UKBouldering.com
the shizzle => bouldering => Topic started by: Andy Harris on July 09, 2008, 04:05:58 pm
-
How come young kids are taking down such big numbers?
This is something that's been on my mind for a while and I've finally decided to put pen to paper and start a debate. This covers a big area so I want to limit the scope of the discussion to bouldering and specifically young guys (easy!).
The facts:
Young guys are now taking down some awfully big Nos.
Up until 5 years ago the strongest boulders were almost certainly in late 20's to late 30's.
Check out 8a. nu, particularly the American bit and the amount of guys ticking 8b & above born late 80's early 90's is huge. Interestingly in the UK it's almost a reverse.
Generally these guys are pretty skinny and not fully developed.
Back in the day Ben Bransby climbing E2 aged 10 was big news!!
Why is it so?
I don't think this can be limited to 1 or 2 things but more that it's multi-factorial. In my opinion though I'm sure some things have a greater weighting.
Most people of my age or older didn't start climbing until 18 (basically until joining uni) or maybe 16 if in the scouts.
Clearly training facilities and knowledge are much better now.
By the time they get to 18 some kids have been climbing for 15 years (eg. Sharma).
By climbing from an early age and particularly indoors you develop a sense of movement that is much more efficient & quick. eg. I tackle a problem a move at a time whereas I see young guys slap there way up stuff in a kind of kartwheel motion (eg. Ondra).
Clearly there are so many more people bouldering these days that many are at the upper end of the normal distribution curve.
There is less of an issue these days of believing you could never be as good as the top guys of the time as there are so many more people there. eg. I could never be as good as Ben Moon because he's so much stronger than me.
Regular / cheap travel is now the norm and people can climb all year round.
Steep climbing is good at developing power and now found anywhere.
Comps are everywhere.
Why am I surprised at this phenomenon
Young guys are pretty much at the top in the sport which is not so in other sports (except female gymnastics).
These guys are skinny and have v.little muscle and if put in gym would have little power (even relative to there weight) vs older guys.
This is totally in contrast to 10+ years ago.
Some Q's
Is there some bias to weight in the power to weight equation you don't see in for eg. cars.
By training young do you get abnormally strong fingers so even if you have little power you can apply it.
I think that's enough. let the debate begin and maybe I'll try and summarise the ensuing feedback.
-
I think the younger generation is benefiting from years of trial and error in terms of training that has come from older generations look around now or drop a thread on an internet forum like this and info is everywhere and its all good stuff. Ten years ago how would you go about getting into training? hang out at the local wall till somone noticed you and took you under their wing maybe?
this is just one factor i think of at the moment
-
Yes that is interesting Andy, but the real question which should be asked is have they reached a natural limit at an early age from which they cannot improve because body shape and muscle mass change as you get older, as with gymnasts. Or will they continue to develop and get even better and stronger. I suspect that everyone has a natural ceiling from where it is difficult to move forward without a lot of training. All these guys have done is accelarted the process of reaching this limit.
-
It is not just the boys.
15 year old girl, Flannery training in a very focussed way. Is this type of conditioning common amongst the young US boulderers?
Do our junior teams do anything of this sort?
http://www.momentumvm.com/cms/?initVidURL=150 (http://www.momentumvm.com/cms/?initVidURL=150)
-
Yeah, I see it the same way. It's the same as Gymnastics, young 'uns are light and flexible and hence make for good climbers. It's not about muscle mass, it's like comparing your average Raven Tor climber to some body builder. The body builder will be miles stronger, but the climber will be lighter and bendier.
-
Some of this stuff is dynamite Andy
I tackle a problem a move at a time whereas I see young guys slap there way up stuff in a kind of kartwheel motion (eg. Ondra).
Its actually a pretty small area of the sport these youths are excelling at - steep with small holds. I think its fair to say they are not generally good all-round climbers.
Why?
Because this stuff is getting more and more body specific, just like female gymnastics. At that age you learn quick, are generally scrawny and don't get injured.
Because walls mean you can see and try hard stuff straight away. Plus its very safe, would your static steez have evolved in such an environment? Flamboyant works. Hang around regularly and you're going to get to see good climbers too.
The internet is makes it much easier to learn what the top level is, who is doing it and where to test yourself.
-
Interesting question.
Whilst probably not a dominating factor I'd suggest that starting at an early age means they're building on a better postural frame compared to an 18 yr old. This is reflected in the cartwheeling effect that I saw as representing very good core strength coupled with flexibility.
Andy Earl climbs with a similar style, no?
-
Its actually a pretty small area of the sport these youths are excelling at - steep with small holds. I think its fair to say they are not generally good all-round climbers.
I think that's inaccurate.
-
i agree with johnny on this one, something i haven't done for ages. it is a comparatively small area in which they excel, mostly overhanging on tiny holds type rock. you've been to hueco andy, you know the kind of stuff i mean. when fatboy came back from there years ago he said he was too heavy for the rock, splitting skin all the time. you compare this with tyler, who has no body mass to speak of it's just not a level playing field. the only reason i'm comparing the two is because i know them. referring to the states, most of the places i've been are just an outdoor wall, if they're not you don't see many young bucks there. i also agree with the comments on dynamic climbing, i couldn't climb dynamically if i wanted to. then there's the finger strength and body awareness issue which young climbers all seem to have in spades. plus maybe the old bendcrete walls lulled us older mob into crimping things to death, whereas now i'm not really sure that many young climbers actually do crimp. they're just really really strong open-handed which is allegedly a good place to be.
the other thing is young climbers love the net and 8a.nearlysixteen. when we were in hueco we looked at 8a every night and laughed at the grades that people had been taking for various problems. granted we were doing smaller numbers, but it was still bitchy and funny. i'm obviously not talking about the elite here but the majority
-
i don't think that's inaccurate at all. how many young guys have climbed hard slabs? please don't mention lacrima, ok i'll give you luc le denmat but not many others. i know there are exceptions but these young gifted guys can't turn their hand to everything. what they excel at they do excel but that's not all types of climbing, not yet anyway
-
Is this debate refine completely to bouldering?
I can't answer to who has climbed which slabs but I can point out that lot of climbers have proved themselves at different styles and at different venues. Ondra is the best example I can think of.
A more British example, Keen youth hasn't exactly done badly at being an all rounder.
-
keen youth is an old man now ;)
-
I like the bit on The Fanatic Search where Edu, Dani et al are watching Ondra climbing and just bitching about him. You can see they're jealous, I think we all are (well I am atleast), it's easy to say that they just have budgie claws for fingers and twig legs but when all is said and done they're also really motivated and well trained.
But yeah, they can only climb steep stuff and they'll all be crap when they find beer and girls........blah, blah...
-
they'll all be crap when they find beer and girls........blah, blah...
Hasn't stopped master Landman yet! ;)
-
Is this debate refine completely to bouldering?
Judging by the OP being mainly about sport climbing, and then E2 being mentioned, I assumed it was the sport in general. When I said 'all-rounder' I didn't mean doing the odd slab problem ffs.
The Nose record has just been broken by two guys who are both old enough to be Ondra's dad.
James is a great climber but in typical peak style - bouldering and grit. I think to be an all-rounder you need to be considering bouldering, sport, trad headpointing, trad single and multi pitch onsighting, including big wall, plus some winter/ alpine pedigree.
-
Get a grip people. Andy asks why kids are cranking so hard, and the response is "yeah, well, it's only hard cranking they are good at."
:lol:
-
Is this debate refine completely to bouldering?
Judging by the OP being mainly about sport climbing, and then E2 being mentioned, I assumed it was the sport in general. When I said 'all-rounder' I didn't mean doing the odd slab problem ffs.
I was just pointing out Dense being wrong. Ok so they can't tick Adam's all rounder boxes (who could by the age of 20?) but I think its blinkered to think that the young guns just go around picking out 50 deg slapping crimp lines or the steepest of the steep sport lines.
I agree with R-man.
-
What I mean is I had a ten year trad apprenticeship before encountering bouldering. These guys are walking into steep, crimpy, padded playrooms aged 12. We are seeing the fruits of these facilities being available now.
-
Adam,
I think you are right in that many of us had a more rounded introduction to climbing than these young guns, and perhaps right in a general sense about them not being all-round climbers. Some of them, especially Ondra, are exceptional all-round climbers; even at their tender age they have done hard, slabby, multi-pitch sport routes which are spicier than a lot of british "trad" climbing. In the immortal words of Winston Zeddemore - Adam has done some shit that would turn you white.
-
I sort of agree with everyone?! :-\
I think that in most cases JB is spot on however, Ondra is different class and is excelling at every facet of the sport that he turns his hand to. Landman too is pretty fucking bold from what I've seen and (with the power endurance he's shown on some link up problems) I can't see him having any problems transferring his talents to other types of climbing.
To answer Andy's original point I do think that starting climbing younger makes a HUGE difference and that starting to train properly (or even just boulder all the time) from an early age makes an even bigger one.
Nobody used to do this, they do now. Hence people are climbing harder younger.
-
starting to train properly (or even just boulder all the time) from an early age makes an even bigger one.
I started at 14 and I'm shit so I think the training properly thing is the key
-
But then again, didn't Jerry reckon he was the best climber in the world aged 19? And not just from the perspective of his massive ego?
-
I started at 14 and I'm shit so I think the training properly thing is the key
14 is too old Luc but you're right.
I started at 10 but just climbed (mainly easy routes) til I was about 14 when I complimented it with messing about on an Entreprise fingerboard when I couldn't get out anywhere. I did boulder a bit and then started going to Mile End once or twice a week when I was about 16 but I never "trained". Even when I moved to Sheffield, training was just climbing on a board or at The Foundry. Nothing was structured and nobody really knew what they were doing. Everything is very different now!
But then again, didn't Jerry reckon he was the best climber in the world aged 19? And not just from the perspective of his massive ego?
However good Jerry was or thought he was at 19 he got a lot better as he got older.
-
I think if you start talking Ondra, Tyler, P Robinson, D Woods then most arguments will fail here. These guys are at the very top of the sport. But there are loads of 2nd tier whippersnappers (don't ask for names, don't have 'em) strolling 8b things all over these days, but all at Hueco, RMNP, Swizzyland. I bet a lot would struggle in the forest. That's why non of them go to Font. Not steep enough, too much technique required.
-
You also have to consider that unless you are putting up new problems or routes you can only climb as hard as what is out there. Hence climbers can now have a go and aspire to problems and routes in the 8c - 9a+ range, whereas when I started climbing it was a big deal when Jerry came back and completed powerband! I do not believe I am stronger now than I was 10 years ago yet I fimrly believe I will complete Bigger Belly at 8a+/8b before the end of the year so how doeas that work? It works because I probably had the capacity to climb this problem 10 years ago but the problem did not exist then! So I revert to my original argument which is that the young climbers are only accelerating the process of reaching their natural maximum capacity beyond which it is very dificult to move forward. The only difference between Ondra and next guy is that his maximum capacity is much higher, it will be interesting to see if his capacity increases much beyond the point he has now reached or if he will indeed now start to plateau out and only go up another 2 grades or so - only time will tell.
-
From my limited perspective I think the difference in today's yoofs mainly resides in their quality of movement. And this, I suspect, is largely due to the prevalence of steep, crimpy indoor walls that have offered parents a means of keeping their spawn occupied from an early age. I see spry shorties who have started young and, because they cannot reach the crimps, have been forced to develop a disproportionate amount of kinaesthetic skill and contact strength to climb even the lower grades. Even the more modestly talented seem to climb in a kind of coordinated fury - doing to the wall what the young Mike Tyson did to heads.
My own feeling is that this learned willingness to climb at the edge of control is what's resulting in the big numbers. With enough training and the right genes you can get pretty strong relatively late in life. In contrast, I reckon that the movement aspect needs early adoption before fear and habit hardwire you.
I know I can get stronger... I also know that, try as I might, I will always be 70 kg of slowly moving, static interference....
-
I recon kids today are just taller than they used to be, and are just lanking through the hard moves.
-
No. That's just you dave.
-
I reckon it's also a focus of youthful energy that helps. If I had focussed my time spent as a youth playing with star wars toys, sniffing airfix glue while sticking bit of plastic to my fingers and getting bored of scouts, who knows what I may have achieved? I may have climbed 7a or harder by now!
As mentioned previously, by the time most of us discovered climbing at uni we had been drinking for at least two years already, and were focussing energy on getting laid.
-
Walls. They're introducing more young climbers to the sport. Most of your improvement comes when you've just started climbing and the demographic of climbers is changing. I wonder how many of these big sends and young men are down to more examples appearing at the top end of the ability distribution curve. A certain amount of progress is inevitable, especially in a young sport. but the point being it's theyoung rahter than the old who are pushing the boundares? It's embarassing isn't it, that this new cohort's come along and demonstrated that actually, for all we have carped on and think we know and have learned, there's actually not a right lot to it.
I'd far rather believe it's all about cartwheels and climbing really well and go away and watch some videos of Ondra on youtube.
-
If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_Giants)
-
Spending more time hanging on your finger and swinging around like an ape at a younger age is just one of the reasons for this increase in ability. Team that with indoor walls and being a second/third generation climber (think Vickers/Parry/Smith etc etc) and a larger number of hard problems to throw yourself at and no wonder they are climbing harder than before.
Likewise I started climbing when I was young but spent years doing trad and not really pulling hard when it counted. I'm not sure the young guns are just sticking to board like climbing, there are a fair few pushing the trad at the moment. Most of the popular areas to go bouldering (apart from Font) have board like qualities, Swiss, Hueco, Auz. If climbing choss was in vogue I'm sure that they would excel at that too.
What will be interesting, as Trav mention, is at what point the increase in grades will start to plateau as we reach human potential. Personally I think we are years away from this as we are such a young sport (look I said sport!) Maybe climbing will break down into smaller specialisms and the cross over will be harder to make for the top end.......
-
Maybe climbing will break down into smaller specialisms and the cross over will be harder to make for the top end.......
This has been well in progress for the last ten years.
-
Last night I was down the wall and I got dusted by some lad who was probably about 13 or 14. We got chatting and it turns out he'd never climbed outside therefore there was nothing to hinder him getting strong fingers whereas in the past even those who started climbing at a young age probably wasted the first few years top roping trad, getting scared on VSs and going walking and even winter climbing and the alps. in the past by the time you settled doewn to get strong you'd missed the prime time for developing finger strength. I'd guess that it is easier to go from being a strong boulderer to good all round climber than it is the other way around.
The other thing to consider is that there has been an exponential growth in the number of kids climbing so there will be a larger number of good young climbers.
-
Word.
It's down what your goals are too. Remember, bouldering for bouldering's sake (let alone training for bouldering) is a relatively new thing. It was always seen as a form of training for doing routes so kids starting out would never just boulder for the first few years (which is the best way of developing the relevant strengths at that age). It would have been like not doing the sport properly when I was a kid, unheard of. And as for just climbing indoors.....
-
Walls. They're introducing more young climbers to the sport. Most of your improvement comes when you've just started climbing and the demographic of climbers is changing. I wonder how many of these big sends and young men are down to more examples appearing at the top end of the ability distribution curve.
Actually this is the second generation that has ready access to walls. I think it's more decent walls (especially for bouldering), combined with applying the knowledge learned by the first generation of regular wall users.
-
theres a lot ot be said for a traditional aprenticeship into climbing. since we've only just started to see young 'uns start by just bouldering indoors its yet to be seen if people with that introduction are still climbing in 20 years time, and if they enjoyed it. if you start young you could well reach close to your plateau at 17 and then chase diminishing returns for the next 30 years, but without the trad apprenticeship it'll be harder to switch to another discipline for a change without that background, you're basically starting again from scratch.
you may well have people who explode onto the scene and tick big numbers then disappear, but its the likes of ron, jerry, sellars, pritchard, dawes, myles etc that really capture the imagination and go down in history as great climbers as they were at it for years and mixed it up a bit.
-
... some lad who was probably about 13 or 14. We got chatting and it turns out he'd never climbed outside...
Its great being at the top of a particular game and often this requires dedication from a young age, but isn't it often to the detriment of actually having a childhood.
I used to do trampolining when I was younger, I was never very good, but it was fun (although the school team I was part of won the national championships, not that hard though). But the elite at the club were there every day, day in, day out and didn't seem to have much of a life outside of training, and I'm sure that theres a good proportion of the current young guns who don't do much else other than climb.
Its a shame this lad's not been outside climbing, going outdoors fosters a great appreciation for the countryside and the beauty of nature that results in a greater respect for the environment in which we live. Thats not to say that he doesn't get out there, just that he hasn't climbed whilst out there, but why not combine the two?
There's also the potential problem of how such intensive training is going to affect young bodies that are still developing and are going through some quite drastic changes. Its :shrug: guess as to what long-term effects it may have on joints and tendons.
A further question ir raises of how much influence the parents have over some kids activities (not all, but some). I remember seeing the film of Cicada Jeneril (http://zerogravityclimbing.com/team/cicada_j.html) in Return2Sender climbing Lowrider V10 at the age of 10 and it didn't look like she was enjoying some of the training in the gym (sorry can't find it on YouTube to link).
I'll no doubt get :spank: for having such a blinkered view, and I guess it comes down to whether your ultra-competitive and want to be the best in the world, but its a very small rostrum up there and the world is a big place.
-
decent walls.
Decent Walls then. Then as above.
-
The first generation of walls turned out static crimpers like Jasper and Arthur, able to steel their way up any brick wall with the odd bit of mortar chiselled out.
-
:lol:
-
The first generation of walls turned out static crimpers like Jasper and Arthur, able to steel their way up any brick wall with the odd bit of mortar chiselled out.
and the second generation of walls turned out climbers like Banks, who can rockover their way up any 30degree territory, and also a dab hand a dynoing to horizontal scaffolding bars.
-
Don't quite agree with that Adam, we made what we could of the walls which were available. Sure the first wall I really trained on was Sobell and whilst that will probably be best remembered for its infamous brick edge traverse there were also a number of horrendous dynos, one finger pocket pulls over overhangs and some truly terrifying climbing at the top of the nasty plastic main wall. Some of the dynos involved leaping of banister railings to latch opposing sidepulls as if you were trying to open up an elevator with your feet smearing on the wall. In addition some the dynos we had on the campus buildings at Imperial would be worthy of the main wall at The Works. The only thing we really lacked were systems and campus boards which are obviously unbeatable in building campus strength, but not necessarily finger or lock strength.
-
theres a lot ot be said for a traditional aprenticeship into climbing.
:agree:
without it I think a lot of people skip over being educated as to what is and isn't acceptable.
There's no reason why the two can't be combined though?
-
It was meant as a flippant summary Neil, not a comprehensive statement. I'm from that generation too, went to Altrincham wall mainly, and did a lot of dynos too. Either the early walls lent themselves to leaping about, or what else they had to offer rapidly became boring. I certainly found them a poor substitute, and as soon as I could moved somewhere where I wouldn't need to use them.
-
Ah that's interesting Adam, because reading between the lines, what you're saying is that you didn't use the wall as a training aid to increase power or improve technique but as a substitute for what you couldn't participate in which was climbing outdoors. Perhaps this is the main difference between our generation and the current one which is the wall is no longer a substitute but a complement which can provide improvement when used correctly?
-
Or not even a complement but a substitute for some as Teaboy highlighted.
-
Yeah, I think for the current yowths the wall is far more than just a substitute or a complement, its an end in itself. An improvement even. There are many very good climbers in London who aren't interested in climbing outdoors at all. Look at Gabi, spent a grit season in Sheffield but moved back to London because she felt she could do more climbing there. That was before The Works opened admittedly.
-
Well for pure competition climbers sure but these are still few and far between. The top bods like Tyler are still outdoor focused and I'm sure this will remain the norm unless of course competition climbing starts to become a big buck sport and with it starring in the olympics in 4/8 years time who knows?
-
I've met a few lads down The Works who have said they prefer it there to climbing outside. Now if they'd only been somewhere shit outside then I could almost understand the attitude (although they will surely have seen magazines etc :shrug: ) but one had just come back from Font!! :spank: :wall:
I don't get it. Unless your only goal is competing then what's the goal you're working towards by only climbing indoors? I suppose taking the training v technique argument full circle there are now people who enjoy climbing on walls to the point where it doesn't matter that they aren't actually ever going to tick anything, they're having fun?
-
one had just come back from Font!! :spank: :wall:
...and had probably had a good :spank: out there as he had no experience :lol:
-
I guess you could almost apply the analogy ( is that how you spell it? ) of cyclists going down the velodrome to train for pursuit competitions on the track with no intention of ever doing any road racing and god forbid entering The Tour. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this and as long as they enjoy themselves I wish them well.
-
but one had just come back from Font!! :spank: :wall:
uote]
Very odd that ..... :-\ .... Since coming back from Font I've found it nye on impossible to go and climb indoors again ....
-
Not that suprising, font is one place guaranteed to give wall-trained boys a kicking. No one enjoys being humiliated. I wonder if they thought they needed to go away and train before returning?
-
what's the goal you're working towards by only climbing indoors?
Just general improvement, same as outdoors? I think you can just get a bit psyched for it if you do it a lot, looking forward to the next batch of problems being set etc. And if they get good at it and improve, and they enjoy indoors even more, same as anything. The catch is you've only got so much psyche, and not many of us are psyched for getting burnt off by JB or anyone else at the plantation. There's only so many times you can tell yourself `it's OK, they live there, have doen for years'. outdoors requirs a bitof patince to get the conditions and aprnters, bwhere as indoors you've got a instant fix.
-
Very odd that ..... :-\ .... Since coming back from Font I've found it nye on impossible to go and climb indoors again ....
Thats 'cause everyone's out partying on the 31st December :P
nigh
-
Good point Paz, I ain't working towards anything. I just like moving on rock, that's all.
-
Not that suprising, font is one place guaranteed to give wall-trained boys a kicking. No one enjoys being humiliated. I wonder if they thought they needed to go away and train before returning?
That's pretty much what I thought.
-
:lol: Legend!
-
Very odd that ..... :-\ .... Since coming back from Font I've found it nye on impossible to go and climb indoors again ....
Thats 'cause everyone's out partying on the 31st December :P
nigh
Eh ? Mine brain died last night ..... Can someone please explain the above to me ?
-
Very odd that ..... :-\ .... Since coming back from Font I've found it nye on impossible to go and climb indoors again ....
Thats 'cause everyone's out partying on the 31st December :P
nigh
Eh ? Mine brain died last night ..... Can someone please explain the above to me ?
NYE = New Years Eve, you meant "nigh"
-
Ah right ... Cheers Lagers ..... Must remember to use spellcheck when my head is this scrambled ..... :spank:
-
If I learnt one thing from sensei Mosely, it was that to progress forward I needed to step back, stop training and go climbing. And, as a result I have probably had the best year of acheivement since I started (16 years).
Dont look at climbing with people better than you (i.e. adam) as being burnt off, instead see an opportunity to get schooled by an expert. Without him I would never have done Brad Pitt, Deliverance or started using Timotei.
-
what's the goal you're working towards by only climbing indoors?
Just general improvement, same as outdoors? I think you can just get a bit psyched for it if you do it a lot, looking forward to the next batch of problems being set etc. And if they get good at it and improve, and they enjoy indoors even more, same as anything.
That's exactly what I meant by the sentence that followed the one you quoted....I suppose taking the training v technique argument full circle there are now people who enjoy climbing on walls to the point where it doesn't matter that they aren't actually ever going to tick anything, they're having fun?
:)
I can't let this one go........
Good point Paz, I ain't working towards anything. I just like moving on rock, that's all.
JB - you may not be working towards anything and just enjoying "moving on rock" however if you'd never improved at all I doubt you'd be enjoying it so much. Are you saying that you'd enjoy the movement even if it meant falling off the last move of every route / problem you tried? Come on. Everyone loves a tick! Also, improvement means more opportunity. Every advance in grade/improvement in strength/technique etc means a new world of routes/problems opens up for you. That's the main reason I want to get better. There are things I want to climb which I am not capable of climbing at the moment but will be able to with a bit of improvement. :-\
-
Timotei.
Is that the name of an irish hairdresser?
-
JB - you may not be working towards anything and just enjoying "moving on rock" however if you'd never improved at all I doubt you'd be enjoying it so much.
The improvement is a welcome and virtually inevitable side effect of the enjoyment. One of the big differences I notice twixt myself and others is I love doing stuff many times over. If its worth doing once, its usually worth doing again. So many folk seem obsessed with just new ticks.
Are you saying that you'd enjoy the movement even if it meant falling off the last move of every route / problem you tried? Come on.
This is a daft question. This would happen to any climber if they did nothing but try stuff above their limit. For everyone its a balance between doing stuff you can do and trying stuff you can't.
-
Well Dobbin our good friend Mosely is partially but not completely correct. To climb well outside you obviously have to climb outside bit to improve rapidly outside takes a bit more than just climbing outside. To do this you need to be more scientific and this where using indoor walls comes into play. The first thing we must do is breakdown what outdoor climbing involoves but to do this we must first decide what form of climbing we wish to excell at. As this is a bouldering site we will assume that the climbing in question is bouldering. With this in mind we can say that the following attributes are required :
1. Strong fingers
2. Big muscle strength
3. Core strength
4. Dynamic strength
5. Fluidity of movement
6. Ability to sequence several movements at the same time ie hands moving to same holds at same time
7. How to use uneven holds
8. How to hold slopers
9. Advanced techniques toe hooking, knee bars, figure of 8's
10. Visualisation
11. Confidence of own ability
12. Raising the game for top end redpoints / flashes.
13. Cardiovascular fitness
As you can see the list is long and by no means exhaustive. But the point I'm coming to is that whilst indoor training satisfies a lot of the above it by no means satisfies them all. If we truly want to excell at outdoor climbing and push the boundaries forward then indoor climbing is only 1 cog in a complicated mechanism which must be fine tuned over a period of time to provide the perfect training regime. What do you think the Spanish lead climbers have been doing for the past 5 years and why do you think they have become so good?
-
I've seen them at the plantation with Adam!
-
I've reread my thesis Dobbin and I feel it is a little patronising and so I appologise for that. However, I do stand by the content. One thing i would say is that indoor climbing definitely doesn't prepare you for the small uneven nature of the holds that you have to pull on. Indoor climbing is all big muscle and core strength orientated and whilst this helps on steeper climbing such as lime, hueco etc it is of less relevance to grit, font etc. I always find that climbing outside makes my fingers a lot stronger but indoor climbing maked my biceps stronger. You have to mix it up, even in the summer months.
-
Interesting list Neil, I presume these are ordered as they came to you?
6. Ability to sequence several movements at the same time ie hands moving to same holds at same time
Can't get my head round what you mean by this? It reads like double dynos but that doesn't seem likely?
For a different perspective, here's how I broke down 'technique' in a recent email to Keith. I think we all know it when we see it, or the lack of it, but it seems no one understands it and fewer know how to train it. Mine is a more holistic approach than how to use slopers/ crimps/ heel-hooks etc, not to say either approach is better mind.
Its just about good movement, and more importantly right movement, the most appropriate movement. I guess that's why it has always appealed to me, I've always been obsessed with doing whatever will get me the most out of a given situation, hence why I go botanising not climbing when in the woodwell area.
I agree its not all about:
1. Footwork, however its usually true to say those who use their arms too much are crap on slabs. I don't see much point in learning to use the smallest handholds if you can't use the smallest footholds, and slabs are the easiest way to sort this. Its no different to using handholds - Precision comes first, then Foot/ ankle Positioning to make the hold work.
The other aspects I'd say are:
2. Reading the Rock, ie spotting and refining the most efficient sequence, and
3. Centre of Gravity Control/ use, ie without neccessarily changing the sequence you can alter body position to make the holds work better.
I wouldn't say Flexibility is an aspect of technique in itself but it does give you more options. Big muscles and inflexibility seem to be a happy couple as a rule
Probably worthy of a separate thread this...
-
But why are young guys taking down such big numbers?
Because their parents have allowed them to be focused on one thing (climbing), and guided them in the right way with the help of now readily available training facilities from in many cases younger than ten years old.
-
Good point. Take a case such as Tyler, being sponsored by rich parents to go all over the world trying the latest testpieces, with the worlds best climbers and from a very early age has got to be a big factor in his success.
-
On the other hand his brother provides the perfect control, a good climber but not world class. Whilst James has achieved as much on very little. Motivation is the biggest factor.
-
I don't think he's a perfect control at all, they're not independent. There's probably a bit of psychology there. You'd have to be super motivated indeed to want to do something that your sibling's doing a lot better at than you. If I was in that situation I think I'd be tempted to do soemthing else instead.
Oh, and soz Jasper.
-
we really need identical twins, seperated at birth. Twin A goes to live with rich family who from the age of 6 pay Jerry a handsome sum to babysit and be personal climbing trainer. Twin B gets dumped on the doorstep of an upper-lower-middleclass family in the suburbs of any former industial city in the north/midlands and eventually stumbles into climbing through uni/A-level mates and experiences all the pratfalls, near misses and hilarity that this usually entails.
-
I thought someone had proposed a radical answer to the original question when I saw the thread called "eugenics"...
-
Some of this stuff is dynamite Andy
I tackle a problem a move at a time whereas I see young guys slap there way up stuff in a kind of kartwheel motion (eg. Ondra).
Its actually a pretty small area of the sport these youths are excelling at - steep with small holds. I think its fair to say they are not generally good all-round climbers.
Yeah Ondra defo ain't an all rounder. Climbing La rambla 40 metres and Action Directe 10 Metres and doing dreamtime in 4 hours and Shadowfax in 30 minutes is well specific.
-
Did you even read my post? Which of those isn't steep with small holds?
Has he climbed any big walls? Cracks? Slabs, Ice climbs, alpine peaks, I mean I could go on... I'm not trying to put him down, just saying this is a big sport
-
For a different perspective, here's how I broke down 'technique' in a recent email to Keith. I think we all know it when we see it, or the lack of it, but it seems no one understands it and fewer know how to train it. Mine is a more holistic approach than how to use slopers/ crimps/ heel-hooks etc, not to say either approach is better mind.
Its just about good movement, and more importantly right movement, the most appropriate movement. I guess that's why it has always appealed to me, I've always been obsessed with doing whatever will get me the most out of a given situation, hence why I go botanising not climbing when in the woodwell area.
I agree its not all about:
1. Footwork, however its usually true to say those who use their arms too much are crap on slabs. I don't see much point in learning to use the smallest handholds if you can't use the smallest footholds, and slabs are the easiest way to sort this. Its no different to using handholds - Precision comes first, then Foot/ ankle Positioning to make the hold work.
The other aspects I'd say are:
2. Reading the Rock, ie spotting and refining the most efficient sequence, and
3. Centre of Gravity Control/ use, ie without neccessarily changing the sequence you can alter body position to make the holds work better.
I wouldn't say Flexibility is an aspect of technique in itself but it does give you more options. Big muscles and inflexibility seem to be a happy couple as a rule
Come on JB, have you never seen male olympic gymnastics?
-
Has he climbed any big walls? Cracks? Slabs, Ice climbs, alpine peaks, I mean I could go on... I'm not trying to put him down, just saying this is a big sport
You could say it's a big sport, or you could say those are all different sports...
Stuff like ice climbing, alpine peaks, aid climbing, even trad climbing, are all to a greater or lesser extent somewhat removed from the pure challenge of movement on rock, which I assume is what most people are talking about. They all involve lots of equipment, and skills needed to use that equipment. Then there's risk management and head-games, not to mention a whole host of other issues. Climbing is movement over rock, and that's what we are talking about here - the physical limits of pure climbing.
As for whether Ondra has climbed on different styles of route, I just checked his scorecard. He has done the FA of an 8b+ slab (in slight rain!), as well as multi-pitch sport up to 8b+ (silbergeier).
Here's an interview http://www.planetmountain.com/english/News/shownews.lasso?l=2&keyid=35758# (http://www.planetmountain.com/english/News/shownews.lasso?l=2&keyid=35758#)
-
Come on JB, have you never seen male olympic gymnastics?
Think he meant within the climing world. Gymnasts, for all their strength, flexibility, grace, poise, precision and what have you, from a climing point of view are basically just a bunch of jug monkeys.
-
I had a mate at uni who kickboxed and was built to fuck as a result, he could still drop into box splits without warming up. I can't, never got close, and yet am regarded as cheatingly bendy by friends.
Ondra is the greatest new talent we've seen in many years, no doubt. I look forward to see him embrace all aspects of the sport and redefine them. Currently he has only done that to sport climbing - the ratiken may be multi pitch but it is still bolted limestone. Bouldering may be next, and then he might go big on the granite, but to be an 'all-rounder' he still has to do all these other things, that's why it called 'all-round'.
edit; we should have just read r-man's link and not bothered with this thread
In the last couple of years you have travelled and climbed a great deal. How has climbing changed?
There are more climbers, but more people climb indoors and don't go out often. And few people go to old school areas. What I find very impressive is how fast news travels. Somebody climbs a new route and next day the whole climbing community knows about it!
In some sports, such as gymnastics, very young athletes excel. Can you see sports climbing developing in this way?
I think many very young climbers are interested in competitions. I see it in my category in the EYS. But few of these climb on rocks. Yes, maybe they can't go outdoors because their parents can't afford it or for many other reasons. But in general I think more athletes will excel in competitions than on rocks. But I don't have the absolute truth, I really don't know....
-
Has he climbed any big walls? Cracks? Slabs, Ice climbs, alpine peaks, I mean I could go on... I'm not trying to put him down, just saying this is a big sport
You could say it's a big sport, or you could say those are all different sports...
Stuff like ice climbing, alpine peaks, aid climbing, even trad climbing, are all to a greater or lesser extent somewhat removed from the pure challenge of movement on rock, which I assume is what most people are talking about.
Again i'm in agreement with R-man.
I'm not sure box splits are particularly relevant to climbing ;) previous discussions have noted that being overly flexible can be a hindrance and can put you at greater risk of injury if you're not strong enough to support the increased range of motion available to you.
-
Did you even read my post? Which of those isn't steep with small holds?
Has he climbed any big walls? Cracks? Slabs, Ice climbs, alpine peaks, I mean I could go on... I'm not trying to put him down, just saying this is a big sport
Well according to that no one on the planet is a good all round climber, who does everything at the top level, no one! Your superman doesn't exist. I just don't think you can say the likes of Ondra aren't good all round climbers. He'd eat up most of those el cap free routes and i doubt he'd get pumped with an ice axe in his hand.
-
How come young kids are taking down such big numbers?
This is something that's been on my mind for a while and I've finally decided to put pen to paper and start a debate. This covers a big area so I want to limit the scope of the discussion to bouldering and specifically young guys (easy!).
The facts:
Young guys are now taking down some awfully big Nos.
Up until 5 years ago the strongest boulders were almost certainly in late 20's to late 30's.
Check out 8a. nu, particularly the American bit and the amount of guys ticking 8b & above born late 80's early 90's is huge. Interestingly in the UK it's almost a reverse.
Generally these guys are pretty skinny and not fully developed.
Back in the day Ben Bransby climbing E2 aged 10 was big news!!
Why is it so?
I don't think this can be limited to 1 or 2 things but more that it's multi-factorial. In my opinion though I'm sure some things have a greater weighting.
Most people of my age or older didn't start climbing until 18 (basically until joining uni) or maybe 16 if in the scouts.
Clearly training facilities and knowledge are much better now.
By the time they get to 18 some kids have been climbing for 15 years (eg. Sharma).
By climbing from an early age and particularly indoors you develop a sense of movement that is much more efficient & quick. eg. I tackle a problem a move at a time whereas I see young guys slap there way up stuff in a kind of kartwheel motion (eg. Ondra).
Clearly there are so many more people bouldering these days that many are at the upper end of the normal distribution curve.
There is less of an issue these days of believing you could never be as good as the top guys of the time as there are so many more people there. eg. I could never be as good as Ben Moon because he's so much stronger than me.
Regular / cheap travel is now the norm and people can climb all year round.
Steep climbing is good at developing power and now found anywhere.
Comps are everywhere.
Why am I surprised at this phenomenon
Young guys are pretty much at the top in the sport which is not so in other sports (except female gymnastics).
These guys are skinny and have v.little muscle and if put in gym would have little power (even relative to there weight) vs older guys.
This is totally in contrast to 10+ years ago.
Some Q's
Is there some bias to weight in the power to weight equation you don't see in for eg. cars.
By training young do you get abnormally strong fingers so even if you have little power you can apply it.
I think that's enough. let the debate begin and maybe I'll try and summarise the ensuing feedback.
Not sure where the questioning comes into this - it looks like a clear case of asked and answered! That some youths are ticking some big numbers DOESN'T surprise me, for exactly the reasons you mentioned!!
On the other hand it's another good training vs. technique debate in one of it's many guises :)
-
Fiend I agree that Andy seems to have answered his own question pretty well.
On the other hand it's another good training vs. technique debate in one of it's many guises :)
Agreed. On that theme I feel I have to pass comment in response to JB passing wind:
Some of this stuff is dynamite Andy
I tackle a problem a move at a time whereas I see young guys slap there way up stuff in a kind of kartwheel motion (eg. Ondra).
Its actually a pretty small area of the sport these youths are excelling at - steep with small holds. I think its fair to say they are not generally good all-round climbers.
Yeah Ondra defo ain't an all rounder. Climbing La rambla 40 metres and Action Directe 10 Metres and doing dreamtime in 4 hours and Shadowfax in 30 minutes is well specific.
Adam I think its probably accurate to say that they aren't good all-round climbers, but I don't think its fair. Why? Well, because we are talking specifically about "young guys". Your definition of a "good all-round climber" = good at sport, trad, alpine, ice, big wall, bouldering....etc. How the fuck does a sub-18 year old have time to reach the top level at all of this? They aren't good at this stuff because in most cases, they haven't even tried it! Maybe by age 25 they'll have ticked all these boxes. This argument seems especially unfair with respect to Ondra. The kid is 15. 15! And he has done 40+ 8c+'s and onsighted several 8b+'s. How can you expect him to climb El Cap, be an Alpine wad, ice wad, etc.?
The other point is that they probably don't even want to do all this.
-
as usual nige is the hammer and this thread is the nail
-
as usual nige is the hammer and this thread is the nail
wtf? "As usual"? Is that what Nige tells you when he comes over? "Look Jim, I'm the hammer, and you're the nail"...
-
is it because nige's got the fly moves and verbal dexterity of MC Hammer, and Jim's a bit of a Spender (Whats £2.50 a month? nothing).
-
hello this is a great question. Some peole have already answered it but the thread is getting a bit confused. Young climbers seem to be improvibng for a number of reasons, more surport from parents(very noticeable in USA),more surport from general community, comps are very respectable in many places and not ridiculed, training is much more understood, facilities are much more suited to modern hard bouldering(ultra steep reasonable holds), kids heal quicker and improve quicker, fantastic ability to learn and best natural testesterone. Creatine is helpining the elite and finally there is also abit of funny grading going on. Light body wieght due to bones not catching up yet and some preety interesting body shapes in general.Some of these things have been seen before but not altogether or so frequently. Look at the photo of Benidict Moon in the power of Climbing book and you will see a great climber light strong,exellent body tension result Hubble, how many routes have Font 8b on them today 17 years later? Second ascent of Hubble The great Malc, incredibly light, was he disimilar from todays boulderer? If you add only a few percent of performace and some dodgy grades to a few of the old lads you come to todays standard(maybe).
Onda is a brilliant climber, nurtured by surportive parents, has his own little circuits and gets a great deal of other surport, I imagine he could do a one day ascent of Rapsody as could Paxi. If they turned there hand to other forms of climbing I am sure they would be brill, ice climbing is slightly diferent in that you need to be used to a new medium, ice is a bit like loose rock not every body has the mental skills to deel with it.
Anyway as an aside dont believe every thing you hear. Onda is having trouble with Punt X a route of Alex Chabot,clearly much harder than Action D. Saw Monsieur Chabot climb the other, a rare combination of power and stamina.
Great topic, am continually stoked to see youngsters sorting things. Yours Stevie Haston.
-
# modern walls
# modern rubber / shoe design
# modern sports science (inc. biochemistry, nutritional science)
# low-cost carriers
# richer parents / better sponsorship opportunities
yours, Lord Lucan
-
Adam I think its probably accurate to say that they aren't good all-round climbers, but I don't think its fair. Why? Well, because we are talking specifically about "young guys". Your definition of a "good all-round climber" = good at sport, trad, alpine, ice, big wall, bouldering....etc. How the fuck does a sub-18 year old have time to reach the top level at all of this?
As ever the knickers-in-a-twist-he's-dissing-a-hero gang have missed the point.
Which was not that Ondra has to tick all the boxes before he earns my respect. He has that.
The point was, young kids are not excelling in these other disciplines. Of course there is young talent doing well in these other areas, but not to the same extreme. Colin Haley is 23, for example, and whilst his CV is fantastic is not quite redefining.
This would seem to support Andy's initial suggestion that physiological factors are taking over in one area of the sport and it may be headed in a similar direction to gymnastics.
Young guys are pretty much at the top in the sport which is not so in other sports (except female gymnastics).
These guys are skinny and have v.little muscle and if put in gym would have little power (even relative to there weight) vs older guys.
This is totally in contrast to 10+ years ago.
As Stevie has pointed out, this doesn't seem that new a phenomenon.
previous discussions have noted that being overly flexible can be a hindrance
Really? How so? I must have missed these discussions.
and can put you at greater risk of injury if you're not strong enough to support the increased range of motion available to you.
Perhaps. And if you are strong enough? How can it be anything but good? What drivel.
-
Is that opinion formed from reading anything on the subject? I'm done.
-
Hit me with some reading then.
I'll stick with the echoes of a thousand whinging stiff guys still stood on the pad, moaning 'I can't get my foot up there.' Never once has any one said 'I can't do it, it's too easy to reach the holds'
-
"there is a tradeoff between flexibility and stability. As you get "looser" or more limber in a particular joint, less support is given to the joint by its surrounding muscles. Excessive flexibility can be just as bad as not enough because both increase your risk of injury."
This however is not going to be the case for the majority of athletes (or indeed climbers), the use for which the flexibility is needed pretty much always coincides with a need for strength. You cant heel hook without some hamstring/gastrocnemius strength, no matter how flexibile.
Its only my opinion but I believe there is a strong link between my flexibility from gymnastics as a kid and my decent amount of leg strength.
-
In a closely fought battle 21-year old Ned Feehally topped the final problem to become the youngest climber to win the senior male category of the national bouldering championships.
-
Ned, now there's a prime example of a young climber who is both beastly strong and bendy as a bendy thing.
-
This however is not going to be the case for the majority of athletes (or indeed climbers), the use for which the flexibility is needed pretty much always coincides with a need for strength. You cant heel hook without some hamstring/gastrocnemius strength, no matter how flexibile.
You can try though. The same as if you were doing a hard press move.
-
Who's that youth who did that direct on Braille Trial too? Both power and technique camps would probably claim him as one of their own. I want him on my team anyway - "The next bit looks bold, steep, blind, slappy and is probably capped off by a hideous mantel. I think I'l belay here, your lead youth". Probably out getting wasted after his GCSEs now, more power to him.
-
I don't think the power camps would have much call there, by his own admission not a strong boulderer yet. Shouldn't be long though, saw him last night finishing off 500+ routes in a day.
-
hello this is a great question. Some peole have already answered it but the thread is getting a bit confused. Young climbers seem to be improvibng for a number of reasons, more surport from parents(very noticeable in USA),more surport from general community, comps are very respectable in many places and not ridiculed, training is much more understood, facilities are much more suited to modern hard bouldering(ultra steep reasonable holds), kids heal quicker and improve quicker, fantastic ability to learn and best natural testesterone. Creatine is helpining the elite and finally there is also abit of funny grading going on. Light body wieght due to bones not catching up yet and some preety interesting body shapes in general.Some of these things have been seen before but not altogether or so frequently. Look at the photo of Benidict Moon in the power of Climbing book and you will see a great climber light strong,exellent body tension result Hubble, how many routes have Font 8b on them today 17 years later? Second ascent of Hubble The great Malc, incredibly light, was he disimilar from todays boulderer? If you add only a few percent of performace and some dodgy grades to a few of the old lads you come to todays standard(maybe).
Onda is a brilliant climber, nurtured by surportive parents, has his own little circuits and gets a great deal of other surport, I imagine he could do a one day ascent of Rapsody as could Paxi. If they turned there hand to other forms of climbing I am sure they would be brill, ice climbing is slightly diferent in that you need to be used to a new medium, ice is a bit like loose rock not every body has the mental skills to deel with it.
Anyway as an aside dont believe every thing you hear. Onda is having trouble with Punt X a route of Alex Chabot,clearly much harder than Action D. Saw Monsieur Chabot climb the other, a rare combination of power and stamina.
Great topic, am continually stoked to see youngsters sorting things. Yours Stevie Haston.
-
still having those nightmares Slyvester Hastone??? the youth stealing your frozen projects
-
Ps, great use off the word stoked,,, its good to see the boundies being pushed, innocence, the greatest tool to combat fear,
-
Most of the questions have already been done by Desnivel, but UKC's Jack Geraldd is interviewing said wonder child on saturday or something. http://new.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=311907 (http://new.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=311907)
Please can someone come up with some decent questions as a lot of mine are a bit shit.
-
saw him last night finishing off 500+ routes in a day.
Bloody hell, sickening. Hope that was at Burbage or somewhere short.
-
I don't think the power camps would have much call there, by his own admission not a strong boulderer yet. Shouldn't be long though, saw him last night finishing off 500+ routes in a day.
Can't be that week, I'd imagine you need a bit of power to get up Ray's Roof (http://new.ukclimbing.com/news/older.html?month=06&year=2008#n44807).
-
That's not bouldering power, it's awesome crack climbing technique. Totally different. I agree with JB, from what I've seen the lad is operating on technique, natural ability, youthful balls of steel and enthusiasm. The power will come if he wants it.
-
Fairy muff.
-
Quite, I imagine even The School's finest would fare rather poorly on Ray's roof.
-
I've had a thought, and I think it's really grreat, or I wouldn't waste everyone's time resurrecting this thread.
Obviously it's still down to increased numbers and walls, but in a nut shell in the olden days of the early mid 90s (according to ancient copies of OTE I found lingering next to the dead sea scrolls) it used to be a cliche going on for a rule of thumb that people into climbing used to be the sort who said `ooh I was never any good at sport at school, I was always the last one to be picked to be on the football team'. As you may know excuse is that I never got glasses early enough, so I couldn't see the ball let alone kick it. I don't know how many people at college used to be persisting in this futile of line of playing football, but it was a lot. Very few of us actually twigged the Gym had climbing gear you could borrow for free). Nowadays I reckon they've discovered what we knew all along, that climbing pisses on football, from a great great height. And a lot more people who are the first people you'd pick for your team, or even some team captains, are now getting into it.
-
nope i disagree,i know lots of old school heroes who played team sports to a decent level.even the likes of al manson ran cross country for yorkshire as well as being class at keepy upee.
-
even the likes of al manson ran cross country for yorkshire
I personally had cross-country talent down as an archetypal "never got picked at football" trait. I'm pretty sure my ability at it was a result of an ardent desire to put distance between myself and the bigger, more popular, more psychopathic lads. And to this day, if you want to see the speed of light being broken, you just have to produce a rugby ball!
-
ok maybe cross country wasn't the best example.
swanny played rugby to a descent level and was still playing footy till recently.the regan brothers were no slouches at football either and billy bancroft was a dab hand at cricket.
-
even the likes of al manson ran cross country for yorkshire
I personally had cross-country talent down as an archetypal "never got picked at football" trait. I'm pretty sure my ability at it was a result of an ardent desire to put distance between myself and the bigger, more popular, more psychopathic lads. And to this day, if you want to see the speed of light being broken, you just have to produce a rugby ball!
likewise.
maybe it has something to do with co-ordination.
-
even the likes of al manson ran cross country for yorkshire
I personally had cross-country talent down as an archetypal "never got picked at football" trait. I'm pretty sure my ability at it was a result of an ardent desire to put distance between myself and the bigger, more popular, more psychopathic lads. And to this day, if you want to see the speed of light being broken, you just have to produce a rugby ball!
Spot on: you just described my PE lessons! How about a survey to ask "who actually liked team sports as a teenager?"
Back to the OP, although most climbers take a few years to mature, every generation since the 1940s has had teenage prodigies who shake things ups, some more than others.
-
it used to be a cliche going on for a rule of thumb that people into climbing used to be the sort who said `ooh I was never any good at sport at school, I was always the last one to be picked to be on the football team'.
At school I was shit at football, when picking teams with uneven numbers I was given to the bigger team as a handicap. At climbing trees though, I was the best. LAM.
-
I seem to remember being dismal at footy but I crushed at egg&spoon.
-
FWIW, I was on the school team for; Football, Rugby, Basketball, and Track, but not Cricket.
I think this point is somewhat arbitrary, but I'm sure it's creating a nice feeling of solidarity amongst all those who failed to make it onto their footy team. I haven't posted on this thread yet, mainly because I thought it was so painfully obvious as to why we're all getting destroyed by young guys in climbing.
Climbing has a distinct advantage for those with high strength/low weight ratio. Coupled with the fact that all the youngs guys train fucking hard, have desire equal to that of Himeros, and have all the information available making the slog to the top rather more linear. It's nothing more complicated than that. I suppose the next thing that will be asked if why is it taking place in climbing and not any other sport? I think this is because of the nature of climbing and the relationship to the strength/weight ratio.
The only other sensible thing I've read in this thread is that the pool of climbers is always increasing thus we'll be seeing individuals at the tail end of the normal distribution. Who knows, maybe we haven't even see someone in the 99th percentile yet! It's possible.
-
I bet your school was tiny. Why were you so shit at cricket?
-
His trainers clashed with the rest of the strip?
-
:lol: I think Cricket didn't suit my alpha male persona. Then again, it could have been that I was fucking shite at bowling, couldn't be arsed with fielding, and I would get struck out when batting far too easily.
-
At climbing trees though, I was the best.
Likewise. I also remember our rugby pitch had a supporting wall made of quarried granite blocks, which i started trying to traverse one afternoon, and every time i fell off I would go back to just before the point i fell off and have to do that section before i carried on. very ethical. This was 10 years before I ever heard of rock climbing, so i guess i was doomed before I even started.
-
:lol: I think Cricket didn't suit my alpha male persona. Then again, it could have been that I was fucking shite at bowling, couldn't be arsed with fielding, and I would get struck out when batting far too easily.
Nothing worse than being a mediocre cricketer. :(
-
Hasn't Nige got something to add at this juncture?
-
Wasn't he the straightest bowler in Carnforth?
Aged 6?
-
Can you be gay at 6?
-
Glad that thread provoked a good bit of debate.
And to prove my point if I could be bothered to cut & paste the antics of the worlds best 14-20 year olds over the past month it would ammount to multiple pages (Ondra, Woods, Robinson, Landman, various frenchies, poles, unknowns etc etc.
What has staggered me the most is the utter pillage of the Rocklands by Robinson & Woods. These guys have basically ticked all the hardest problems in this massive area in rapid time. These are problems it has taken Fred pretty much 10years of 3 month sieges to the rocklands to put up. They even had the cheek to do loads of them ina day and put up harder ones on their days off. Robinsons 1.5h ascent of the problem fred descxribes as the hardest he has ever done and that took him several years is pretty outrageous.
So back to the original debate and maybe a new question. I saw a picture of Paul Robinson and it would be fair to say he has the body of a small pre-pubescent girl who some might consider alarmingly overweight. I'd guess he is around 8stone. Fred must weigh in at 12-14 stone. Basically he's at least 50% bigger. Now Fred is alarmingly good at pulling on small crimps and small crimps never seem to bother him. For guys like Robinson it must be significantly easier to pull on these due to their lesser mass. For someone of Fred's size to pull on those crimps he must be so much stronger. As a reference Malc took 10 years to repeat board problems he did as an 18 year old as it took him this long to gain the neccessary strength to pull his bigger frame up the same problems. Maybe this bias is less so with non crimpy holds.
Will these guys get crapper as they get older and bigger (the history shows the opposite)? Will they get worse pulling on crimps but better on more burly stuff.
I seem to have got a little lost in my stories and witterings with a ramplings. Maybe their is a question in their somewhere and I'm sure you're the ones to try and answer it.
Have a good wend.
-
Hi Andy how you doing? I think the other thing about weight is the rate at which you wear down, skin and muscle fatigue etc. If you weigh 50% of somebody else then the amount of stress placed on skin by pulling on small crimps must be considerably less. This in turn means that you must get more gos on a given problem which in turn means you can get problems much quicker. It's like climbing at Rubicon, you often have to walk away because your skin has gone not your body and what could have been a full session on a problem turns into a few gos? This in turn means it takes days and not hours to tick some problems.
-
Hi Andy how you doing? I think the other thing about weight is the rate at which you wear down, skin and muscle fatigue etc. If you weigh 50% of somebody else then the amount of stress placed on skin by pulling on small crimps must be considerably less. This in turn means that you must get more gos on a given problem which in turn means you can get problems much quicker. It's like climbing at Rubicon, you often have to walk away because your skin has gone not your body and what could have been a full session on a problem turns into a few gos? This in turn means it takes days and not hours to tick some problems.
I don't buy this I'm afraid. Compared to most people I'm pretty light and my skin gets trashed just as easily as anyone else's on small crimps.
Due to being light I like small holds but need to work like a b*tch to get any sort of power, what I do get goes extremely quickly. Conversely stamina has never seemed to be an issue and comes back quickly. Its swings and roundabouts as to what you're body type is best at, the problem is without strong finger's you're f*cked.
-
What has staggered me the most is the utter pillage of the Rocklands by Robinson & Woods.
They certainly tore that place apart, interesting that neither of them repeated Monkey Wedding (which I think Woods is shown trying in Specimen), which I think is also unrepeated - perhaps one that Fred undergraded?
-
As regards the skin issue, the younger you are, the better skin you have. The older you are, the less elastic your skin is, and the more prone to tears, splits, etc. you become. It also takes longer for you to heal up again.
It seems to me that the modern generation of mutants have obtained their strength (and particularly finger strength) from training in climbing walls, but without a 'traditional apprenticeship' in rock climbing (like us old bastards had) I'm not sure they will be able to maintain their awesome level for too long without serious repercusions on their bodies. Maybe the 5 years I spent pottering up easy rock climbs as a kid (before modern climbing walls were invented) was what my body needed to learn how to recover from the abuse I was giving it. Its way too easy to get really good really quick these days, which might explain why so many of the promising youths burn out dead quick. Of course, this isn't true across the board, but its amazing how many youths get seriously knackered fingers, whereas old bastards like me with over 20 years of climbing under the finger tips have never had a serious finger injury (touches wood). Mind you, I am shite and I've got hands like bunches of bananas..... ;)
-
Good point Paul but here's few thoughts. Skin strength is a factor of genetics, adaptation by usage & the ability to stop before it's too late. Logically light guys like you and me should have much better skin for pulling on tiny holds. I'm pretty lucky and I've always had good skin that is pretty resilient to cutting. You on the other hand seem not to. John Welford is a similar build to me and always had dreadful skin.
Ther's some logic to say that if you are heavy and don't have genetically bad skin then it should adapt to pulling on small holds. Given skin is the same person to person, then a heavier person should develop thicker skin to adapt to poorer holds. What I'm not sure is whether skin strength and body weight are a linear relationship or not. Or for that matter whether the stress on the finger joints / forearm muscles is linear with weight increase. These 2 questions answered might help a lot.
I guess Monkey Wedding is what used to be called the sit start to The Baboon Master? I remember seeing this and it did look like the hardest problem I'd seen in my life. It was 8b then. Funnily it has no small holds, crap feet and all the holds point in the right direction. Extreme burl and tension look liked they'd rule.
-
but its amazing how many youths get seriously knackered fingers, whereas old bastards like me with over 20 years of climbing under the finger tips have never had a serious finger injury
I think one big factor is how fast you get strong. It always seems to me that people who get strong fast also get injured, as tendons can't keep up with muscle gains. you generally don't have to look far to find someone who trained like a bastard, got crazy strong then dropped off the radar again with an injury. whereas the people who got strong slowly over a period of years generally avoid injury and stay strong for longer. Of course there are exceptions.
I think weight plays a big part in skin issues. If you put the same skin on a 12 stone guy and on an 8 stone guy then you don't have to be Steven hawking to work out who's going to get more splits. I don't buy this idea that the skin of heavier climbers self-compensated by getting thicker - or at least if it does I can't see that being an advantage. As someone who's been the wrong side of 12 stone all their bouldering career I'm always plagued by split tips that come out of nowhere and tear the finger appart. I very seldomly wear a tip down really thin, what generally happens is i have really good thickish skin then on a particular hold blow the pad wide open (with a deep tear that takes a week to heal) after pulling on that hold once or twice (the crimp on ange naif springs to mind).
-
What has staggered me the most is the utter pillage of the Rocklands by Robinson & Woods.
Just checked out there 8a's. Staggering............
-
As regards the skin issue, the younger you are, the better skin you have. The older you are, the less elastic your skin is, and the more prone to tears, splits, etc. you become. It also takes longer for you to heal up again.
It seems to me that the modern generation of mutants have obtained their strength (and particularly finger strength) from training in climbing walls, but without a 'traditional apprenticeship' in rock climbing (like us old bastards had) I'm not sure they will be able to maintain their awesome level for too long without serious repercusions on their bodies. Maybe the 5 years I spent pottering up easy rock climbs as a kid (before modern climbing walls were invented) was what my body needed to learn how to recover from the abuse I was giving it. Its way too easy to get really good really quick these days, which might explain why so many of the promising youths burn out dead quick. Of course, this isn't true across the board, but its amazing how many youths get seriously knackered fingers, whereas old bastards like me with over 20 years of climbing under the finger tips have never had a serious finger injury (touches wood). Mind you, I am shite and I've got hands like bunches of bananas..... ;)
I think being prone to injuries is fairly consistent to favoring the crimp and not down to a lack of apprenticeship. What that is causing is people who don't know anything apart from a figure of 8 and a gri-gri and have very little respect for their environment.
-
I think being prone to injuries is fairly consistent to favoring the crimp
I doubt theres any evidence to corroborate that.
-
Being prone to finger injuries is caused by getting strong too quickly for your tendons, pulleys, etc. to cope with the stresses - not by favouring one hold type over another. Crimps, finger cracks, slopers, pockets - all will blow out tendons, ligaments and pulleys if you pull to hard. My point is that nowadays its possible to get hideously strong so quickly that your hands have little time to adjust to the forces being put through them.
-
I think being prone to injuries is fairly consistent to favoring the crimp
I doubt theres any evidence to corroborate that.
I doubt there is, however if you use the search function the most common injury that sticks out to me is the A2, highly stressed under crimping. Are you seriously arguing that crimping is no more risky than open handed? Snap, Crackle Pop.
Being prone to finger injuries is caused by getting strong too quickly for your tendons, pulleys, etc. to cope with the stresses - not by favouring one hold type over another. Crimps, finger cracks, slopers, pockets - all will blow out tendons, ligaments and pulleys if you pull to hard. My point is that nowadays its possible to get hideously strong so quickly that your hands have little time to adjust to the forces being put through them.
I get your point on speed completely but thats not always the case is it? I can think of some good examples of people who are prone to injury and aren't young and certainly haven't become board strong.
-
andy, you speak sense. long have i waited for the day when tiny man questions tiny man. fred's forearms weigh as much as robinson barley water. the big question is not why these young guns are doing all these hard problems now, but will fred be canonised in our lifetime?
i daren't look at woods & robinsons scorecards, my eyes only accept a certain amount of numbers at a time
crimps will cause injury way more than any other hold. pockets less so, i think, since you've got to be strong enough to pull on the pocket anyway. in other words anyone can crimp a hold, but not anyone can pull on a 2 finger pocket. the man who gets injured on slopers wants shooting
-
I think being prone to injuries is fairly consistent to favoring the crimp
I doubt theres any evidence to corroborate that.
I doubt there is, however if you use the search function the most common injury that sticks out to me is the A2, highly stressed under crimping. Are you seriously arguing that crimping is no more risky than open handed?
I'm argueing the point about people who favour crimping being more injury prone, which is a totally different point. People who favour crimping (e.g. me) do it a lot and always will have done, so will have built up gradually the tendon support necessary for fairly safe crimping. People who favour openhanding and only crimp once in a blue moon or in extremis are more likely to injure themselves crimping because they're not used to is and not prepared for it.
Conversely, to a crimping climber like me, openhanding holds (especially 2 fingers) feels infinitley more tweaky and injury prone, infact the only finger tweaks of any not i've ever picked up in 10 years of climbing have been openhanding, precisley for the reasons given above.
The A2 "crimping" injury probably is fairly common, but thats not to say that the people who get it are necessarily the career crimpers.
-
People who favour openhanding and only crimp once in a blue moon or in extremis are more likely to injure themselves crimping because they're not used to is and not prepared for it.
Popped both A2 ring pulleys due to precisely this - a crimp in wales and a pocket in font.
-
Now I'm someone who's always favoured the cimp, however as I've got older if I can pull on a hold in an open handed crimp I'll do so as it conserves energy and feels less stressful. I can anoften do live up to old nick names if required. So whilst I've always prdominantly crimped for 20 years & developed strong pulleys & ligaments etc other grips feel less stressful. If I was a stone or 2 heavier the forces involved would be significantly greater.
Pockets are a funny one as basically we don't have any in this country and until say the past 5 years or so with the increased popularity in areas like the Frankenjura this was always seen as a specialist strength. It now seems everyone is 1 finger campussing and pulling on monos like they were jugs. I've known many a climbing beast who was comparitevly weak on pockets an avoided them like the plague. Especially the bigger guys. Personally I've always liked them which is probably down to a bit of genetic tendon strength, lack of body weight and climbing on walls using pocket grip.
You only need to look at the big Franken climbers (and boy are some of them big) and they have obviously adapted very strong pocket pulling physiology through climbing on this type of hold day in, day out for years. But conversely get shut down in Font (I knw 1 Franken 8c hero who bouldered 8a+ but never did a 7c in font!)
People definately seem to have preferred grips. Maybe there are some sports scientists out there who can explaing the pros and cons of the various grips.
Where I and a lot of others have suffered in recent years is in knee injuries and starins through increased use of heels and legs in climbing. Skinny legs that have just edged for years aren't up to the contortions and tendon stresses the modern technique puts upon them. This is why a lot of beasts these days seem to have the thighs of an ox.
On Dense's point, Fred should indeed be at least Sir Fred for services to crimping gentlemen of the heavier variety. I guess though like most sports any body type is welcome but in general certain types excel in certain sports (eg. tall people in the high jump) and we will not see a weighting system like fighting sports, weight lifting etc. In the 80's it was the tall skinny something, in the 90's it moved to the chunkier muscle types and now it's back to the skinny 20 somethings who are pretty short. But I guess in very specific areas of the sport certain body types will still rule in general.