The point remains that indoor walls are of little use for learning to climb cracks, big routes, technical slabs or loose rock, all of which are essential skills for climbing world-wide.
The fact that I have never suggested that more strength = less technical abilty doesn't seem to stop folk assuming thats what I'm think. I'm don't, and never have done.
I don’t think this can be dismissed as a myth. To a greater or lesser extent I think it’s fairly common. Self styled training guru Matt 'Smyth' Smith was the archetype. Most examples aren't as extreme as him but there are plenty of way strong boulderers who have achieved much less than far weaker counterparts.
I've made this point before, but the great advancements in world climbing at the moment are taking place on the big granite faces. The UK's top climbers are conspicuous by their absence save for BB guns and Leo. I haven't noticed them down the school much.
I know there are lots of people doing other stuff, but check out 8a.nu to get an idea of the world many people seem to live in.
I know there are lots of people doing other stuff, but check out 8a.nu to get an idea of the world the kind of people who post on 8a.nu seem to live in.
ie hard steep bouldering, steep sport routes, strength counts for an awful lot.
there are lots of people that think that the great advancements recently are in steep bouldering and sport.
I guess the real mistake I am making is trying to have this debate on the training section of a bouldering forum.
The notion that strong = poor or poorer technical ability is, frankly, a crock. Watch where you swipe that dirty brush.
There have been some massive leaps recently on big walls, though I guess they didn't score any points on 8a.nu - I guess the real mistake I am making is trying to have this debate on the training section of a bouldering forum.
Advancements, yes, great leaps forward? No. Standards in these areas have progressed in a steady linear fashion. There have been some massive leaps recently on big walls, though I guess they didn't score any points on 8a.nu - I guess the real mistake I am making is trying to have this debate on the training section of a bouldering forum.
f it were otherwise I would have played devils advocate by saying forget technique and strength, what you really need is massive legs and the ability to climb continuously for 30 hours to do big Alpine syle enchainments.
These big wall heroes can put there routes down on 8a.nu if they so wish.
It should be obvious to most that the primary requirement for any type of ultra-hard free climbing is strength and fitness (BB Guns isn't exactly weak you know), and that all that technical bollocks can be picked up later. An example: the Hubers aren't exactly technically poor but they didn't know much about crack climbing when they started freeing big walls.
The impression you give is that you believe the great leaps forward in big wall climbing had nothing to do with training,
Quotef it were otherwise I would have played devils advocate by saying forget technique and strength, what you really need is massive legs and the ability to climb continuously for 30 hours to do big Alpine syle enchainments.I didn't notice Tony Lamiche having big legs? Perhaps he is so nu-school he has gone for the 'light-and-lucky, fast-and-free' option on the legs front.
I doubt Caldwell would have got up Dihedral Wall either if it wasn't for his 9a+/V13 prowess.
Uncle - I think you're B, but you might be Z. Seriously i'm pointing no fingers, there's a bit of X in most of us.
[. You all seem to be arguing against points I'm not making.
You all seem to be arguing against points I'm not making.
Every time I go indoor climbing a little piece of me dies. I'd sooner fuck-off the opportunity to progress in areas currently beyond my ken and do what I want to do/love than get sweaty with a bunch of body-nazi's, even though I accept that to do so I may not improve on my own turf as much as I might wish.