[Paul B]

Nail on the head RU.

[Ru]

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.

Reinforcing the point I made above,  and without pointing fingers as to who falls into what category, I imagine that many climbers could realise all of the things they ever dreamt about doing in the world of rock climbing without ever doing any of the above things you mention. I'm not saying this is bad or good, just that your view of what climbing is only one of several.

[Houdini]

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.

My comments are a general all-round bitch and I was not replying in reference to thee.  I've heard stronger climbers dissed so often...  Mostly deservedly so, the very strong often climb like mules!  But not all, there are exceptions.

Unc' is correct: bouldering in the upper levels requires both strength and technical ability.  The only exception (I've seen) to this rule is Floppy.  But he's weird.

[Doylo]

good thread, is keeping me entertained while my split tip heals 
I liked bonjoys a.b.c.d.e.f...etc.

[Ru]

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.

Whilst I'm adding lots of Yang to the Ying, I'd also like to point out that there are some very technical, naturally talented climbers out there that have achieved far less than some stronger but technically denser climbers.

[squeek]

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.

Not really surprising that not many people from a country with no real big faces don't choose to try and push the limits of it.

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.

There is no reason why a wall can't have cracks or technical slabs, there's a hanging slab at my local wall, and frequently finger jams, hand jams, body jams.  They're not as long as you'd get outside by any means, but you have to be able to jam properly to get past it, so you can practice the technique.  I find there's lots of problems I struggle on inside because of my technique just like there is outside.  I think the idea that just because most walls don't set very technical problems means you can't set technical problems is a misconception.

[Johnny Brown]

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.

or:

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.

Would anyone with a brain argue against this? What I don't agree is that these are 'the popular styles'. There is a world of climbing going on beyond this - you only have to look at the success of Vertical and Alpinist magazines. I don't see the bouldering or sport magazines that everyone was predicting a few years back.

there are lots of people that think that the great advancements recently are in steep bouldering and sport.

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.

[Houdini]

Yep!

Rather like going to a gay club and complaining you got your ass felt...

[Ru]

I guess the real mistake I am making is trying to have this debate on the training section of a bouldering forum.

Well there is a point there. I accept everything you say, which is why I've tried to cover my back with disclaimers and so on. I realise there is a big world out there, with lots of branches of climbing, but that's not really what most people were discussing. If 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. And so on. But most people on here were discussing hard, technical rock climbing, mostly bouldering and sport.

As for 8a.nu, I fear the 8a.nu world is quite large. Again this isn't a value jugement of how worthwhole 8a.nu is.

As for the advancements vs great leaps, yes I know, as I said I wan't trying to open up that can of worms, I was merely explaining Paul B's post.

[moose]

The notion that strong = poor or poorer technical ability is, frankly, a crock.  Watch where you swipe that dirty brush.

Speaking as a keenly observant uber-punter I think the distinction is slightly spurious. What often gets termed "technique" seems to largely comprise being strong enough to have time to place your feet somewhere efficacious.  The knowledge of where to put your feet and the instinct to do it quickly may perhaps be gained doing gritty slabs rather than pulling on plastic, but, it is of limited use without being able to hang the holds in the meantime. 

That said, it does almost reduce me to tears when I see far stronger folk than me noisily trying and failing to campus their way up fairly easy stuff where a few heel-hooks makes all the difference (wistful mutterings of "...what I would do with their strength....").  Still, their lack of what is commonly called technique (but is really ignorance) would easily be remedied with a few words.  My own lack of strength will take far longer and will probably always limit me.  I know what the "cure" is, I just happen to prefer actually doing problems rather than specific training.  The world of campusing, lock-offs, footless work on jugs will have to wait until I have more leisure time to spare.

I suspect the only area where a real technique versus strength disparity does exist is in hard on-sighting where the margins are so small that utmost sureness and efficiency is required.   Even then, if a complete ignoramus if truly strong enough he will often have time to correct his mistakes.... or just power through.

[Doylo]

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.

These big wall heroes can put there routes down on 8a.nu if they so wish. Check out Yosemite beast Nico Favresses scorecard, he's got leaning tower down as 8a. He doesn't put stuff easier than 8a on there so freerider and other stuff he's done aren't there.

[unclesomebody]

Nico

Nico All time

[Stu Littlefair]

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.

One of which would have been Tommy Caldwell's linkup on El Cap, no? To listen to Tommy talk about it the success of this is based upon training, training and training. But did that running, weight lifting and laps at the wall get him up the changing corners pitch all by itself? Of course not - he needed a bit of footwork too. The impression you give is that you believe the great leaps forward in big wall climbing had nothing to do with training, and that it was in fact counter-productive as it led to a mindset that distracted climbers from the true path to success (technique). I'm not sure that that is what you really believe. 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. It didn't take them long to pick it up but do you think they would have acheived what they have without the sport climbing fitness they possess in spades?

[Doylo]

I doubt Caldwell would have got up Dihedral Wall either if it wasn't for his 9a+/V13 prowess.

[Houdini]

So.

Technique = fancy footwork (?).

What about those that possess strong fingers (strong enough to hold the holds longer) but the rest of their body lets them down somewhat, yet are forced to employ technique (fancy footwork) at the same time as holding those holds in order to make up for what they lack below the wrist?

The distinctions are blurrrrrrrrrring.

[Johnny Brown]

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.

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.

These big wall heroes can put there routes down on 8a.nu if they so wish.

Genius. 8a.nu continues to astonish.

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.

These points are plain wrong (so much so I don't believe you are doing anything other than playing devil's advocate)

The impression you give is that you believe the great leaps forward in big wall climbing had nothing to do with training,

Your impression is wrong. As I keep trying to reiterate, what I'm railing against here is the sheffield-centric 'cult of power' that keeps churning out strong-but-technically-dense folk who can climb 8a but not 5c.

[Ru]

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.

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.

An example only, to illustrate that we were talking about a small range of the total climbing experience. I'm not trying to win an example/counter example competition about what attributes you need to do various mountain activities.

[Johnny Brown]

I doubt Caldwell would have got up Dihedral Wall either if it wasn't for his 9a+/V13 prowess.

Tommy got up Dihedral wall, Linea di Eleganza, 9a+, V13 etc because he is a great all-round climber. I don't see a chicken-and-egg here, just someone who has climbed all styles since he was a youth.

Is someone here suggesting being strong makes you bad at all-round climbing, or that all-round climbers are not strong? If there is its not me. You all seem to be arguing against points I'm not making.

[Stu Littlefair]

The reason people assume that you are making those points is that you say things like "Those who can't climb, train"....
Also, when Ru makes the point that strength is vital for bouldering/sport climbing and you make a counter-point that there is a world of climbing beyond that, the implication is that you don't view strength as important for these forms of climbing.

I think you're spot on about the need for good, nay excellent, technique if you want to achieve anything, even hard sport climbing and bouldering. I still think you are too dismissive of strength. The climbing arenas in which you can be World Class (tm) whilst actually being weak are few in number. Perhaps your stance is a back-lash against the cult of training, which I admit is strong in Sheffield, but it often seems like you've taken it too far.

I wouldn't want you to get offended by this example - but you are a technically gifted and natural climber and grit aretes are a medium that suit you well, but it's Buoux 8c who did Careless Torque ground up. I believe that your dislike of training has held you back almost as much as a blindspot for technique has held back others. Maybe that's fine by you, but might you exceed your own aspirations with some deadhangs and a few laps on Powerband?

[cofe]

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.

i think i might be a G.O.O.S.E but i can't be sure......

although i can see JB's point it seems to have got lost somewhere that climbing the things you need to train for (steep shit etc), particularly when rock bouldering, can be a shitload of fun. especially when you're squeeking like sharma blah di blah.

[Simon S]

[. You all seem to be arguing against points I'm not making.

Maybe you need to reword some of your posts so that the point is not misconstrued.

Its seems that for some its power OR technique, and that one is more worthy than the other. This is clearly bollocks!

[Doylo]

You all seem to be arguing against points I'm not making.

Well we can't all be imagining it 

[Houdini]

Running it all through the B U L L S H I T U L A T O R (Patent Pending)

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. 

Well why didn't you say so? 

[soapy]

i've found your log, mistah houdinah, sah

[Houdini]

Oh my that looks delicious!

You wouldn't have any more would you?
Fired, then glazed: it'd be the shit on my woodie.