul doesn't age and rot until long after the body does. Get on the wall, the board, the campus rungs, the beastmaker. Get strong now, put the effort in now, focus on those gainz now that will last you a long time, before it's too late, before the body can't cope with it any more. (https://fiendophobia.blogspot.com/2023/07/last-of-dying-breed.html)
(Can add in prehab and stretching to that righteous focus on getting strong)
-
This really should be a Ewan Macgregor voiceover with a nice bit of old school techno in the background.
-
I feel like my movement gets better if I watch the Charles Albert Reel Rock section the night before climbing. Just wait a few years until they sort out the Neuralink tech and you can have it streamed directly into your consciousness while climbing.
-
The GP this week scared me a bit when I went in for a screening and she was immediately fascinated and quite alarmed by my fingers ("have they always looked like this") as apparently I have 'clubbing'. I checked with a physio I hold in high regard and he said it's common in climbers due to repeated trauma from training.
Me too - I've had multiple people voice concern over my fingers and their clubbed nature. I had blood tests etc. recently, and I presume nothing sinister came of it, no one rang in a hurry to ask me to report to a hospital! I've been too busy to go back in for the routine appointment they asked for, I'll do it soon...
-
This isn’t meant to knock, I’d be genuinely curious to see some robust significance.
To balance the (good and necessary) skepticism of the 20mm test on here, it's worth pointing out that Lattice did release the data (or at least a screenshot of it) from their testing.
https://www.facebook.com/latticetraining/posts/free-data-release-did-you-know-that-you-can-access-our-database-and-finger-stren/1114657262199930/
Assuming the box-and-whisker plot uses standard settings, those little grey boxes show the range covered by 25-75% of climbers, so half of the population lie inside this box, half outside.
So - apart from a decent number of outliers - most 8A climbers can pull 150-175% of their bodyweight on a 20mm edge. From my point of view this is a pretty reliable metric and you probably already know if you are an outlier (great technique/flexibility, massive, tiny, etc).
Obviously it's not perfect but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater
Interesting, thanks.
So many questions and thoughts from looking at that. Lots revolve around 'correlation not causation'. Also a thought - how different I wonder would that same graph look if the population was 'climbers local to font' instead of climbers local to England/Wales.
The graph shows an obvious trend which is unsurprising but doesn't appear to be a good advert for finger strength benchmarking as an accurate predictor of grade potential. It shows you that if you can pull x%BW then you sit somewhere in a very wide range of people who also pull the same %BW and who climb either many grades harder or many grades easier than you.
I wonder if a 'climbers local to font' %BW finger strength study would show even less granularity. :-\
I'd like to see someone good with stats do some analysis and come up with a significance value for the metric of 'x % of BW' as a predictor of 'grade x'.
-
The graph clearly shows that if you can hang 150% of BW 2 armed, you can climb somewhere between V4 and V14. What’s not useful a about that?
More seriously, taking the mid 50% of the V grade referenced, the spread of a given point on the Y axis looks like about 4 points on the X, so pretty broad.
That is without interrogating what the X axis is actually telling us… 1 Vn at the Works? >50 outside? Just grit slabs/font roofs/limestone crimpy board style problems?
Your mate who is good at stats would need the raw data, because to me, it shows that strong climbers have stronger fingers than weaker ones, as a rule, but not always.
It’s nice to see, but hardly revelatory.
-
Pete, mrjonathanjr
I think you’ve fallen into the trap that leads to people being too dismissive of this test/data.
It’s not supposed to, and cannot, predict with ANY precision the grade you should be able to climb.
However it is useful to see “for the grade I climb, are my fingers strong/weak”?
That is a totally different question and a useful thing to know, because despite what jwi suggests for some people finger strength really isn’t a priority. That guy climbing by V4 who can pull 150% body weight - he can lay off the deadhangs.
-
However it is useful to see “for the grade I climb, how much cash should I be spunking onto a generic finger-strength-focused training plan”?
:-\
-
Pete, mrjonathanjr
I think you’ve fallen into the trap that leads to people being too dismissive of this test/data.
It’s not supposed to, and cannot, predict with ANY precision the grade you should be able to climb.
However it is useful to see “for the grade I climb, are my fingers strong/weak”?
That is a totally different question and a useful thing to know, because despite what jwi suggests for some people finger strength really isn’t a priority. That guy climbing by V4 who can pull 150% body weight - he can lay off the deadhangs.
Yeah, as I understand it, part of the purpose of the data is being able to say to some people "You're way stronger than you need to be for the grades you're actually climbing, the last thing you need is more strength training, you need to fuck off and learn to climb work on your technique instead."
Whether that gets lost in the messaging or in practice, I can't say.
-
However it is useful to see “for the grade I climb, how much cash should I be spunking onto a generic finger-strength-focused training plan”?
:-\
Because writing non-generic plans focused on things other than finger strength is beyond the wit of commercial coaches. Or not.
-
Pete, mrjonathanjr
I think you’ve fallen into the trap that leads to people being too dismissive of this test/data.
It’s not supposed to, and cannot, predict with ANY precision the grade you should be able to climb.
However it is useful to see “for the grade I climb, are my fingers strong/weak”?
That is a totally different question and a useful thing to know, because despite what jwi suggests for some people finger strength really isn’t a priority. That guy climbing by V4 who can pull 150% body weight - he can lay off the deadhangs.
Honestly I'm not trying or meaning to be dismissive. I'm just asking questions and I'm curious about the data.
I get that the finger strength data is just one piece of data in a bigger set of tests. All combined it helps form a picture of a climber's ability. I can see if you measure data for this particular test of finger strength (as discussed, ideally you'd also get a load of other grip positions) and combine it with measures of: hip flexibility, different measures of forearm aerobic & anaerobic endurance and power, determination, fear, and overall resilience through general conditioning - then you'd get a useful picture of a climber's attributes and where they sit relative to other climbers.
I do think that you'll get those pieces of data fed back to you by the rock... if you go climbing a lot on different styles and if you pay attention and try to take an objective look at yourself. This stuff isn't new, all that's new is the means of feeding you the information of how much you suck or don't suck has been made synthetic, and commercialised.
The single 20mm finger strength measure by itself seems to get a lot of attention - probably because it's simplistic and people like simplistic things - but it doesn't really show anything very useful in isolation. I don't follow lattice or what they put out, so this is uninformed, but I get the impression from talking to others and reading threads like this that they market it quite a lot (the 20mm edge measure) ?
-
I do think that you'll get those pieces of data fed back to you by the rock... if you go climbing a lot on different styles and if you pay attention and try to take an objective look at yourself. This stuff isn't new, all that's new is the means of feeding you the information of how much you suck or don't suck has been made synthetic, and commercialised.
I think this is all true, and for many people testing will just confirm what you already know... But, I think this assumes that you have both self awareness and a community of relevant people to compare yourself against in order to conclude what you're good/bad at.
If you live in Sheffield and hang out a lot at the tor, Malham, Kilnsey, the school, the foundry etc plus do a lot of trips away then it's easy enough to benchmark yourself informally. If you live in a random town in the middle of nowhere, or somewhere where there are very few climbers at a similar level and with similar attributes (e.g., if you're a big person in a town where all the good climbers are short; or a woman climbing 8c in a town where all the 8c climbers are men) then it might be much harder so you might want access to a broader set of people to compare against? I know when I was younger and climbing 8a it was very easy to benchmark myself informally against all the 8b climbers I saw around the place in order to understand what was different about them to me. Now I find it very hard to benchmark myself against those who are where I want to be, because most people in the UK are not where I want to be (plenty of strong ones but not many into onsighting and not so many fit ones, so not that useful for benchmarking strength vs fitness vs skills etc. I might erroneously think my fitness was very good if I didn't benchmark against people outside of Sheffield!). I don't think you necessarily need to benchmark like that - I can evaluate where I think I'm lacking without it, and maybe the benchmarking leads you down the wrong path sometimes, but I think most people (including me) find it interesting and sometimes useful to benchmark in that way.
-
Aren't the people used in the lattice data mostly the people you say you wouldn't find it useful to benchmark yourself against? Genuine question! I mean it's mostly strong brits from the peak isn't it?
-
Aren't the people used in the lattice data mostly the people you say you wouldn't find it useful to benchmark yourself against? Genuine question! I mean it's mostly strong brits from the peak London isn't it?
Fixed
-
Just wait until Dave Brailsford gets stuck into climbing :)
-
Aren't the people used in the lattice data mostly the people you say you wouldn't find it useful to benchmark yourself against? Genuine question! I mean it's mostly strong brits from the peak isn't it?
I don't know the figures, but I don't think that's the case nowadays (at least in geographical terms). Don't forget this is a company offering training plans to people all around the world and getting test data from people all around the world. The question of the selection bias towards "people into trying to hang 1-arm on an edge" is probably more of a realistic concern.
Using myself was a bad choice of example, or I worded it badly. What I meant was there's no-one in the UK who's onsighted 8c, so no-one I can benchmark against in terms of where I would most like to get to. Ste is close but not a useful benchmark! I.e. any data set would be better than the UK dataset since it doesn't exist. But yeah, would probably want to know who was in it and want it to cover both the comp beasts and the underground Spanish crushers spending 10 months of the year on rock... which I suspect would all be covered in the lower grades even if the average is skewed by selection bias.
But this is a distraction, my broad point is just that not everyone is lucky enough to live in places where comparisons are easy to come by (or to be able to travel to those places repeatedly for extended periods) so having a dataset to compare to might be much more useful for them
-
I feel slightly anguished by all of this Lattice knocking.
The people I've climbed with who use them (or Dave Mason) have all been full of praise. They've been a fairly varied bunch of climbers too and their climbing all seemed to improve.
Paul B seems to now regret the approach he used even though it got him up Voyager (not using Lattice BTW). I've not heard any such regrets from people who use Lattice. Perhaps they might is ten years time or something, but Fiend also seems to now regret his approach (unless he was just joking).
The vibe I've sometimes detected in some climbing circles in the past, has been one where people wanted to be better than other people even if that was by way of other people being worse rather than themselves being better. My sense is that Lattice are the total opposites of that -great.
Perhaps Lattice are disliked for commercialising climbing. I'm impressed by how much free stuff they put online. To me, it seems wrong to begrudge them being paid for what they do. Almost everyone gets paid for doing whatever we do. I see no shame in that. The only shameful thing is to do something bad -and I don't see Lattice as doing that.
-
It isn't knocking.
Skepticism is healthy.
This isn’t meant to knock, I’d be genuinely curious to see some robust significance.
Honestly I'm not trying or meaning to be dismissive. I'm just asking questions and I'm curious about the data.
-
but Fiend also seems to now regret his approach (unless he was just joking).
I regret my approach of not balancing out the ledge shuffling with more focus on climbing that would have helped maintain or possibly even build strength and fitness, specifically redpointing on awful UK limestone, and also projecting harder boulder problems, both of which I have put very little time into. Possibly a bit of working harder problems indoors too. And of course doing prehab and conditioning.
I don't regret not having a tail-wags-dog miserably shallow focus on grade-chasing, trophy-fixation and having a tediously regimented, joy-deprived militant training focus (or dictatorial edge-hang-based training plan) to tick numbers as the end goal - which is an aspect of the whole situation that was nagging at me reading some earlier posts before it got all technical about edge sizes and percentages.
(As usual I'm probably the worst of both worlds - all the regret and dismay of someone who missed out on being a half-effective goal climber, mixed with all the snobby contempt of a holier than thou wannabe soul climber).
-
Fiend, a couple of the people I was thinking of were totally fitting the stereotype of being on a mission to do whatever it took to get up a particular grade. They seemed to be having a ball doing that.
We can have fun climbing in a vast variety of manners. That's great. To some extent whether something is life affirming joy or militant grimness is all within our heads. I guess the ideal is to align what we choose to do and our perception of it such that the combination feels great for us.
To me as an outsider, both you and Paul B have done plenty of awesome climbing and could continue to derive a lot of joy from climbing if you so chose. I don't really see much to regret in either case. I realise that in both cases you are just offering helpful pointers to others though.
-
Paul B seems to now regret the approach he used even though it got him up Voyager
Completely off topic (not that we're on the original topic anymore anyway!)....
Is this right? Awesome if so, and a rather significant omission from the list....
https://climbing-history.org/climb/174/voyager
Edit: it is!
https://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,6413.0.html
Get him added Remus!
-
What an omission! Right under my nose this whole time! Now added.
-
Poor chap, sat there all this time not wanting to toot his own horn but quietly thinking "surely someone will remember I did the 3rd ascent of Voyager.....someone....anyone...?! Fuck it, I'm going cycling" ;D
-
Who did the 2nd ascent?
-
Jerry I think, who else?
-
I thought it was baby Ty at 15
Edit is Ty according to 8a.nu https://www.8a.nu/news/landman-15-climbs-voyager-8b
-
When did Jerry do it though?
-
Ah fair enough, I stand corrected.
-
:worms:
To me as an outsider, both you and Paul B have done plenty of awesome climbing and could continue to derive a lot of joy from climbing if you so chose. I don't really see much to regret in either case. I realise that in both cases you are just offering helpful pointers to others though.
Ok, so perhaps regret was the wrong word. What I was trying to imply is that I wouldn't recommend focusing on training too early and to the detriment of focusing on skills/efficiency. I don't really think that's an outrageous statement.
-
I think this is 100% what I have done. I'm not sure I really know how to fix it tbh
If I were being flippant I'd say find a partner who's relatively new to climbing, quit your jobs and go travelling around Europe sport-climbing with a bit of bouldering before venturing onto some more adventurous multipitch stuff and a bit of trad. Fall in love with the Verdon Gorge and return repeatedly to terrify yourself each time vowing never to return. Get engaged and realise that weddings are expensive but not in Vegas ($120!!!). Get married in the parking area for Lev 29 and then spend the next 6-7 months living out of a Ford E-150 mostly doing trad and then finally in 2019 book a trip to Madagascar to climb run out techy MP routes. Get bitten by a dog on the first day, require hospital treatment and suddenly realise that you might have pushed it too far taking your adventures to a third world country where it could all get a bit Blood Moon (https://shorturl.at/hsIPQ). /selfindulgence
Less flippantly stop focusing on training geekery (and I mean it, step away), prioritise getting out (including when the weather is less certain) with other people who are better technically as climbers, embrace failure and enjoy the journey. Repeat problems you feel you might've overpowered in the past. Look at things like flexibility that might mean you choose to climb things in an inefficient manner without realising it (an example of this was a trip to the NW slate quarries with a member of this forum where it was evident his hip flexibility made thin rockovers significantly easier!) etc. etc.
I'm still puzzled by this. If it is just about long-term damage to the fingers from repeated severe training injuries, then that is easy to understand. But you (Paul and perhaps Wellsy) seem to be saying that there is more to this than that. That being strong before being experienced at climbing causes almost irreversible impairment to the capacity to gain efficient climbing technique in the future. That is what I'm struggling to get my head around.
The GP this week scared me a bit when I went in for a screening and she was immediately fascinated and quite alarmed by my fingers ("have they always looked like this") as apparently I have 'clubbing'. I checked with a physio I hold in high regard and he said it's common in climbers due to repeated trauma from training. When people Google, no they don't look like the severe images you first see!
A good example Stone would be Noir Desir (accepting you've not been to Font). The first few moves are through a small roof then there's a series of slaps up a wall with scooped holds. A Frenchman turned up and pulled on from after the roof and cruised the top (and I mean absolutely p*ssed it) including some faux hold on the right with a flat palm as he adjusted his body. We chatted for a while and he said he simply couldn't do the first move. I was absolutely astonished by this but that was the case, he spent the entire session not doing the first few basic pulls. Meanwhile I thrashed away for the entire session pulling far too hard on everything following the start moves as it's incredibly hard not to rely on that strength and know how little you can get away with if you really nail the positions.
I tried to look for a video on Bleau.info and found one of Willackers absolutely brutalising it. Instead this one perhaps is a bit closer to my experience although he doesn't milk the heel in the same was I'm remembering etc.:
https://vimeo.com/244134429
Interesting thoughts
I will say, I enjoy training. And I enjoy climbing! I like feeding them into each other. I try to get out when I can but obviously finding people who are weaker but better who are also available when the weather is dry etc can be a bit tricky! Although I do do that at times and I have definitely improved. Going to font repeatedly helped a lot. But then when I've been training I climb better too, as I think it makes me feel stronger and more confident.
To be honest I also should probably remind myself at times that it's only been four years and I'm not a particularly talented natural athlete.
So honestly I'm just a baby, and I've still done plenty of things! I'd just like to climb harder things, and I'm at the Conscious Incompetence point where I used to think I was strong and good, then I thought I was strong and shit, and now I think I'm not particularly strong and shit as well, whereas realistically I'm probably stronger and better than ever before, just only on the cusp of realisation as to what actual strength and technique is.
As far as being a numbers related goal climber goes; I am actually not and have never been particularly either. I just like getting better at things and grades are the most obvious expression of that. I think all this goal climber/soul climber distinction is actually just kind of a myth. Achieving my goal of getting better and feeling good about my climbing has made my soul feel wonderful. I think some people are just a bit snobby about other people want to do the things they can do, rather than just stumbling across it. Yes I had to train really hard to get to 7A, and others just breeze it in six months, but that doesn't make it a soulless achievement at all.
-
When did Jerry do it though?
According to Grimer's book, Jerry hung up his climbing shoes in 2002, three years before Voyager's first ascent. But maybe he sneaked in for quiet repeat and didn't bother to tell anyone, he is a legend after all.
-
Whilst a legend I can't imagine Jerry doing anything quietly!
-
I think all this goal climber/soul climber distinction is actually just kind of a myth.
I think they're archetypes. I think it's a myth that there exist many people who are one or the other. I don't think it's a myth that both archetypes exist within most of us. We're all a tension of external and internal reward.
I listened to this by Morgan Housel recently, which expresses the idea of goal climber / soul climber quite well (his angle is finance but the wisdom applies more widely). It's probably a story well known to many on here. I'd read a few books in my teens about that Vende globe race and the two characters Housel talks about, great stories if anyone's unfamiliar. I'd love to think I'm more Bernard Moitessier than Donald Crowhurst but there's bits of both in most of us I imagine. Most likely most of us are more like the other sailors in the race (who are mostly unknown) who probably weren't at either extreme.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/3tuq9pSVAPdtBG8S1B1iEe
-
When did Jerry do it though?
According to Grimer's book, Jerry hung up his climbing shoes in 2002, three years before Voyager's first ascent. But maybe he sneaked in for quiet repeat and didn't bother to tell anyone, he is a legend after all.
I dropped Ben an email (says hi etc.) and he confirmed Jerry wasn't climbing by the time he did voyager.
-
I feel slightly anguished by all of this Lattice knocking.
The people I've climbed with who use them (or Dave Mason) have all been full of praise. They've been a fairly varied bunch of climbers too and their climbing all seemed to improve.
Paul B seems to now regret the approach he used even though it got him up Voyager (not using Lattice BTW). I've not heard any such regrets from people who use Lattice. Perhaps they might is ten years time or something, but Fiend also seems to now regret his approach (unless he was just joking).
The vibe I've sometimes detected in some climbing circles in the past, has been one where people wanted to be better than other people even if that was by way of other people being worse rather than themselves being better. My sense is that Lattice are the total opposites of that -great.
Perhaps Lattice are disliked for commercialising climbing. I'm impressed by how much free stuff they put online. To me, it seems wrong to begrudge them being paid for what they do. Almost everyone gets paid for doing whatever we do. I see no shame in that. The only shameful thing is to do something bad -and I don't see Lattice as doing that.
You have very much got the wrong end of the stick from me. I think lattice is amazing and really love how the modern science based approach is moving the sport on leaps and bounds. Despite considering myself very forward thinking i would never have believed that 9a would be onsighted, although i always could imagine 9A boulders and 9c redpoints.
I really think the olympics is going to herald more breakthroughs in the sport and we are only just seeing the first gen climbers to benefit from this.
This however is all about the top end and what i dont think is good, other than for business, is that they sell the concept to people climbing in the 6s and 7s when you really dont need to follow a lattice plan to achieve this very average level of climbing.
Not sure how long you have been climbing but did you know that when they started they would refuse to train or do plans for anyone climbing under 7b+. It should have stayed like that.
Like i have already said, with modern facilities and access to crags its almost impossible not to get to the 7s. Just watch people, talk, ask questions and importantly try hard either on stuff that's similar to what you want to do and you will get there pretty quickly.
And re the finger stats, i know so many people who can one arm hand the BM middle edge and less with added weight who cant climb past mid to high 7s its ridiculous, and i also know a few 8B and above boulderers who cant hang it. Its lots to do with hanging on an edge and little to do with climbing.
-
Just to go back again to the graph that Stu posted, there are perhaps a few easy ways that it could be a bit more useful. As I understand it, the outcome variable is "max grade" but without any caveats I'm not sure it's very clear what that means. If one subgroup just does things in a day (perhaps because they live a long way from the crags, or they are time limited) and another sieges the living daylights out of a problem, what counts as "max grade" is essentially two different variables combined. I've not taken the test so I don't know, but do they narrow it down to "max grade in a session" or "max grade in ten sessions" or similar? Clearly easier to do for routes but "max redpoint" faces a similar problem.
The other obvious thing is that the population isn't divided into male and female to account for very clear physiological and behavioural differences. Apologies if it is, but simply not labelled.
Thinking about how you'd get something that could have a bit of predictive power, I guess if you considered a training cycle (or several) as a treatment you could analyse the effect of various changes in the test results on the grade post-training. This way you could include finger strength, max pulls, some kind of flexibility metric and see what effect any changes in those had on the max grade (however defined). I was thinking about what you could use as a proxy for technique, try hard, those hard to measure soft skills, but I reckon you could just use starting max grade as something that rolls all those into one. This is not ideal as it is clearly affected by all the other physical things you're measuring... Perhaps one way around that would be to use "highest grade that you can flash/do three goes or fewer every problem in an averaged size well-set climbing wall/reasonably varied outside boulder circuit" to try to get a measure that is less biased by the climber's raw physical ability.
One really obvious problem is that most people don't advance that many grades over one training cycle, and it would be an awful lot of faff to go through for "the data shows that if you increase you're fingerboarding from x%BW to y%BW you'll go up one V grade". Hmmm, yeah, great insight :) But over a longer period you might start to see something useful.
I'd be very suprised if Lattice haven't done this already, or perhaps there is some really obvious flaw that I haven't considered which invalidates the whole thing.
-
Also I don't recall any advice on not nestling... I can add at least 10kg to a 2 arm hang if I nestle my pinky into the edges, but in my eyes that wouldn't count. Admittedly their own edge would negate that effect...
-
seankenny, I know of a few intervention studies in climbing. I agree that this is something that is needed if you want to investigate certain types of training. I am not aware of an intervention study on hangboarding but I read one on campusing (which much to my surprise showed that campusing worked... so I demand more studies!)
-
This however is all about the top end and what i dont think is good, other than for business, is that they sell the concept to people climbing in the 6s and 7s when you really dont need to follow a lattice plan to achieve this very average level of climbing.
Not sure how long you have been climbing but did you know that when they started they would refuse to train or do plans for anyone climbing under 7b+. It should have stayed like that.
Like i have already said, with modern facilities and access to crags its almost impossible not to get to the 7s. Just watch people, talk, ask questions and importantly try hard either on stuff that's similar to what you want to do and you will get there pretty quickly.
When out climbing, I sometimes chat to people who are accompanying their teenage children to sport crags but not climbing there themselves. I guess the typical such person will have climbed regularly for over 20years, doing onsight trad up to HVS. My guess is that if such a person wanted to be able to climb where their children wanted to climb, Lattice would do a great job of helping them achieve that.
I'm sure they could manage it without Lattice too if they had sufficient inclination and time. But you could say the same about writing computer software or repairing cars or anything really.
Perhaps it's a bit like how being able to run 5k (at a gentle pace) might not require ground breaking sport science, but the "couch-to-5k" plan has helped thousands of people to enjoy running who otherwise wouldn't have done.
https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/exercise/running-and-aerobic-exercises/get-running-with-couch-to-5k/ (https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/exercise/running-and-aerobic-exercises/get-running-with-couch-to-5k/)
-
I'm sure they could manage it without Lattice too if they had sufficient inclination and time. But you could say the same about writing computer software or repairing cars or anything really.
But you'd expect most people would be able to work out how to correctly inflate their tyres, check the oil level and coolant etc. wouldn't you?
-
Explain "couch to 5k" then.
That really has been transformative for thousands of people. That may seem goofy, but it's true.
-
I think it's completely different to what we're discussing here; from my limited look, it's a health initiative to encourage people who may not have exercised for the majority of their life into being active by giving them a defined step by step guide?
Also, I don't think running has the same skill bias as climbing and, as I've tried to highlight, doesn't carry that risk (that I perceive) of detracting from learning those skills?
It doesn't appear to be trying to make the best runner that person can be. I'm not arguing, and never have been, that a training program adopted 'too soon' won't deliver the 'result' or progress (or, if that's what that person enjoys that this whole shebang even matters, I mean who doesn't like steep board climbing?).
-
Genuinely, board climbing might be my favourite form of climbing, and Kilter Board sessions especially are so much fun. My coach has limited me to one a week though cos I got a bit shit at climbing over the last few months :(
-
Explain "couch to 5k" then.
That really has been transformative for thousands of people. That may seem goofy, but it's true.
Comparing apples with pears. One is a commendable one size fits all plan encouraging people to get active, even if they literally never have been. The other is a paid for plan specifically set up for them.
I reckon a "couch to v2" plan could quite easily be written up and freely made available. That would be comparable.
-
Someone told me he was a happy Lattice customer because, although he hadn't been told anything he couldn't have come up with himself, he actually followed the plan because he had paid for it. He had been training for climbing for 20ish years and had done a few 8cs. But that same phenomenon could be just as true for eg a middle aged climber who was wanting to convert from VS to 7a to climb with their children or whatever.
-
Someone told me he was a happy Lattice customer because, although he hadn't been told anything he couldn't have come up with himself, he actually followed the plan because he had paid for it. He had been training for climbing for 20ish years and had done a few 8cs. But that same phenomenon could be just as true for eg a middle aged climber who was wanting to convert from VS to 7a to climb with their children or whatever.
What's your point? I think that would be widely agreed on, and I agree it's not a bad thing per se (as Paul said, who really cares?) Nobody is saying there isn't a market. They are saying that it's an unnecessary market when thag same improvement could be obtained by just turning up and going climbing.
Also, youve swiftly moved on to another point but people who can already climb VS are not a corollary to people who have rarely if ever exercised, which is who couch to 5k is aimed at.
-
They are saying that it's an unnecessary market when thag same improvement could be obtained by just turning up and going climbing.
Would it be fair to say that anyone who does just turn up and climb (let's say 3 times a week, since personally my skin can't handle more), and is no longer improving, could benefit from a training plan?
I know plenty of people who have plateaued while only climbing (no 'training') and so telling them to just climb in order to improve seems unhelpful.
-
I guess it kind of depends doesn't it. If people are turning up and just trying to flash problems it's probably no surprise they've plateaued. If they're putting an effort into training but it's not working then they would probably benefit.
Ultimately it doesn't matter, a lot of training plans are unnecessary but there's a lot of unnecessary things in the world. :)
-
The people who had climbed VS for 20years may be just as daunted by the transition from VS to 7a as an entirely inactive person is by running a 5km.
It is very normal to climb at VS level or below for decades. Many such people climb regularly and regularly go to climbing walls.
-
As a coach, my viewpoint is that as long as I can see how to help someone progress then I've won. It doesn't (actually quite rarely) always involve a training plan, although for some the discipline of a plan is enormously beneficial. The vast majority of those looking for coaching nowadays are in the 6a to 7b bracket, bloc or route. Although I enjoy it when some of our more elite customers curse me when a well placed question unlocks whatever they've been working on. ( I'm that annoying floor walker). Basically every one can benefit from an outside perspective, however the human touch tends to work better than a list of exercises
-
I guess it kind of depends doesn't it. If people are turning up and just trying to flash problems it's probably no surprise they've plateaued. If they're putting an effort into training but it's not working then they would probably benefit.
Ultimately it doesn't matter, a lot of training plans are unnecessary but there's a lot of unnecessary things in the world. :)
That's true, I think it all rides on "If they're putting an effort into training..." since plenty of people wouldn't know what this looks like, so that's where a training plan can help them.
Definitely... climbing as a whole is unnecessary too, but that ain't gonna stop us
-
Explain "couch to 5k" then.
That really has been transformative for thousands of people. That may seem goofy, but it's true.
couch to 5k is free and its purely motivational as you become part of a group. Its about making people believe you can do it.
and 5k is barely more than walking, 5+ VS at most. Its not a training program.
-
What Gav said, the equivalent in terms of grades is far less than 7a. You're effectively describing my Dad. 7a would need to be a long (long) term future goal.
-
and 5k is barely more than walking, 5+ VS at most. Its not a training program.
Random off-topic DVT-patient outlier post here, but I'm not sure if I could ever do 5k, or if was possible, how many multiple months I could take to get. My best ever flat road-run in Glasgow (when I was doing it semi-regularly) was 3.4km and the last 400m of that was so hard I had be bellowing and swearing to get through it - of course being in the Weeg no-one batted an eyelid. The idea of reaching 5km was unfathomable.
Most VS-ey punters who have been conned by the industry into thinking they need a training plan need nothing of the sort, they usually just need to do a few basic tweaks to their mindset (like sm09's example of changing from always flashing problems at the wall to working them). I wrote an article on UKC about this many years ago and whilst it's very much NOT for anyone on this forum I think the core principles still stand up.
-
couch to 5k is free and its purely motivational as you become part of a group. Its about making people believe you can do it.
and 5k is barely more than walking, 5+ VS at most. Its not a training program.
An essential aspect of any sort of teaching/coaching is imbuing self belief. Causing the person to genuinely believe that yes they are perfectly capable of running 5k, getting a PhD, learning to read, climbing 7a, winning a tennis Grand Slam or whatever.
Having a professional expert asses someones current climbing ability and physical attributes, hear about their lifestyle etc and then give a plan tailored to all of that and express an informed opinion that it could get them climbing 7a -That would be just what was needed to imbue self belief for some people.
-
Most VS-ey punters who have been conned by the industry into thinking they need a training plan need nothing of the sort, they usually just need to do a few basic tweaks to their mindset (like sm09's example of changing from always flashing problems at the wall to working them). I wrote an article on UKC about this many years ago and whilst it's very much NOT for anyone on this forum I think the core principles still stand up.
Someone who I climb with (who climbs 8b) is on a Lattice plan. As far as I can work out, he seems to spend his time flashing problems at the wall. He certainly says I need to do that to be less crap. I'm suspect he is right about me, but I was surprised it was optimal for him since he has superb technique but is "weak for his grade". My guess was that Lattice worked around what got him psyched and trying hard or something.
For myself, my guess is that flashing problems at the wall would make me less crap in his eyes, in that I wouldn't be such a dunce in working out moves etc. But my aspiration is to eventually succeed on my sieges, not really to be able to redpoint with dignity at a sensible grade. My impression is that Lattice very much take into account what the climber wants to achieve however odd that may be.
-
and 5k is barely more than walking, 5+ VS at most. Its not a training program.
Most VS-ey punters who have been conned by the industry into thinking they need a training plan need nothing of the sort, they usually just need to do a few basic tweaks to their mindset (like sm09's example of changing from always flashing problems at the wall to working them). I wrote an article on UKC about this many years ago and whilst it's very much NOT for anyone on this forum I think the core principles still stand up.
My impression is that most training plans for those at the lower end of things would mainly just be prescribing more focused climbing i.e a session being focused on projecting with proper rests or trying to flash everything, as opposed to doing neither while getting distracted by talking to your mates and drinking coffee, perhaps with a bit of fingerboarding and conditioning/injury prevention thrown in.
Is it necessary to progress, probably not, does it help especially if you’ve not got a training background, I’d say so. I certainly wasted a lot of time trying to get better by “just going climbing” which left we plateaued at font 6c+\7a projecting level.
-
Joe, from a position of relative ignorance, I always thought their great skill was in knowing how to structure intensity and rest to achieve the desired effect.
But my aspiration is to eventually succeed on my sieges, not really to be able to redpoint with dignity at a sensible grade. My impression is that Lattice very much take into account what the climber wants to achieve however odd that may be.
You might find Ollie Torr’s podcast with Nugget worth a listen. I thought he was really interesting, which is not always the case with climbing podcasts.
https://thenuggetclimbing.com/episodes/ollie-torr
-
I should be more clear: I meant SM09's example was a good example of a simple change of mindset that could lead to a clear improvement without any other structure doctrine or complexity (but with a bit of common sense about warming up, resting, avoiding injury, etc), if, say, said VS climber was pretty good at doing all sorts of non-challenging moves, but struggled a bit with harder moves beyond their flashing limit.
https://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/features/how_to_improve-2648 is the article I wrote, be warned it's for those VS leaders and it was written 13 years ago and when I was very much part of UKC (incidentally 20,000 views of an article is a pretty good context for the fact I'm still banned because I haven't apologised to AJ for his false and unjustifiable ban for me criticising a Franco article on headpointing, without any swearing nor abuse, and with my "ban-worthy" reply being kept up......).
-
An essential aspect of any sort of teaching/coaching is imbuing self belief. Causing the person to genuinely believe that yes they do need to pay for this training programme.
Having a professional expert asses someones current climbing ability and physical attributes, hear about their lifestyle etc and then give a plan tailored to all of that and express an informed opinion that it could get them climbing 7a -That would be just what was needed to make a successful business.
Ftfy.
Tongue in cheek, lattice are good at what they do etc., but true.
A typical man or woman without significant disability who aspires to climb 7a, who believes it would make a significant difference in their chances of success to pay a company to get them there - ‘learned helplessness’ is a term that springs to mind.
-
I've always thought a big driver of these plans is that an 'expert' tells you if you do X you will achieve Y.
The result is that as well as the physical/skill/whatever improvements, and the improved self belief (already mentioned), the trainee feels accountable to the coach. The accountability is key, and often what people are paying for with coaches/physics/dieticians or what we brand of expert you are after. The resulting consistency is probably one of the major driver of gainZ.
-
In the interests of adding a bit of context:
My "running" is basically an extremely slowed-down version of Couch To 5K, because the steepness of the curve on the regular version would break me.
And I'm in no way sedentary, just 49, dyspraxic (so "learning how to run" is a thing), have weird fatigue issues, and have been avoiding running for my entire life. And want to have a bit of energy spare for things like climbing.
Because the demographic of this forum inevitably skews towards people who climb a lot and tend to be pretty strong, I think there's a tendency to overestimate what you think the average person should be able to "just do" without any specific training.
Even before you start to bring in people who are in some "not average" (and of course it's extremely common to be "not average" in ways like being middle-aged, having minor physical problems, etc. etc.).