UKBouldering.com
the shizzle => diet, training and injuries => Topic started by: Krank on January 04, 2010, 02:25:20 pm
-
Afternoon all,
This year i have decided to make my training very basic (no twisting, no drop knees, no thumbs or anything which will make moves easier), i think it was on the Malc Smith pro tips, he suggested that this was a good way to train and will be good on the shoulders and make reachy moves easier.
However, i have just finished reading the Mcleod book which suggests this is not a good idea as it may lead to this becoming your predominant style.
During the winter i train much more than i climb and i dont really want to risk losing any of my hard earned craft (poor as it may be).
The questian is, should i stick with my open, basic, pull as hard as possible approach, or, set twisty, crafty problems?
-
Both? How about setting problems where you have to stay open rather than forcing it?
-
The problems i am setting now are all open, there not forced, and they are still good problems to climb, there just set to allow them to be climbed open. both may be solutuion but i wondered which will be more effective.
-
Do both. Part of your training should include movement drills anyway, if you are to believe the more enlightened experts, or so I read.
http://onlineclimbingcoach.blogspot.com/2007/04/self-coached-climber-review.html (http://onlineclimbingcoach.blogspot.com/2007/04/self-coached-climber-review.html)
-
I was once told that everyone from the school (back in the day) thought they were all really strong doing huge drop knees and holding onto tiny crimps . Then they went to see Mr.Sharpe who was climbing toe on and open and power wise he all gave them a bit of a spanking.
Just because you train open doesn't mean this will become your predominant style. First time you get on something I admit you might forget your feet are connected but this doesn't last all that long.
I've seen people from this forum training on boards on the most basic of problems who flash ridiculously tenuous font aretes and then do it again for the camera.
-
They're the exception rather than the rule though aren't they Paul?
-
You certainly don't learn good footwork on boards...
I was merely pointing out that climbing on boards doesn't make you lose all your footwork. If like me you get sucked into training and didn't have footwork to begin with then there's where the issues begin IMO because you don't know any better.
-
I think i will try warming up with all the dropknee, flagging buisness to keep some movement then move on to good sitting of square on pulling, for the power. Not sure how much board craft will help the grit skills though, prob not much.
-
I’ve always thought it sounded like a shit idea to deliberately use inefficient technique when training. It sounds like a great way to create and reinforce negative engrams. The idea of a weightlifter/gymnast deliberately using poor technique as a tool for improvement is clearly nonsense, so why do climbers persist with this idea? From my experience climbing indoors of any sort (useful as it may be) has a negative effect on outdoor friendly engrams (hence every wall monkey and his dog constantly scouring the globe for the elusive ‘basic’ problem), the last thing I’d want to do is climb in a way which accentuates the effect!
The idea that using technique when climbing on a board makes you weak bears no scrutiny if you ask me. Take the following very simplified example. Lets say you can climb 7c+ on a board using efficient technique or 7c by going basic. In both instances you are pulling as hard as you can ergo you are training your muscles. In the first instance you are training the muscles you need to climb efficiently, in the latter you are training the muscles you needs to climb inefficiently. Likewise your engrams/movement skills will develop in either of two directions. In both instances you will get stronger and more efficient at certain movement patterns. Personally I can’t see why you’d want to get better at doing something badly, rather than better at doing something well. A cynic might conclude that it has more to do with looking buff in front of your hommes rather than climbing harder/better outside.
I’m all ears if any training master wants to explain the flaws in this logic.
-
I agree with Bonos de Joyos.
-
Basic Ben, Basic Jez (as exampels of board problems) could both be overcome using drop knees, the fact of the matter is that in both of these cases it negates the need to be able to lock like a monster. Miss it out, don't improve on the lock.
Now locking certainly isn't a bad engram, nor irrelevant in the outside world.
-
Common sense: There's a difference between doing a couple of problems in a prescriptive way that specifically work a weakness, and deliberatley climbing in a shit fashion longterm.
-
For similar reasons I think training with a weight belt is a bad idea. As I see it when you are training you are trying your hardest (or thereabouts) and therefore sending a signal to the brain vis-à-vis development proportional to the effort put in (or thereabouts). Given this assumption you are not increasing ‘the signal’ by adding weight! Instead of trying 100% on a 6c move without weight you are trying 100% on a 6b move with weight. So no implicit gain in signal/improvement but a fair risk of developing bad engrams. Again please put me right if I’m missing something.
PS – Apologies for this being a generalised and slightly off-topic rant.
Basic Ben, Basic Jez (as exampels of board problems) could both be overcome using drop knees, the fact of the matter is that in both of these cases it negates the need to be able to lock like a monster. Miss it out, don't improve on the lock.
Now locking certainly isn't a bad engram, nor irrelevant in the outside world.
I disagree entirely. Lets say Basic Jez is at the limit for two climbers, with a drop knee and beyond the limit without. Lets also say their is a problem exactly the same outdoor. Climber A tries it with a dropknee climber B tries without? Who is more likely to succeed on the prob outside? And is climber A not also going to train his lock by just scraping up the prob with the drop knee more than B does failling without?
-
On a related note of not getting into bad habits. What does the panel reckon on the "no matching" rule on walls?
-
Basic Ben, Basic Jez (as exampels of board problems) could both be overcome using drop knees, the fact of the matter is that in both of these cases it negates the need to be able to lock like a monster. Miss it out, don't improve on the lock.
Now locking certainly isn't a bad engram, nor irrelevant in the outside world.
I disagree entirely. Lets say Basic Jez is at the limit for two climbers, with a drop knee and beyond the limit without. Lets also say their is a problem exactly the same outdoor. Climber A tries it with a dropknee climber B tries without? Who is more likely to succeed on the prob outside? And is climber A not also going to train his lock by just scraping up the prob with the drop knee more than B does failling without?
But what about when they A and B encounter a problem outside that requires a lock and can't be overcome with a drop-knee? Surely B will be in the better position to succeed?
B can also learn to use the drop knee as well as training open. Unless of course they've erased the technique from their repertoire/memory/engrams completely.
-
I should have probably stated (before getting involved) that these days I have very mixed feelings about training and indoor climbing.
Jon: you're missing the point slightly, the idea of ignoring the drop knee is to target something specific, a specific weakness like a lock. As the drop knee isn't always available. It isn't Fatman, nobody has built a model of it on a board its simply a lock thing.
Your climber A, B thing doesn't work. Why would B try it without a drop knee outside? because thats what he does inside? ah, wasn't that the question at the start?
-
Common sense: There's a difference between doing a couple of problems in a prescriptive way that specifically work a weakness, and deliberatley climbing in a shit fashion longterm.
-
The last post was rushed as leaving work so pretty poorly written. The point being that if both A and B had a specified number of attempts at Basic Jez (a bad example as the basic way is easier than the drop knee if you ask me, but that's by the by) A would have got up the problem and done the outdoor equivalent, then moved on to doing something else, gaining more strength and skill, while A will have sacrificed all round benefit and not got up the problem either inside or out.
-
you still miss the point if you think B won't get up the outside... why not? has he/she forgotten that drop knees exist? Or because he didn't have the required strength in his buttocks (from all that drop knee training that he missed out upon) to get up said basic jez en rock.
-
Assuming they are starting from the same level of strength and that the problem is easier with a drop knee (even though it isn't), and that they have both had the same limited number of goes on the indoor version (just enough for A to get up it via the most efficient sequence), B will succeed on the prob quicker and be spending his time making other gains. Over time if they take their respective paradigms to the extreme A will get more problems done and gain a broader range both within their physical strength and range of skills while A will get very good and strong at a narrow indoor focused set of (basic/easily identified/isolated) movements.
-
but... :'(
What dave said.
-
For similar reasons I think training with a weight belt is a bad idea. As I see it when you are training you are trying your hardest (or thereabouts) and therefore sending a signal to the brain vis-à-vis development proportional to the effort put in (or thereabouts). Given this assumption you are not increasing ‘the signal’ by adding weight! Instead of trying 100% on a 6c move without weight you are trying 100% on a 6b move with weight. So no implicit gain in signal/improvement but a fair risk of developing bad engrams. Again please put me right if I’m missing something.
PS – Apologies for this being a generalised and slightly off-topic rant.
For people who only boulders I think you're right. For climbers who wants to prepare (using only a board) for doing cruxes 25 m out on the pitch where the rope, a harness, and two extra quickdraws will pull down and additional 2-3 kg I think practising moves with a 2-3 kg weight west is mandatory. (For the very reasons you give)
-
As time moves on A will develop further, traveling the world, pushing standards, developing new areas. Eventually he'll learn the art of speaking to animals and maybe set up a school teaching deprived children to tame and ride dragons. He'll then find the power of human free flight and dispense with climbing altogether casting off the shackles of this tired earth to explore new worlds.
Meanwhile poor old B will have developed into a hideously pale and withered robotic gollum creature. No longer able to exist in daylight he will roam darkened alleys at night looking for children to drink the blood from, in the vain hope that their blood will release the knowledge of the drop knee into his twisted crippled mind. And all because you told himhow to climb Basic Jez....
-
I'd try it out for a bit. If it doesn't work and your technique goes to shit, stop doing it.
-
Is B Paul?
I think the premise that malc was on about was gaining strength for when there are no footholds to do a big gippo on and you can't hide from the front on position.
Adam rightly alludes that climbing on a board will not gain you the technical ability to aretes, however it will give you strength, and if you are not in the envious position he has of getting out all the time its not going to hurt and will help if you like climbing steep stuff.
Mix it all up is the gist of Dave Mac's book. As a caveat to that he also says focus on your weaknesses, and if you are able to drop knee like Edlinger and get shut down on front on moves with no footholds then some practice may benefit.
-
As with anything, if you do it for a reason (and are aware that you're doing it for a specific reason), and you use it as part of your training then it shouldn't turn your technique to shit.
Balance, I suppose. I expect if you do nothing but staying open you may suffer on something technical outside. And don't forget, Malc's point was that a lot of people are weak when open so training this is an important part of your training. Even Malc wouldn't say it's the only thing you should do.
If you watch he says he trained long moves as he was weak on this etc. Anyway, I'll let Mr Smith say it (subtitles for non-Scots):
Malcom Smith Pro Tips - Strength & Power (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAoc6w_OUjA#)
-
Is B Paul?
or alternatively you'll score a 6month trip and wonder why on earth you were bothered in training for hard things when all you want to do is climb big easy trad.
;D
Mix it all up is the gist of Dave Mac's book. As a caveat to that he also says focus on your weaknesses, and if you are able to drop knee like Edlinger and get shut down on front on moves with no footholds then some practice may benefit.
Is it a good read? I gave up on buying books re:training after Horst.
Oh and more on topic: I think what gets skipped over from that pro-tips is the keeping feet on even when its easier to jump them off.
-
i think that some things that bonjoy said are very correct, others are slightly not precise. regarding the weight belt, it's not about giving 100 on a 6c without and 100 on a 6b with it. it's about giving 100 on a 6c with it.
re. twisting.
i think that we have to distinguish between training for climbing and climbing (even indoors).
when i train, i want to make things as hard as i can. in the gym i don't twist, i don't use the aretes of the walls and so on. but when i want to actually complete a problem to impress the random chick, i do everything to make the problem easier for me. so i basically try to climb at my best and then i one arm the top hold.
;)
-
dave mac's book.... hmmm
its ok. its a world away from horst.
its the sort of thing that would be gold dust if you were in your first year of climbing. if you've got ten years experience and have climbed some hard stuff it will be less so. on the other channel people think it is elitist. i completely disagree. its aimed at hvs punters as having stuff for those in the upper echelons of the sport to gain, but maybe not as much.
the basic premise is the big 4. technique, finger strength, body composition (ie don't be like sloper, but also don't be like me)((this is going to be adressed in another book) and local (power/forearm) endurance.
Its worth reading. I'd hoped for more.
a lot is on his blog.
there are few specifics. alot of general principles.
-
borrowage? :read:
-
axel i will always love you.
you all have to remember we are bumbling on small bits of rock.its just for fun
-
as malc says... its for power
-
What you are all ignoring is that doing basic Jez with an egyptian would mean you were the GAY. Climber A never reaches the utopic stage of opening his reading school for baby dolphins because he is too busy watching tv interior designers Justin and Colin and shopping for soft furnishings.
climber B meanwhile develops a hunchback and is Leo Moger. Whilst he may not suck the blood from children he will certainly burn you off (as long as you are at the board), and chicks the world over will dig his 'rad crimp strength'.
Someone throw another polar bear on the fire - its cold in this cellar.
-
Look this is going to sound like heresy to some, but is Malc a good role model for an aspirant rock climber? :o I’d say that given how strong Malc was, ie very very strong, stronger than all his peers, he was a long way from realising his potential, essentially he was a very strong underachiever :o :o. Whilst he wasn’t a technical punter, neither was he excellent and it was this that held him back to a degree. From what I’ve heard he’d tend to beast through sequences using basic, inefficient techniques, making the climbing far harder than it needed to be. Whilst he was strong enough to get away with it sometimes, other times he’d end up falling off higher up as a result. To me it seems like a classic case of training imbalance, with bad movement habits being re-inforced due to the deliberate basic regime adopted on the board.
Nibile: If it take 100% of your effort to climb 6c without weight, then surely 100% effort with weight on, on the same moves will not lift your arse off the mat! Contrary to what programs like The Apprentice would have us believe 100% effort = maximum effort.
-
Malc is god. Now give me 110% you weaklings.
Let us not forget the some people just aren't that good at climbing, no matter how much they train/climb aretes/slabs etc... and have to put loads of effort in to get what just comes naturally to some people.
-
Again, I think it depends on what you are doing.
If you use a belt to increase load on bigger holds rather than pulling harder on smaller holds and no weight belt there are potential gains. Although you'd also have to train fingerstrength too.
I used a weight belt for a bit last year, but this was when I was loosing weight (didn't last long). basically for every 1kg I lost, I'd add in weight for a belt. Although the theory was no doubt flawed :lol:
I think the main point with this was that Malc identified something he was weak at, and trained that area. Sounds like sense to me.
-
My premise is that by addressing one weakness he create another and as such we should be wary of over simplistic solutions. Remember the lady who swallowed a fly....
-
Are you suggesting that perhaps Malc'll die?
-
I think he'll struggle with a cat
-
Everyone knows Malc can swallow any animal, he eats them front on and spits out the knees and heels.
Further to my previous heresy, I also suspect that a lot of people given the choice would rather be a Malc Smith than a Steve McClure. Conciously or otherwise they’d be happy to sacrifice overall practical ability in order to be impressively strong, even if it meant they were less good at climbing and climbed less and easier routes/problems. Am I right, of course I’m right, I’m stating the obvious, who wouldn’t want to look the beast!? But is this good for our climbing, I think not.
-
Fuck that, I'd rather be Gaskins.
-
Sorry Bonjoy, I feel as though I have staked my support for your theory then buggered off leaving you to the baying hounds.
The idea of underachievement is an interesting one, I think there are a lot of climbers out there who savagely underachieve given their ridiculous levels of strength*.
As to the original point a climber deliberately climbing straight on is silly unless it's the easiest way for that climber to climb that problem, then it makes sense. When climbing (even problems on a board) aiming for the best technique and most efficient style is always best. If you feel you have a specific weakness then work it using finger boards/core exercises/weights etc etc etc where you will not be building up a store of inefficient climbing engrams. Weighted hangs, fine, weighted climbing I'd be wary...
Just an opinion mind, but given that Bonjoy appears to agree that suggests is that this is practically SCIENCE.
P.S. I'd rather be Steve than Malc but I'm pretty happy being me, does that make me gay Dobbin?
*equally there are people who ponce about technique-ing up things and if they just put a bit of effort into getting beastly then they'd reside in CRUSHVILLE, TENNE-8-SSEE...
-
bonjoy,
i know that 100% is 100% (despite other math horrors) but sometimes reality is no math. i think that we are almost never performing at our 100% and finding that gap, maybe just 1%, is where improvement reside.
-
What a good thread.
The vast majority of problems on my board have been worked out by either myself or Pete Chadwick. Pete is much stronger than me and much more willing to work his weaknesses. My problems - not really deliberately - tend have got a lot of weird body positions, flagging, hooking etc (not many real egyptians though) and are often feet follow hands. They often climb really well (for a board) and can look unlikely but are pretty repeatable once sussed. Pete's, in comparison, are often more basic.
I have, I think, one problem Pete can't touch and a few he struggles on. He has probably dozens I can't touch. OK, so not exactly a controlled experiment (not least because Pete's technique is as good as he is strong) but it does at least call into question Bonjoys hypotheticals.
If there are strong underacheivers then I'm probably your classic type who believes he can take refuge in good technique and not try and get stronger.
-
I think suggesting Malc is an underachiever is perhaps a bit harsh. Maybe he didn't reach his potential but he did disappear from climbing before every stagnating. I can think of a few things he's climbed that haven't seen any/many repeats. Maybe his sequences are inefficient but if he's the only one sat on top of the boulder then he's got something right.
-
What a good thread.
The vast majority of problems on my board have been worked out by either myself or Pete Chadwick. Pete is much stronger than me and much more willing to work his weaknesses. My problems - not really deliberately - tend have got a lot of weird body positions, flagging, hooking etc (not many real egyptians though) and are often feet follow hands. They often climb really well (for a board) and can look unlikely but are pretty repeatable once sussed. Pete's, in comparison, are often more basic.
I have, I think, one problem Pete can't touch and a few he struggles on. He has probably dozens I can't touch. OK, so not exactly a controlled experiment (not least because Pete's technique is as good as he is strong) but it does at least call into question Bonjoys hypotheticals.
If there are strong underacheivers then I'm probably your classic type who believes he can take refuge in good technique and not try and get stronger.
Andy, by your own admission you are swapping one bad habit for another. As an alternative to deliberately using bad technique I think the smart thing to do would be to concentrate on trying to repeat each other’s problems for a while rather than creating more of your own. This would work your respective weaknesses without having to resort to deliberate bad form. I’m not suggesting people don’t work their weaknesses; I’m just questioning the idea that deliberate bad form is a smart way to do this.
To be clear, by underachiever in this context I’m specifically meaning climbers who’s level of strength is high relative to the level they climb at. By this definition are you really a classic under achiever?
I think suggesting Malc is an underachiever is perhaps a bit harsh. Maybe he didn't reach his potential but he did disappear from climbing before every stagnating. I can think of a few things he's climbed that haven't seen any/many repeats. Maybe his sequences are inefficient but if he's the only one sat on top of the boulder then he's got something right.
Paul you are being disingenuous. You just said yourself he didn’t achieve his potential, is this not the very definition of underachievement? As you well know, I’m not suggesting he was (is) not a brilliant climber among the best in the world at his peak. Of course he ‘did something right’, but does this mean his approach is a flawless paradigm to follow? If you want to be a beast for it’s own sake then it probably is, but if you want to climb as hard as your own physical frame will allow then I think the approach is flawed. It’s the difference between admiration and hero worship.
-
yes agreed, I don't think I would say Malc was an underachiever.
As stated before some people aren't as naturally talented as others and the only way they can make up for it is by getting mutantly strong
-
Technique can be learned you know. Its not all genetic.
-
so when i keith going to learn to top out then? ;D
-
Jon, you're absolutely right, that was a deliberate (if not explicit) form of admission from me - one provoked by this thread. We do try each others problems but I know there are some I avoid, either completely or when I get shut down quickly. That is a weakness.
Yes, I wasn't clear, I meant that in contrast to the classic strong underacheiver I perhaps exemplify another type.
I've always thought the concept of realizable potential a tricky one. We have a tendency to reduce it to its physical components (esp strength) but in reality its a much more complex bundle. In some senses, ignoring purely external contingencies, we all realize our potential as it (should) also include our psychological ability to apply ourselves fully. The whole idea is pretty tautological and not very useful.
-
Technique can be learned you know. Its not all genetic.
There are two components to technique (I think)...
a) Having the required range of movement to place fingers/hands/feet in the correct position.
b) Being able to read moves (quickly) and see what works.
Genetics is only involved in a) and can be modified by the environment (viz. yoga etc.), whilst b) is all learnt, although some people are capable reading and seeing what works faster than others when they first start climbing, but I very much doubt this is down to a true genetic aspect, more likely ascribable to better kinaesthetics from other experiences.
-
I'm with Bonjoy on this.
I have nothing but admiration for Malc, especially the way he has repeatedly trained specifically for projects, then gone out and crushed them, however I agree he isn't the role model I would follow to maximise my own physical potential......
Many have followed his lead and got insanely strong at places like the School and gone on to achieve nothing or very little in relation to their own relative level of strength, where it matters......on the Routes/Blocs!!
The Application of this new found strength seems to be what many people actually struggle to achieve (essentially realising their perceived potential), which you will only achieve by climbing on rock, which at some point will require you (and even Malc) to be 'Gay' (is this new school-street-talk for 'Efficiency'?) and drop a knee/match etc.....
Comparing Malc and Steve is like comparing two extremes on a very long spectrum of climbing style and physique......I know which one i'm nearer to, but it doesn't mean I can't learn from both......
I love getting burnt off at the wall by people before returning the compliment where it matters! :)
-
Paul you are being disingenuous. You just said yourself he didn’t achieve his potential, is this not the very definition of underachievement?
What I was trying to suggest was that he stopped climbing (or appeared to) before he came anywhere close to a plateau. Underachiever has some rather negative undertones and I feel its pretty unfair to label anybody who achieved what Malc did with that title.
Of course he ‘did something right’, but does this mean his approach is a flawless paradigm to follow?
Has anyone truly suggested that people follow that pro-tips solely and without any deviation, everyone knows the phrase work your weaknesses. If you're not powerful listen to Malc, if you're sh*t with your feet go to a Dawes workshop? The question was will staying open etc. lead to you always climbing that way.
I don't think anyone would advocate going and climbing on a board from Day 1, that breeds the inefficient overly strong gollum creatures that Jon, NCB are talking about (and I've had to learn that the hard way). But look at people like JB (yes I know you climb for enjoyment), is the reverse not true?
-
Technique can be learned you know. Its not all genetic.
There are two components to technique (I think)...
a) Having the required range of movement to place fingers/hands/feet in the correct position.
b) Being able to read moves (quickly) and see what works.
I think there is at least a c) as well which is body wiring / synchronisation / co-ordination aspect as well which other some people seem to be pre-disposed to ie gifted , natural climbers who probably take it for granted.
-
Which I think is best developed climbing well within your grade on rock. Unfortunately folk desperate to improve tend to concentrate on climbing beyond their grade indoors.
-
Great thread.
As I understand it front-on non-twisty 'open position' is how a system board should be climbed, attempting to do reps of the same grip position/movement in order to build strength for that specific type of hold.
This makes sense in terms of targetting your weakness - i.e. if you can narrow it down to being weak at undercuts or pinches or crimps or whatever.
The idea of generally climbing problems open or front on in order to get stronger sounds a bit more dubious. What is it specifically targetting? I guess as Malc says keeping your feet on then it's training your core to stick footholds when stretched out in a front on position? Probs not training your finger strength though any more than doing it with good technique.
I guess training front on for this specific strength could be useful as a component of strength training, but I'd have thought it wouldn't be useful to prioritize it for too long.
Personally I think it's really hard to identify when I fail on problems through sheer lack of strength or through not climbing it with optimal technique/balance. I'm guessing this becomes more evident at more beastly levels.
-
Which I think is best developed climbing well within your grade on rock. Unfortunately folk desperate to improve tend to concentrate on climbing beyond their grade indoors.
Absolutely agree. That doesn't mean however that training in whatever shape or form doesn't have a place and that anything you learn on rock will be instantly forgotten should you force yourself to lock a move indoors.
-
Surely the point with climbing front on and open is that you use a lot of strength in your shoulders. If like me you are weaker in the arms, fingers and core, you need to work on side on twisty cross through moves, rather than relying on the shoulders all the time...
Paul B. I have just read the Macleod book. It's worth £15 but no more without any diagrams or pictures and overall having been edited by his mum! The gist of the book is that to get better you need to work not on getting strong, but on technique, targeting weaknesses, removing your fear (of falling) so that you stay relaxed and climb efficiently. And what you can do in terms of lifestyle to optimise you time. He does mention a lot that a coach (presumably one based in Scotland) can be helpful ;)
-
climber B meanwhile develops a hunchback and is Leo Moger.
There's not a man amongst us who doesn't respect The Moger!
-
a coach that costs £250 for 4 hours!
Poor Malc. I think he's getting a hard time here...
If you watch his pro-tips thingy he states that he realised he was weak on open moves so specifically trained it. As I said previously you should attempt to train all aspects of your climbing whilst training (including technique and as JB points out this is probably best done below your hardest level as the cerebration required to concentrate on the moves means you can't perform at such a high level, however it is probably easier to do this outside than at the wall).
Problems should be both front on and twisting.
As Malc says sometimes you can't hide from climbing front on, and consequently that shoulder strength needs to be developed in training.
Of course you'd want to be like Malc not steve he's weak!
-
Of course you'd want to be like Malc not steve he's weak!
you're already half way there beef.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v668/auciker/Smileys/tsg_smiley_muscle.gif)
-
...I haven't read all of the posts on this thread, but it seems that most people are in agreement - there are lots of aspects to training and climbing, and identification of personal weaknesses/needs to achieve goals, is vital to goal accomplishment.
However, the original question is whether training 'open' will inherently lead to climbing with poor technique. In other sports, breaking down of a technique into its component parts, and working specifically on them is integral to training. If a sprinter practices starts, are they likely to get in a race situation and pull up after the first 10 metres? Powelifters doubtless train employing 'form', providing strength, that then is used in a highly technical clean & jerk manoeuvre.
-
When comparing sports training with climbing remember that most of those sports well covered by sports science are essentially SIMPLE in comparison. A sprinter has relatively little technique component to risk losing, powerlifters again use little technique as they are doing the same movement only hoping to achieve greater outputs of force and greater economy of movement.
Sprinters, swimmers, weightlifters don't have to figure out the most economical way of doing a new variant on a lift/sprint each time they compete or practice. The "highly technical clean and jerk", is not so complex a movement when compared to gymnastic movements or judo skills against a live partner. Applying a physical knowledge (engram) with strength on the fly in new situations is more common in fighting sports, kayaking, climbing and few others?
I think lovejoy is spot on. Time spent doing a move an inefficient way is time spent wiring your motor skills up the wrong way.
-
will someone please explain, why is open (not always open just open) the WRONG way? There are moves that require it.
-
Nobody is saying that Paul. And watch out for GAY's who come along and use drop knees on those moves who didn't know that it could only be done STRAIGHT on.
Says me with neither strength nor technique x
-
but you nearly look as much like malc as foley so it doesn't really matter.
-
Foley looks nothing like Malc. He looks like Fred Nicole.
I've never denied training will make you stronger. What consistently puzzles me is those who profess to take training seriously only ever train strength, usually indoors and usually in bizarre ways (open, no thumbs etc). Training technique will leads to faster gains and better results long term, but no one does it, it never even gets discussed.
-
will someone please explain, why is open (not always open just open) the WRONG way? There are moves that require it.
Exactly. Some moves on probs it’s the best/easiest way, some moves it isn’t. Hence no need to force bad technique when it is not the easiest way. The idea a climber can render all power problems easy by using drop knees is nonsense BTW. Simply train on a wide range of problems, including things which you feel don’t suite you, do them all using most efficient technique. By doing this you will work the full range of movements AND hardwire the key skill of instantly identifying which way is easiest in any given situation. Change the problems you are trying rather than changing the way you are trying the problems, it’s as simple as that!
JB - I think one of the reasons the training of technique is not discussed much is because it is nigh on impossible to train this on the current generation of climbing walls. It’s is much more effective to do as you say, climb lots within your grade outside, but generally the people who do that think of it more as climbing than training and hence don’t discuss it in those terms. It’d be nice if some day walls/setting got subtle enough to be of some benefit on for hard technical climbing.
-
I'm not convinced its a simple as that. The Works certainly seem to create some fairly technical challenges.
There are some problems though - what doesn't seem to be possible indoors is proper smearing or small footholds. Flat paint or tiny polished nubbins are all you get. Similarly early walls worked hard to make holds inset, now they seem to be resigned to make everything a chickenhead. That does make egyptians a powerful tool indoors though, which is an argument for limiting their use I suppose...
I'm quite sure technique can be trained well indoors, by applying such tools as: a 2-3 go rule, making flow the goal rather than the top, repeating moves until effortless (especially knack moves), using strength as little as possible, preferring dynamic to static etc etc.
To get back to why technique is ignored, I think the problem is those with 'the training gene' are predisposed to obsess over measurable progress.
To make repeatable yardsticks you have to reduce down to simple components - far easier to do with strength training, but only possible with technique much more vaguely, and over longer periods. The more reduced the movements become the less related to climbing and the closer to weightlifting.
Then they go climbing outside, find the measured strength gain allows some progress but not what they'd hoped, assume they need to train harder, apply feedback loop, result donkey.
-
The problem with technical stuff indoors is that more often than not, for me at least, the limiting factor is the fear of either kneecapping myself on a selection of ill-positioned jugs or removing most of the skin off my shin on a plywood edge, rather than actual technique. I think even walls like the works are not great for techniquey stuff. the techy stuff was a novelty at first but I don't bother with it these days.
The only place I've climbed indoors with some geninely techy challeneges (albeit at a fairly low grade, and piss once you had them wired) was the berghaus wall in newcastle. old-school moulded bencrete type. The problem with this kind of wall is its fixed, so to build a facility that had the popularity/amount of climbing of say the climbing works you'd need a floor space the size of earls court.
So basically you can only train technique outdoors, which means you can't really train it on winter evenings, or when its too hot for grit. So basically if you're holding down a 9-5 job you don't have much chance. Hence people train strenght because they can. Plus a lot of "technique" for a lot of people can come down to simply trusting smears, which is something you can almost learn rather than train.
-
I think people are working with an old-fashioned view of technique here, e.g. slabby, smearing, aretes, thin walls etc.
Watching videos of the Woods, Robinson, Landman etc. generation I'm constantly struck by how differently (and well) they climb, using the whole body and a huge repetoire of techniques (compression, all kinds of hooks, bicycling etc.) to use very poor holds to cross very steep ground. For someone who's been climbing for a very long time its clear they climb in ways unimagineable even relatively recently. This sort of technique is patently trainable on boards.
-
agreed, all rock types have different types and styles of climbing on them, technique for say grit, is totally different to lime and to granite and sandstone etc... and very different to plastic and they are all different from each. Point is, trying to train technique on plastic is only good for.... climbing on plastic, that is why I would be only be intrested in training for strength and pulling on small holds If I climbed indoors often enough to call it training (if this snow carries on then I may have to)
-
Then they go climbing outside, find the measured strength gain allows some progress but not what they'd hoped, assume they need to train harder, apply feedback loop, result donkey.
adam, you are an excellent climber and i have the highest respect for your climbing achievements, but in some occasions you really seem a bit aggressive. like the parisella's topic or this case.
whether i am the first to know that power gains don't directly apply to climbing gains, i don't understand why you want to generalize and make the equation that i quoted.
it depends ot the type of climbing for example. clearly my training routines will be useless to climb duel, but they helped me quite a bit to tore cresciano to pieces.
that said, i want you to coach me on brad pit when i come north.
-
I agree with Andy. Improving your technique is all about how you climb not what you climb.
Any aggression unintended Nibs. Just trying to help those most bothered about improving actually acheive it.
Though anyone contemplating the cave in our current weather needs a fucking brain transplant. ;)
-
yes, probably "aggressive" wasn't the exact word (me no hablo inglich), but you got the meaning i'm sure.
-
I agree Andy. I also think people tend to talk about technique like it's some mystical art that you attain by contemplating your navel for six years in a trance state. It isn't, it's just physics (working out what is going to be the most efficient method of movement) and proprioception (having the awareness to move your body in that way).
You can successfully work technique indoors in my opinion, but I accept that I may be in the minority with that view.
-
As saltbeef said above Malc says he had small boards in the past and got good at doing smaller moves off minging crimps but felt big moves were his weakness so decided to train that. You can do big moves and drop knee but as you are using good technique the moves will be bigger and you will fly past the top of your board and hit the ceiling (at least on my board)!
My weakness is crimping, so on my new board I plan to climb crimp/semi crimp a lot. Most of the holds I am stronger on open handed but plan to crimp them to built up that area of strength which will then lead to me climbing Mutation and not even finding it hard but hopefully still being able to drag stuff and also not have injured fingers. I am not going to try to crimp my way up the Ace as I know I have a better chance of doing it by dragging.
I find when I am climbing outside I really work on my technique (ie I try to get up the problems) but don't find it such a good way to train power, the board is the best place to focus more on the basic skills but not forgett about technique completely.
I would like to point out I know fuck all about training, and will never write a book about it.
-
Stick to dragging holds Ben, it looks better and you seem to burn us all off while our knuckles are white
-
I think people are working with an old-fashioned view of technique here, e.g. slabby, smearing, aretes, thin walls etc.
Watching videos of the Woods, Robinson, Landman etc. generation I'm constantly struck by how differently (and well) they climb, using the whole body and a huge repetoire of techniques (compression, all kinds of hooks, bicycling etc.) to use very poor holds to cross very steep ground. For someone who's been climbing for a very long time its clear they climb in ways unimagineable even relatively recently. This sort of technique is patently trainable on boards.
This is totally true, but a lot of this is steep rock technique and not that applicable to most of the routes and bouldering we have locally available in this country. I doubt Switzerland has as many climbers honed for UK bouldering as we have climbers honed for Swiss bouldering. It's a bit crazy when you have to travel half way accross europe to apply the techniques you've aquired at the local wall. Obviously I know this a big generalisation.
-
i haven't climbed on the grit for prob 2 years, the limestone a lot longer. why? i work for the man, the man in this case being the bee, the job takes it out of you etc. so i go to the wall, where i don't have to rush to climb while its still light, i can drink coffee etc to get warm since i've been outside all day. the other important reason being i no longer get the jollies going to burbage north refining my footwork for the nth time. my priority has now shifted to training for going abroad to places i like to climb, this is now the thing in which i get my jollies
-
It's a bit crazy when you have to travel half way accross europe to apply the techniques you've aquired at the local wall. Obviously I know this a big generalisation.
Its bad enough having to travel half way across the peak.