Strength to weight ratio
A.MacNair
5.10d's, I have a few opinions. You get a lot of people arguing about
whether it's strength or technique. I hear a lot of crap about how
it's *all* technique and you should practice your technique on lower
grades before you attempt the higher ones. All I do is climb and
boulder at a 5.10 level, and it seems to boost both my strength and
technique pretty fast. I have been climbing for exactly "two months
minus one day" and I attribute a lot of my success to my sudden
strength gains. By concentrating on overhangs my arms got much
stronger, and by being forced to find better technique to cope with
overhangs and the 5.10 level, my technique got much better.
So there I was at the gym and I meet this really buff guy. He says he
started climbing "one month ago". I drop my jaw because the guy has
been doing 5.10's around the gym. And I thought *I* was a quick one.
So anyway, the guys arms are like lead pipes and I point to a 5.10b
which I have trouble finishing in less than two rests. He says "It's
all in the technique". Gets on the route and starts crimping the
holds... his technique is not bad but nothing special. He doesn't even
sidestep much. Pretty much the same as my technique. He finishes it
without a rest, but he cheats on a ceiling beam <g>. The guy rested on
the holds a couple of times on the way, but his arms never failed. His
strength was just too much. Technique, yeah ok, *rolls eyes*.
So I watch a couple of women in the gym. They're nailing these 5.11's
and their technique is sweet. Back and side steps, fluid and perfect
limb placement, the whole manner is efficient. But is it all
technique? No. It's strength to weight ratio. I watched some 12 year
old kid boulder out of the cave and he's hanging upsidedown there,
reviewing his options, then proceeding. Is that technique? Somewhat.
But for the most part, the kids strength >= his weight. For me my
strength <= my weight. The same goes for a lot of 110 pound women who
use their wiry arms to pull their bodies up a route. And how about the
210 pound muscle hardmen in the gym? Pure muscle and you can see the
effortless movements as they proceed along a 5.11 overhang route.
Their muscle >= their weight.
So I'm not so hard on myself at my level. People say "your technique
is lacking, you need to work on your sidestepping". I can accept that.
I'm working on it. But I know for a fact that when I build up the
forearm, bicep, and finger strength to the level I want, technique
will be a complement to my climbing, and not the entirety. Right now
my arms and fingers are trying to catch up to where my technique has
gotten me: 5.10. Because if you put all the technique in the world
magically into my body, my puny fingers still can't grab a solid 5.11
crimper. And that's a factoid.
--
Adrian MacNair
Web Developer/Rock climber, Toronto
amac...@elyrium.com / (416) 893-9170
Karl Krout
Sounds to me like you are far too impressed with numbers and rate of
improvement (as compared to those around you). You appear to be more
interested in why others are better than you than how you can best
improve.
You also sound too headstrong to take advice from more experienced
climbers about technique. Of course, they are lying to you! If you can't
do a one-arm pull-up, there is no way you will ever progress past 5.10c.
Listen to all your two months of (gym) climbing experience. You are most
certainly correct. Ignore technique. The best climbers don't use their
feet anyway.
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, A.MacNair wrote:
> Now that I'm finishing 5.10a's in the gym, and barely managing
> 5.10d's, I have a few opinions. You get a lot of people arguing about
> whether it's strength or technique. I hear a lot of crap about how
> it's *all* technique and you should practice your technique on lower
> grades before you attempt the higher ones. All I do is climb and
> boulder at a 5.10 level, and it seems to boost both my strength and
> technique pretty fast. I have been climbing for exactly "two months
> overhangs and the 5.10 level, my technique got much better.
>
[snip]
> And I thought *I* was a quick one.
[snip]
Bas Kelderman
that which you can't do yet). Ofcourse you need strength to do a roof but
the more technique you have the less strength you need and ultimately all
the buff guys without technique take their falls.
You get the strength by bouldering, the technique by climbing and if you do
it enough and know when to change the climbs you are doing you will earn
those higher grades and do the harder sends.
As far as strength gains go, be careful, I pulled a couple of tendons in my
arm after gaining strength having been bouldering for a couple of months.
"A.MacNair" <amac...@elyrium.com> wrote in message
news:Tt6A5.215841$c5.45...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com...
<snip text>
David Kastrup
> Sounds to me like you are far too impressed with numbers and rate of
> improvement (as compared to those around you). You appear to be more
> interested in why others are better than you than how you can best
> improve.
> You also sound too headstrong to take advice from more experienced
> climbers about technique. Of course, they are lying to you! If you can't
> do a one-arm pull-up, there is no way you will ever progress past
> 5.10c.
Cough cough. In my opinion it is more important to be able to support
60% of your body weight on, say, two fingertips, than pull up 100% of
your weight on one arm. It is rather rare that you cannot take weight
off your arms by using your feet, if just in friction mode.
That is, without finger strength, bulging bicepses will buy you little.
--
David Kastrup Phone: +49-234-32-25570
Email: d...@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de Fax: +49-234-32-14209
Institut für Neuroinformatik, Universitätsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany
Ted Pederson
> grades before you attempt the higher ones. All I do is climb and
> boulder at a 5.10 level, and it seems to boost both my strength and
> technique pretty fast.
Adrian, I might have said exactly the same thing 14 years ago when I
temporarily pushed past my climbing partners by PUSH PUSH PUSHING myself
ever foreward.
Major elbow surgery sorta changed my mind a bit.
You're right, you'll get better fast by just continually climbing near
you limit. You don't need to put a lot of work into training regimes,
etc. Don't rely on technique, just muscle your way up everything,
right?
You'll also get hurt real fast, if you don't watch out. I did. My
friends who I had very temporarily surpassed went on to climb super hard
routes, using *smart* training, while I went through years of being a
depressed pud with a bad elbow.
If you are like me, you need to change your mindset. If you're like me,
you took a "every day I'm going to do better than the last" attitude from
other mainstream sports, an attitude which is very American I think.
Read some good info about training for climbing, and think about how hard
you want to be climbing in 5 years, not 5 months.
Ted Pederson
Kyri
"A.MacNair" <amac...@elyrium.com> wrote:
> Now that I'm finishing 5.10a's in the gym, and barely managing
> 5.10d's, I have a few opinions. You get a lot of people arguing about
> whether it's strength or technique. I hear a lot of crap about how
> it's *all* technique and you should practice your technique on lower
> boulder at a 5.10 level, and it seems to boost both my strength and
> technique pretty fast.
Adrian,
It's great that you have made progress so fast, although I'd second
Ted's warning to you about injury. Clearly, you can muscle up gym climbs
to 5.10 with only the technique you've picked up along the way.
(speaking rather badly for your gym's routesetters, but
moving along...) Congratulations. However, I suspect that at some point
you'll hit a plateau where your strength is no longer enough to get you
up the climb -- or where doing pure strength moves wears you out too
quickly to complete the route -- and where you'll need to work more on
footwork and body positioning. So why not have good habits from the
beginning?
As for your somewhat cocky attitude, I have two technique exercises to
recommend. Get a friend to take you outside on:
5.10 steep slab
and
5.8 hand crack.
You might feel differently about technique after that.
--Kyri
--
Any significance we try to impose on rock,
any grails we quest for,
we contrive for ourselves.
--Joe Kelsey
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Theresa Ho
> "A.MacNair" <amac...@elyrium.com> wrote:
>> Now that I'm finishing 5.10a's in the gym, and barely managing
>> 5.10d's, I have a few opinions.
Aha. I thought I'd noticed a dearth of opinions from you before this point.
Gyms are really good at making you strong, and climbing hard in the gym
requires more strength than a lot of outdoor climbing because so much of
the terrain is overhanging. The strength to weight ratio idea is most
true on overhanging routes.
If you're actually _getting_ a lot of crap about working easier routes to
improve your technique, it's probably because you look like shit when you
climb. Yeah, you're making it up mid-10s, and maybe people who are much
better climbers than you are in terms of technique are also only making it
up mid-10s, they just look a lot better doing it.
Ultimately improvment means working areas where you are weak. Working
your strengths is more fun, granted, but it will only get you so far.
Turning up your nose at skills that you are weak at is no recipie for
becoming a good all-around climber. It's exactly the same as a not-strong
climber saying that it's all technique and refusing to work strength and
power. It's stupid.
T - Oh, alright. Off-widths NEXT weekend. I promise.
D B FRAZ
>your strengths is more fun, granted, but it will only get you so far.
Best advice I've heard so far and I climb 12+.
David
tim_...@my-deja.com
Ted Pederson <hi_...@pacbell.net> wrote:
<snip>
> Read some good info about training for climbing, and think about how
> hard you want to be climbing in 5 years, not 5 months.
>
> Ted Pederson
Bravo Ted - sage advice.
Gyms make people strong, fast. End of story. Muscles grow faster than
tendons. Many budding indoor climbers essentialy train their bodies to
become better able to injure themselves. Coming up to speed on rock is a
far less intensive way to do it, far more likely to reward good
technique, and far less likely to result in injury.
One of the most flawless rock technicians I know is also one of the
strongest. He has lats like wings and muscles all the way from his nose
to his toes. Serious stuff. He is able to style moves many people have
to slap for, and yes, that's because he is way strong. But even he gets
pumped, even he relies on good technique to lessen the energy
requirement on routes. Even he gets injured, and it is his superb
technique that gets him back on 5.13s within weeks of getting back on
rock.
Strength comes and goes. Technique is forever. Don't expect you'll get
it in the gym.
Cheers,
Tim
Mad Dog
I know of a soft 12 at Indian Creek that you should check out to see if you
have all your weaknesses up to par. Should be a cruise for a 12+ climber.
Oh, you'll need to bring along a big bunch of #4 and #4.5 Camalots, but at
least you won't need any of that smaller stuff.
Mad "the route's name is 'Way rude' " Dog
Mad Dog
>Cough cough. In my opinion it is more important to be able to support
>60% of your body weight on, say, two fingertips, than pull up 100% of
>your weight on one arm. It is rather rare that you cannot take weight
>off your arms by using your feet, if just in friction mode.
>
>That is, without finger strength, bulging bicepses will buy you little.
Does finger strength do much good in clean squeeze chimneys?
Does strength to weight ratio rule on sick runouts?
If I lose weight and get stronger, will I climb better on all routes?
Mad "She cried 'No, No, No-wo-wow!' " dog
Geoff Jennings
Any chance you'll be in Ca anytime soon? There is a 5.10 at Dome Rock called
Tobin's Dihedral. sort of an off-hands crack/ I led it, but I had to hang on
my gear several times. Apparently my strength to weight (weak=<fat) ratio
isn't high enough to do it without resting on my cams. I'd love to get a TR on
it so I can practice a few times before trying to lead it again....
Interested?
Geoff
Mad Dog
>As for your somewhat cocky attitude, I have two technique exercises to
>recommend. Get a friend to take you outside on:
>
>5.10 steep slab
>and
>5.8 hand crack.
Don't forget: 5.7 squeeze, especially if wet.
Or maybe a 5.7+ route in Arizona that Opland hand picked for you to lead.
Mad "you'll cruise, dood, not saying if on the way up or down" Dog
Michael Riches
> Now that I'm finishing 5.10a's in the gym, and barely managing
> 5.10d's, I have a few opinions. You get a lot of people arguing about
> whether it's strength or technique.
Adrian, why don't you sneak on out to American >Fork canyon for a rest
week...dhuude. You've been pushing yourself way toooo hard. That's not good
for you...why, I'll be more than happy to get you out on some minor little,
light weight "Easy" climbs...like this "easy" little 5.8 called Gas
Boost...hey if you're doing 10's dhuuude you'd cruise this thing and right
next to it, there is one that's just a tad bit harder (in numbers only),
Vaporous Apparition...it's like a 5.9... and both of these particular climbs
have those famous Am Fork Limestone "monster" jugs... And that's jut two off
the top of my head...I'm sure I can come up with a dozen 5.7 to 5.9 love
fest, monster jug, "Easy" climbs for you to just "relax" a little on....All
those big bad 10's, dhuuude...they're are going stress you to the max
dhuuude...lighten up.....dhuuude...
The Rockrat....(Really...you'll get no argument here...I can tellll you've
far exceeded my 10+ years of technique...)
David Kastrup
> David Kastrup wrote:
>
> >Cough cough. In my opinion it is more important to be able to support
> >60% of your body weight on, say, two fingertips, than pull up 100% of
> >your weight on one arm. It is rather rare that you cannot take weight
> >off your arms by using your feet, if just in friction mode.
> >
> >That is, without finger strength, bulging bicepses will buy you little.
>
> Does finger strength do much good in clean squeeze chimneys?
No. Neither do bulging bicepses.
> Does strength to weight ratio rule on sick runouts?
Not much. Fear to sweat ratio might be more important. Of course,
you need to get over a runout, but in most cases, when you got up to
it, you'll have the skills to get over it. Unless
a) strength is giving out
b) the runout is not designed into the route, because you are setting
up the route, some hold or protection broke off since, you were
expected to lay a stopper/friend/nut anyway.
> If I lose weight and get stronger, will I climb better on all
> routes?
Actually those two almost never do harm.
Brutus of Wyde
"A.MacNair" wrote:
> Because if you put all the technique in the world
> magically into my body, my puny fingers still can't grab a solid 5.11
> crimper. And that's a factoid.
Unless your technique is allowing you to transfer more weight to
other points of contact with the rock, and to shift your balance to
apply optimum directional pull on that crimper, essentially making the
hold "bigger and more positive," and making you "lighter" (fewer pounds
of force applied at that crimping point of contact)???
Don't be surprised by a lot of negative responses to your post.
There is so much in it, that I don't know where to start.
Climbing is extremely complex.
Strength, technique, weight, tactics, mental training, flexibility...
"my puny fingers still can't grab a solid 5.11 crimper"
not to mention gym ratings, body-specific moves...
Others have posted about avoiding injury. climbing outside...
I recommend you get a book called "Performance Rock Climbing"
Read it. Fast improvement when first starting out is nothing
unusual. Rather typical, actually. So realize that you're unique,
just like everyone else.
Then, like Theresa mentioned, go find yourself an offwidth. If you're
climbing 5.10a to 5.10d in the gym, a 5.6 OW should get ya started.
Climb safely!
Brutus
mami...@cris.com
>
> Unless your technique is allowing you to transfer more weight to
> other points of contact with the rock, and to shift your balance to
> apply optimum directional pull on that crimper, essentially making the
> hold "bigger and more positive," and making you "lighter" (fewer
pounds
> of force applied at that crimping point of contact)???
I highly recommend taking a technique class. Most gyms offer them from
some experienced local or many of the sponsored climbers make rounds to
gyms and give clinics as well. A year or so ago I took a class from
Bobbi Bensman. Even though I feel like I climb pretty solid, I also
believe that you can always learn something new. Her clinic helped
immensely. I still practice everything that she taught us.
Chasing numbers may seem fun, but it's no way to really enjoy climbing.
To me climbing in a gym isn't real and the numbers don't mean crap.
It's only a place to improve and work out.
> I recommend you get a book called "Performance Rock Climbing"
I highly recommend this as well. It is well written.
>
> Then, like Theresa mentioned, go find yourself an offwidth. If you're
> climbing 5.10a to 5.10d in the gym, a 5.6 OW should get ya started.
>
He's not kidding here. I've witnessed a 5.11 gym climber humbled on a
5.8 crack outdoors.
Marty
A.MacNair
news:B5F6FE50.2CCFB%rock...@earthlink.net...
> Adrian, why don't you sneak on out to American >Fork canyon for a
rest
> week...dhuude. You've been pushing yourself way toooo hard. That's
not good
> for you...why, I'll be more than happy to get you out on some minor
little,
> light weight "Easy" climbs...like this "easy" little 5.8 called Gas
I appreciate all replies; I think I somehow conveyed a cocky attitude.
Sure, I get up 5.10's awkwardly, 5.9's pretty smoothly. It's weird how
there's this barrier there. Anyway, I'm not being cocky, I'm just sick
of watching people cruise up routes and they think they're hot shit
with their technique but the truth looks more like "strength to
weight" ratio. I'm standing by my belief so far...
As for outside, dunno, only been three times, and on limestone only.
Rockrat, you can probably rattle off 100 5.5's I can't do outside, in
fact I consider gym and real rock two different sports. It's like
comparing Ice and Field Hockey. I aint denying that technique is very
important, what I was saying was that people are jabbering on about
"it's *all* technique" and frankly I'm sick of hearing that load. It's
a combination of good technique, as Brutus said shifting my weight to
lessen the load, *and* your relative strength at your climbing level.
I maintain that you throw John Longs technique into my body and it
don't mean I can hang off the hard holds.....
P.S. Brutus, I read about offwidths in HTRC by Long Long and it sounds
painful..... btw, no need to "correct" me on my assertions about STW
ratio though I know you all want to =P
David Kastrup
> I appreciate all replies; I think I somehow conveyed a cocky
> attitude. Sure, I get up 5.10's awkwardly, 5.9's pretty
> smoothly. It's weird how there's this barrier there. Anyway, I'm not
> being cocky, I'm just sick of watching people cruise up routes and
> they think they're hot shit with their technique but the truth looks
> more like "strength to weight" ratio. I'm standing by my belief so
> far...
You can measure something like "strength to weight" by letting people
do pullups (where strength/weight counts). You'll find males that can
score about 5 times as many pullups as some girls, yet don't get up
half on routes the girls can climb through.
Of course, it helps both of those if they are stronger and lighter.
Good technique will optimally distribute the forces you have to exert
over your musculature/body/sinews/whatever. If they are too much
still, you won't get up. So you need certain minimum strength. But
much less than if you have bad technique.
David Kastrup
> He's not kidding here. I've witnessed a 5.11 gym climber humbled on
> a 5.8 crack outdoors.
Funniest I had was a gym climber (pretty impressive boulderer, BTW)
complaining all the time that he was getting filthy. Dirty holds,
grass, yucky stuff, you know.
Brutus of Wyde
"A.MacNair" wrote:
> I appreciate all replies; I think I somehow conveyed a cocky attitude.
> Sure, I get up 5.10's awkwardly, 5.9's pretty smoothly. It's weird how
> there's this barrier there. Anyway, I'm not being cocky, I'm just sick
> of watching people cruise up routes and they think they're hot shit
> with their technique but the truth looks more like "strength to
> weight" ratio. I'm standing by my belief so far...
All I'm trying to point out is that climbing is far more complex than
this.
If I have a 30-foot section of slightly overhanging crimping well
within my abilities, followed by a crux crimping section at the
limit of what I can do when fresh, STW ratio notwithstanding,
I will fail on that crux section unless I apply proper *tactics*
in the initial 30 feet, no matter the numbers. Learning to conserve
energy for crux moves by "metabolic juggling" is an important tactic.
Strength-to-weight ratio is important. And it may, indeed, be your
current weakest link. It certainly is mine. But it is not the only
factor out there that will get you up a climb. Or not. And other factors
can have a great impact on what you can *currently* do, given
your *current* level of fitness (or in my case, fatness).
Let's take another scenario: overhanging jugs with a potential
groundfall thrown in at each clip, with the clipping holds consisting
of "heinous slopers, dude." On TR, Brutus cruises up this
gym route, even when he stops to simulate the clips. But when he tries
to lead this route, his moves are less sure, he fumbles sequences,
and usually ends up grabbing the last draw. Is it lack of strength
that is stopping Brutus? On the surface it would appear so.
But in truth, Brutus is climbing less efficiently when on lead, making
more errors in movement, the cumulative result of which is that he
fails on the route. The actual weakness here is that Brutus has not
stress-proofed the kinds of moves he needs to complete this route,
and so when on lead, he resorts to less efficient moves that feel more
secure.
This illustrates one important point: Most errors in climbing
can mask themselves as a lack of strength. The net cumulative
impact of ANY type of movement errors is, eventually, the inability
to hold onto the rock. Learning to see beneath the surface of your
climbing failures is the key to many forms of improvement. It allows
you, as Theresa said, to work on your weaknesses.
> P.S. Brutus, I read about offwidths in HTRC by Long Long and it sounds
> painful..... btw, no need to "correct" me on my assertions about STW
> ratio though I know you all want to =P
OWs can be painful, without proper technique ;-)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
With proper technique, they just hurt.
Brutus of Wyde
Shoulder injury ward
Old Climbers' Home
Thor Lancelot Simon
>>
>He's not kidding here. I've witnessed a 5.11 gym climber humbled on a
>5.8 crack outdoors.
Heh. I'm a 5.11 sport climber -- not that that's any hot shit -- and I'm
all too well aware I can be humbled by the right 5.8 crack. And
offwidths...well...um, all I have to say about that subject is <shudder>.
Just bear in mind that Adrian is "right". It doesn't matter if he's wrong,
he's "right". So we can all share our experiences, but it's probably not
going to change the "fact" that he's "right", so perhaps we're all wasting
our breath.
It's all technique. All. It's. All. Technique. Without technique, you
can't *apply* the strength, and building technique will inevitably build
as much strength as you need (or you couldn't exercise the technique!) so
working brute strength is rather pointless. Example: this past weekend I
was up in Maine trying to get my head together and, just in passing as it
were, do a little bit of climbing. Monday we hit Otter Cliff and somehow
"A Dare By The Sea" didn't appeal to me this time; I hopped on a 5.9+ called
"Guillotine" that had humbled me long ago when I first tried it, even though
I thought I was certainly more than a 5.9 toprope climber. This time, there
was a bit of a revelation -- a rather curious, twisting, locked-off and oddly
stemmed move from small, strangely angled, but very positive holds led to a
powerful sequence that flowed naturally and elegantly through not only the
crux, where I'd fallen before, but to the very top of the climb. I stepped
past my belayer onto the top of the cliff, looked down at the sea, and let
out a whoop, then said "you know, I guess I wasn't strong enough to do that
before."
But I was. I've just gone to the gym and hit the weight machines, and for
good measure squeezed that infernal rubber donut as many times as I could,
and so now I know. I weigh 10 pounds more and I'm almost exactly as strong
in most muscles as I was then; in point of fact, my lats are weaker and my
deltoids may be too. So why did I feel like this time I was "strong enough"
to discover the right crux move?
With a bit more consideration, the answer became pretty obvious -- because,
before, I didn't know how to hold my muscles under tension the way I needed
to to use that strength. I didn't know I could shift my body the way I had
to to set up on the holds in a way that let me use them. I didn't even know
I could feel my muscles working as hard as they were -- both as I set the
move up and as I pulled through it -- and *not* be about to fall. I didn't
know that the intricate, twisting, push-pull movement that was the right one
was even something I *could* do -- so why try it? When you don't have
technique, you have a run at a move that requires technique and power, and
because you can't concieve of how to apply the power you've got, you end up
thinking it's not there. Rock climbing, it seems to me, is about power
applied with tremendous precision. And technique is what gets you that
precision. Sure, with more power you can battle your way up some climbs you
couldn't do before, and so you'll think even more power is what you need.
But, by and large, these climbs are not the climbs at a given grade that are
really worth doing, and once you exhaust them you'll find that you're bored,
frustrated, and at a very significant and exasperating plateau -- perhaps the
incremental climbs of 5.9, or 5.10, or 5.11, that you can't do will start to
gradually fill themselves in as, with nothing else to do, you *do* gain some
technique, but I think overall progress comes faster, and with a lot less
mental anguish, if you don't rely on unbalanced power this way.
In sum: work technique, and the power will come as you need it. Or it will
become obvious to you from what techniques you can't learn -- once you have
learned the *others* you need to climb at a given level, and only then --
what kinds of power you need to train up to the level of the rest of your
climbing. For example, these days I suspect I need a bit more grip strength,
but without a lot of work on my footwork and balance I could have trained
grip strength for months and it would have done nothing but hurt my tendons
and make me think climbing was a pointless, frustrating hell. Work power,
and it is *not* true that technique will come as you need it -- it may come
only much later, or it may not come at all, if you get so frustrated that
you give up, which would be a terrible thing to do.
Besides, the kind of climbing you'll be able to do at a given level will
be a lot more fun if you got there by subtlety, not brute force. And when
you flow up the rock like mercury with air blowing on it, even if you're
only flowing up 5.9, chicks will dig it. There, maybe that's enough reason
to give it a try. ;-)
Excuse me for a little while, now -- it's time for me to go back to flowing
up the rock like a spastic breakdancer with hot coals up his butt. Well, I
can dream, can't I?
--
Thor Lancelot Simon t...@rek.tjls.com
the effort to percieve simply the cruel radiance of what is
Dingus Milktoast
You're on the right track. You will never be a man, much
less a good climber, if you can't campus those gym 5.11's. I
mean it. You will never be a man and you certainly will
never get any respect.
Never mind the near unanimous opinions posted here to the
contrary. Never mind the best advice of most instructional
manuals. Never mind the experience of world class climbers.
Never mind you've been told over and over again. Never mind
(because you never do).
Just put a kevlar tire on it dude, and crank on. We all have
so much to learn from you.
DMT
A.MacNair
news:8qt60p$ipi$1...@panix3.panix.com...
> Just bear in mind that Adrian is "right". It doesn't matter if he's
wrong,
> he's "right". So we can all share our experiences, but it's
probably not
> going to change the "fact" that he's "right", so perhaps we're all
wasting
> our breath.
Actually for the first time in a post I have ever read by you, you did
*not* waste your breath. I do not often actually save messages but
yours I moved to a special folder reserved for really good posts.
While I had previously considered you a troll who looks for fights and
never has anything remotely useful to say, you have turned the opinion
180. Kudos Thor.
A.MacNair
news:39D21D26...@midtown.net...
> Just put a kevlar tire on it dude, and crank on. We all have
> so much to learn from you.
Man, I am reading a lot of ignorant posts here.... Dingus, I always
read and respect your opinions. Let me reiterate.
I said, I am tired of some beefy climbers *in the gym* saying it's
only technique. It's clearly bullshit since they use their muscle and
I watch their technique aint too grand. I am not slighting the very
talented people who have great technique and I even see really skinny,
weak looking people make the muscleheads look silly. I saw a really
short 5'2" women who climbs 5.11 effortlessly and she looks a little
lacking in the strength department. Superb technique.
At the highest level of climbing I have heard that you use mostly
technique to get up routes and the strength and power is a complement
to it. Did you even read my post or merely skim through it and say
"Stupid kid thinks he knows everything".
On overhangs there is a lot of technique involved to reach for the
next rock at the correct angle. Personally I don't feel strong enough
to hold my body weight for very long on an overhang. Are you saying
that's *only* technique? Isn't it also strength to weight ratio? Am I
wrong? Is what I am saying bullshit? I don't get it. Correct me
instead of using lame sarcasm.
Did you read my anecdote about the muscleguy who powered up a 5.10
with no technique....? Muscle has gotten him that far, and now he
needs to work on technique. I think the same goes for me. But I could
use a serious strength boost too. I try doing chinups and fail
miserably. Hey, when I was 8 years old I could do 50 chinups. That
means my strength at age 8 exceeded my weight. Are you saying that
doesn't count when you are reaching for a hold on an overhang and
trying to hold up your weight with one arm and precariously balanced
feet?
john R baker
Brutus of Wyde wrote:
> "A.MacNair" wrote:
> > Because if you put all the technique in the world
> > magically into my body, my puny fingers still can't grab a solid 5.11
> > crimper. And that's a factoid.
>
> Unless your technique is allowing you to transfer more weight to
> other points of contact with the rock, and to shift your balance to
> apply optimum directional pull on that crimper, essentially making the
> hold "bigger and more positive," and making you "lighter" (fewer pounds
> of force applied at that crimping point of contact)???
Pre-frickin-cisely. The best demonstrations of technique
I have ever had started with me standing at the bottom of
some route thinking: I'm just too weak. Then someone
showing me exactly how to do the move so that my
perceived weakness was not as important to the sequence
as I had assumed. Bingo -- new trick in the bag.
jb
Julie
According to whom? Beauty, in the eye of the beholder, or the mirror?
> Anyway, I'm not being cocky, I'm just sick
> of watching people cruise up routes and they think they're hot shit
> with their technique but the truth looks more like "strength to
> weight" ratio.
There's an awful lot to technique that someone with your history of
climbing can't yet even begin to appreciate. To suggest that you already
know differently is to be cocky, which is why you've gotten a lot of
less-than-positive answers here.
My (humbly offered) one-word answer: Mileage.
Come back and answer your own question, in two or ten years. Good
technique is also one of those chicken/egg things, where you don't
understand its benefits until you've felt it. Experience - you can't get
some without some.
JSH
Thor Lancelot Simon
A.MacNair <amac...@elyrium.com> wrote:
>"Dingus Milktoast" <crha...@midtown.net> wrote in message
>news:39D21D26...@midtown.net...
>> Just put a kevlar tire on it dude, and crank on. We all have
>> so much to learn from you.
>
>Man, I am reading a lot of ignorant posts here.... Dingus, I always
s/read/writ/g
A.MacNair
> In article <EqpA5.218383$c5.45...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com>,
> A.MacNair <amac...@elyrium.com> wrote:
> >"Dingus Milktoast" <crha...@midtown.net> wrote in message
> >news:39D21D26...@midtown.net...
> >> Just put a kevlar tire on it dude, and crank on. We all have
> >> so much to learn from you.
> >
> >Man, I am reading a lot of ignorant posts here.... Dingus, I always
>
> s/read/writ/g
Thanks. Isn't Linux fun?
P.S. Do me a personal favour and read before you write. It's kind of
like thinking before you speak.
Kyri
In article <EqpA5.218383$c5.45...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com>,
"A.MacNair" <amac...@elyrium.com> wrote:
> Man, I am reading a lot of ignorant posts here....
Me too. Yours.
> I said, I am tired of some beefy climbers *in the gym* saying it's
> only technique.
Nobody here is saying that it's *only* technique. Technique and
strength work together. You have to have strength to perform certain
techniques (lock-offs, for example), but without technique, pure
strength probably won't get you as far as you want to go.
> On overhangs there is a lot of technique involved to reach for the
> next rock at the correct angle. Personally I don't feel strong enough
> to hold my body weight for very long on an overhang. Are you saying
> that's *only* technique? Isn't it also strength to weight ratio?
Yes, strength and strength/weight ratio are good things. But if you use
twist-locks, dropped knees, and work your feet up (techniques) that
overhang might be easier and not require not so much strength. Again,
they work together.
>
> Did you read my anecdote about the muscleguy who powered up a 5.10
> with no technique....? Muscle has gotten him that far, and now he
> needs to work on technique.
Why not work on technique *before* not having it shuts you down?
Besides, any indoors 5.10 that you can "power up with no technique" is
probably a badly set route.
Are you saying that (strength)
> doesn't count when you are reaching for a hold on an overhang and
> trying to hold up your weight with one arm and precariously balanced
> feet?
>
With better technique, maybe your feet would be bomber, your hand on
the hold would be in a sustainable position, and your ability to make
the reach efficiently would be enhanced by correct body positioning.
Strength counts. So does brains.
--K
--
Any significance we try to impose on rock,
any grails we quest for,
we contrive for ourselves.
--Joe Kelsey
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Theresa Ho
David Kastrup <d...@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> wrote:
>"Mad Dog" <mad...@concentric.net> writes:
>> Does finger strength do much good in clean squeeze chimneys?
>
>No. Neither do bulging bicepses.
Actually, I think strong biceps _would_ help in a chimney. So would
strong triceps, pecs, abs, quads, calves, adductors (or is it abductors, I
always get those mixed up), hamstrings, hip-flexors... I don't think I've
ever used my jaw muscles in a squeeze chimney, but there are those out
there who could say otherwise. We're talking about a full-body pump here,
boys.
>> Does strength to weight ratio rule on sick runouts?
>
>Not much. Fear to sweat ratio might be more important.
IS more important. In your typical scenario, people don't back off of
sick runnouts because they couldn't do the moves on TR. I think you
underestimate the power of your mental state.
>> If I lose weight and get stronger, will I climb better on all
>> routes?
>
>Actually those two almost never do harm
Wait, but have you answered the question?
T
John Byrnes
> This illustrates one important point: Most errors in climbing
> can mask themselves as a lack of strength. The net cumulative
> impact of ANY type of movement errors is, eventually, the inability
> to hold onto the rock. Learning to see beneath the surface of your
> climbing failures is the key to many forms of improvement.
Precisely! In Performance Rock Climbing they talk about failing
and how
"... it always feels like lack of strength, when in
actuality if you had had more technique, your strength may have
been adequate."
This is merely one observation in a chapter that strives to
drive home the concept that improved technique will allow you
to improve *faster* than increased strength.
Adrian, you need to buy a clue. I think PRC, by Goddard and
Neumann, is only about $20.
- Lord Slime, quoted from memory
John Byrnes
> On overhangs there is a lot of technique involved to reach for the
> next rock at the correct angle. Personally I don't feel strong enough
> to hold my body weight for very long on an overhang. Are you saying
> wrong? Is what I am saying bullshit? I don't get it. Correct me
> instead of using lame sarcasm.
Okay, here's the correction. Strength is one facet of climbing
among many others. Concentrating on it will not raise your level
of climbing faster than if you concentrated on all of the facets
simultaneously at a lower level.
Okay, overhangs...
1) Statically campus it
2) Dynamically campus it
3) Frog it with feet
4) Hip turn/twist lock
5) Heel hook/toe hook
6) Inobvious flag
7) A bizarre stem
8) Undercling
9) Gaston
10) Arm bar/Knee bar
11) Mantel
12) More...
Now for grips on that overhang, as in which do you
use?...
1) Crimp
2) Backhand (saves strength in the fingers)
3) Finger/hand/fist jam? (undercling, layback or straight in?)
4) Open grip
5) Pocket (low for undercling)
6) Pinch
7) Thumbcatch
8) more...
So... how many of these techniques do you *really* know how
to use in a "stressful" situation? Can you even recognize
situations where these might be used? How's your flexibility?
- Lord Slime
Julie
>
> Okay, here's the correction.
...and he did! Slime, I'm proud of you, son :)
John Byrnes
Thanks Mom.
BTW: has anyone pointed out that saying "Fu bu edu"
can get you in deep doo doo?
- Lord Slime
Julie
> can get you in deep doo doo?
I can hope, can't I?
Jeremy the Sumo Climber
> news:39D21D26...@midtown.net...
> > Just put a kevlar tire on it dude, and crank on. We all have
> > so much to learn from you.
>
> read and respect your opinions. Let me reiterate.
>
Does this guy remind anyone else of Sulam?
- Sumo
Jay Tanzman
"Bas Kelderman" <da...@dds.nl> wrote:
[snip]
> As far as strength gains go, be careful, I pulled a couple of tendons
in my
> arm after gaining strength having been bouldering for a couple of
months.
I second that warning. Go slow on strength training early on. In the
gym it is easy to get strong so quickly that your connective tissues
don't have time to accommodate to your increased strength. I recently
climbed for a couple of months in the gym with a cast on my leg, which
gave me a big increase in upper body strength. Upon returning to normal
climbing I was able to breeze through some powerful routes that I had
never been able to get off the ground on. The result: a torn finger
tendon pulley. First the foot, then the finger. Great year I've had.
Jay
Jay Tanzman
theresa...@uclink4.berkeley.edu (Theresa Ho) wrote:
> >In article <Tt6A5.215841$c5.45...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com>,
> > "A.MacNair" <amac...@elyrium.com> wrote:
> If you're actually _getting_ a lot of crap about working easier routes
to
> improve your technique, it's probably because you look like shit when
you
> climb.
Good point. Furthermore, by climbing with poor technique, you are
undoubtedly reinforcing bad habits that will interfere with your
learning better technique. I have learned a lot by wathching and
imitating better climbers. Try doing your 5.10s the way the smoother
climbers do them. See for yourself how much less energy you expend and
you'll see how important technique really is.
I'm always amazed when I watch beginners week after week struggling up
overhanging gym routes using nothing but frontal lock-offs, when they
should be studying how better climbers are able to get up these routes
effortlessly using good overhang technique.
-Jay
Brutus of Wyde
Jeremy the Sumo Climber wrote:
> Does this guy remind anyone else of Sulam?
Yup, I noticed that as well.
Doubt that he has the stubborn-ness of the master, though.
Manzanita, where did you go? *sniff*
Brutus "They grow up so fast."
olga_c...@my-deja.com
...
> Does this guy remind anyone else of Sulam?
>
Come on...
Sulam was a real go-getter! We would go to Yosemite/Tuolumne, explore,
climb, then talk to everyone about how he sets anchors, how he
climbs easy routes and had opinion on everything. In fact many
oldtimers here were annoyed that he is going out there, doing stuff
w/o much experience and even taking and teaching other beginners
(blind leading blind)
Adrian is similar in that he is talking excitedly about most things
trivial and matter-of-fact to more experienced climbers. <this used
to annoy people about Sulam> But unlike Sulam, his excitement is
about advancing grades at the gym?! In my opinion, he is too concerned
about grades, and how quickly he progresses at the gym vs. other
climbers. He seems to be more concerned with his toproping grades
that his becoming an independent climber who leads/sets up natural
pro anchors and trusts his own ability enough to take beginners out.
<Sulam was willing to do that, he was very independent>
Olga
Brent Ware
Julie <jh...@fu.bu.edu> writes:
> Come back and answer your own question, in two or ten years. Good
> technique is also one of those chicken/egg things, where you don't
> understand its benefits until you've felt it. Experience - you can't get
> some without some.
Or as some humble soul once said, "Technique gets me through times of
no strength better than strength gets me through times of no
technique."
Cheers,
-bw
neither
Kyri
olga_c...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8qtp20$lhu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> ...
> > Does this guy remind anyone else of Sulam?
> >
> > - Sumo
>
> Come on...
> Sulam was a real go-getter!
I arrived on the scene as Sulam was leaving, but it seemed like Sulam
primarily annoyed people by sounding like he knew what he was talking
about when he didn't. I have to say, though, that the last thing I
heard of him he had climbed the Nose with Karlee. So maybe he gets the
last laugh.
If I have an issue with you, Adrian, it's that you're too ready to
discount the wisdom of the past and of your "elders" (as climbers).
Believe it or not, some of these loudmouths do know what they're
talking about. It also disturbs me a little that you sometimes use the
wrong terms for things (I remember this showing up in a thread
discussing some of your early outdoor experiences, maybe rappeling).
When you do that, it makes me wonder if you've realized that accuracy
is important in this sport. I think you would benefit from climbing
outside more.
On the other hand, I put my foot in my mouth at least as often as Sulam
or Adrian and I'm still alive and posting.
--Kyri
--
Any significance we try to impose on rock,
any grails we quest for,
we contrive for ourselves.
--Joe Kelsey
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Chris Wegener
"A.MacNair" <amac...@elyrium.com> wrote in message
news:EqpA5.218383$c5.45...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com...
> "Dingus Milktoast" <crha...@midtown.net> wrote in message
> news:39D21D26...@midtown.net...
> > Just put a kevlar tire on it dude, and crank on. We all have
> > so much to learn from you.
>
> Man, I am reading a lot of ignorant posts here.... Dingus, I always
> read and respect your opinions. Let me reiterate.
>
> only technique.
The limiting factor in climbing is height to weight ratio. I remember
seeing a post somewhere where someone had worked out the maximum level
anyone could climb given their height and weight. (Yes, yes, I know there
are some outliers in the data like John Dunne) After this rather depressing
thought the reality is that technique is the next most important criteria,
followed by strength.
Certainly it is possible to improve one's climbing ability by becoming
stronger but it is counter productive if it increases your weight. You had
mentioned John Long before and he is an excellent example of this paradox.
Yes John was stronger than God but he also weighed a lot. It was a constant
struggle for him to keep his weight down and the years he did his finest
climbing his body fat readings were well into the single digits. By and
large the best climbers are whippet thin with a positive ape index. (Yeah,
yeah, yeah, obsessive, competitive, unemployed and all the rest of the
baggage that goes with being a world class climber)
The more likely outcome of obsessing about strength, as others have pointed
out, is injury. Focusing on technique and learning to enjoy climbing for
climbing's sake is far more likely to reward the effort you expend as well
as provide the pleasant memories of enjoyable days spent in wonderful
locations with good friends which ultimately is the only reward that
climbing has to offer. You will remember the road trips, the peaks you were
rained off, the endless pitches on clean rock in brilliant sunshine much
more than you will remember sitting in the dirt under a forty foot bolted
choss pile with a big number.
--
Chris
-- this is for the SPAMMERS robots
cweg...@spamcop.net
A.MacNair
news:8qtr5a$neq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I'm always amazed when I watch beginners week after week struggling
up
> overhanging gym routes using nothing but frontal lock-offs, when
they
> should be studying how better climbers are able to get up these
routes
> effortlessly using good overhang technique.
My point keeps getting conveniently ignored.
if you put the technique of a master in a newbie, can they do a hard
route with the strength a newbie has?
Mike Garrison
>
> Man, I am reading a lot of ignorant posts here....
Garbage in, garbage out.
Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
==========
What other common aphorisms does Mr. MacNair bring to mind?
-Mike
maohai huang
:
: BTW: has anyone pointed out that saying "Fu bu edu"
: can get you in deep doo doo?
no shit. i am already in.
Jonas Wiklund
progress. Do not compare your hardest climb with other peoples hardest
climb, it is of no use whatsoever. Do compare your technique with
others. Do not compare your strength with others. Do compare how you use
your strength. Don't get injured. Do stay true to your goals.
Always remember that climbing is a dangerous sport so there is no point
in progressing fast to high numbers if your judgement don't progress at
the same rate. Staying alive should be a rather high priority.
It take a lot of time to be good, because you will probably never come
to a point when you consider yourself as a good climber. Sooner or later
you will realise that numbers are no measure of how good you climb. Your
main focus will be on other things, safety, speed, stability in
performance etc. and you will find that to progress in this areas are
very much harder than pulling far and hard on couloured plastic.
(more in line with your question: half-open crimp strength / bodymass
has been shown to be related to performance in indoor-comp, who cares?)
--
*---------------------------------------------------------------*
| Jonas....@math.umu.se | Jonas Wiklund |
| Tel: +46(90) 786 59 36 |--------------------------------|
| cell: +46(70) 317 27 37 | Department of Mathematics |
| Fax: +46(90) 786 52 22 | Umea University |
| ICQ: 36362661 | S-901 87 Umea |
| URL: www.math.umu.se/~jwi | Sweden |
*---------------------------------------------------------------*
David Kastrup
> Actually for the first time in a post I have ever read by you, you did
> *not* waste your breath. I do not often actually save messages but
> yours I moved to a special folder reserved for really good posts.
> While I had previously considered you a troll who looks for fights and
> never has anything remotely useful to say, you have turned the opinion
> 180. Kudos Thor.
Now you consider Thor to be a fairy that runs from fights and always
has something close to useless to say?
--
David Kastrup Phone: +49-234-32-25570
Email: d...@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de Fax: +49-234-32-14209
Institut für Neuroinformatik, Universitätsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany
David Kastrup
> Brutus of Wyde wrote:
>
> > "A.MacNair" wrote:
> > > Because if you put all the technique in the world
> > > magically into my body, my puny fingers still can't grab a solid 5.11
> > > crimper. And that's a factoid.
> >
> > Unless your technique is allowing you to transfer more weight to
> > other points of contact with the rock, and to shift your balance to
> > apply optimum directional pull on that crimper, essentially making the
> > hold "bigger and more positive," and making you "lighter" (fewer pounds
> > of force applied at that crimping point of contact)???
>
> Pre-frickin-cisely. The best demonstrations of technique
> I have ever had started with me standing at the bottom of
> some route thinking: I'm just too weak.
I have quite a few times failed at some overhangs, repeatedly. Not
enough strength, period. After several attempts (I am a blockhead
bastard), when nobody including belayer cared looking anymore at my
increasingly feeble attempts, I often managed to get up that sucker.
Could not say how I did it. But I know that I certainly had a lot
less of strength at the successful attempt than at the first one.
Go figure.
Jeremy the Sumo Climber
> My point keeps getting conveniently ignored.
>
> if you put the technique of a master in a newbie, can they do a hard
> route with the strength a newbie has?
>
>
Far sooner than if he doesn't have technique. Strength comes naturally
with use; technique doesn't (at least as much). My 2 brothers are a
clear example of this: the older of the 2 is as strong as an ox, and
rather light. Since he swings a hammer for a living, his hands are
quite strong. The younger is not nearly as strong, and weighs a bit
more. Brother #1 can yank on slippery slopers and tiny crimps with the
best of 'em; brother #2 isn't exceptionally strong. Oh, and brother #1
has a bit more mileage, as well. Guess which one is the better
climber...
Yup. Brother #2. He's developed his technique rather quickly, and his
strength has increased dramatically along the way. Brother #1 simply
yanks hard, getting frustrated that he can't simply pull through the
same sequences that his weaker brothers (that includes me...) can float
through (on those poorly-set routes that you can simply yank through,
he usually has a stellar time, of course). The strength to weight ratio
heavily favors brother #1, but technique easily overcomes that deficit
for #2. I've no doubt that if brother #1 could focus on his technique,
he'd be a very capable climber, probably 5.12-13, depending on his
commitment level (unfortunately, he doesn't get into it as much as I
do). But until he focuses his attention on his technique, he's gonna
struggle on the moderate grades.
Nobody's ignoring your point, Adrian; it's just wrong.
- Sumo
Jeremy the Sumo Climber
olga_c...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8qtp20$lhu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> ...
> > Does this guy remind anyone else of Sulam?
> >
> > - Sumo
>
> Come on...
> climb, then talk to everyone about how he sets anchors, how he
> climbs easy routes and had opinion on everything. In fact many
> oldtimers here were annoyed that he is going out there, doing stuff
> w/o much experience and even taking and teaching other beginners
> (blind leading blind)
>
> Adrian is similar in that he is talking excitedly about most things
> trivial and matter-of-fact to more experienced climbers. <this used
> to annoy people about Sulam> But unlike Sulam, his excitement is
> about advancing grades at the gym?! In my opinion, he is too concerned
> about grades, and how quickly he progresses at the gym vs. other
> climbers. He seems to be more concerned with his toproping grades
> that his becoming an independent climber who leads/sets up natural
> pro anchors and trusts his own ability enough to take beginners out.
> <Sulam was willing to do that, he was very independent>
>
> Olga
>
No doubt; I simply thought his persistence in the face of strong
arguments reminded me of Sulam.
Plus, if I remember correctly, Sulam wandered into rec.climbing during
his gym apprenticeship, earing his rather gaudy scars once he started
venturing outdoors...
olga_c...@my-deja.com
> No doubt; I simply thought his persistence in the face of strong
> arguments reminded me of Sulam.
Yes, it reminded me of Sulam too, this plus the number of posts,
and inserting some story about his own experience which
at times has nothing to do with what's being discussed into
every 4th thread. (like rapelling for example, thanx, Kyri)
But hey, this is understandable for a bright-eyed excited beginner
who is so in love with the sport. That's why I did not mind Sulam
as much. I just wanted to make a distinction.
> Plus, if I remember correctly, Sulam wandered into rec.climbing during
> his gym apprenticeship, earing his rather gaudy scars once he started
> venturing outdoors...
Oh, my wrong, I must have missed the beginning of Sulam.
But I still think that Sulam was less into numbers.
I might even search the deja for 1998 posts to see if I remember it
right when I have time.
Olga
PS: I was not surprised Sulam got a guide and did the Nose!
Michael Riches
reading the bulk of the responses to you on this I still think it has merit
so I'll go ahead and post it now
> I aint denying that technique is very
> important, what I was saying was that people are jabbering on about
> "it's *all* technique" and frankly I'm sick of hearing that load. It's
> a combination of good technique, as Brutus said shifting my weight to
> lessen the load, *and* your relative strength at your climbing level.
> I maintain that you throw John Longs technique into my body and it
> don't mean I can hang off the hard holds.
The Point I was trying to make, Adrian, is that there are a lot of people
that have been trying to give you advice (when you've asked) and you seem to
be falling into that old numbers trap. Climbing "IS" technique!!! But
climbing is also your strength to weight ratio, it is pure strength, it is
cunning, route finding , knowing when and how to rest, it is stamina, it is
mastering your fears, the fear of heights is strong in many people. It is
learning to move with the most efficient use of your motion, your strength
and above all climbing is and should always be enjoyable...If you can't go
out and enjoy yourself, then you will not be climbing for
long,"guaranteed"!!!..You've only been climbing for what now??? Months???
and already you're pissed, because there are all these people out there
that are telling you that your technique stinks??? You need to work on your
technique??? Welll maybe they see something that you don't, you might feel
that by reducing your weight that you climb significantly better...and you
might be able to point to those numbers and use those as indicators and
proof positive that your theory is right, when in fact somebody in your
shoes needs many things...technique is very high among those things...as is
strength...chill a bit relax and enjoy, there will be plenty of time for you
to break into the macho macho man numbers game...if you try and kill
yourself now on numbers, you are going to hit that 11 to 12 plateau and
you'll stall, burn out and never climb again...
That is what every body is trying to tell you...listen for a change...
The Rockrat...(Damn...kids around the sawmill....)
Hal Murray
> Come back and answer your own question, in two or ten years. Good
> technique is also one of those chicken/egg things, where you don't
> understand its benefits until you've felt it. Experience - you can't get
> some without some.
There is a key point hidden in that suggestion. The goal of this silly
activity is to have fun. Having fun makes it much more likely that
he will still be climbing in two or ten years.
--
These are my opinions, not necessarily my employers. I hate spam.
D B FRAZ
>have all your weaknesses up to par. Should be a cruise for a 12+ climber.
>Oh, you'll need to bring along a big bunch of #4 and #4.5 Camalots, but at
>least you won't need any of that smaller stuff.
>
>Mad "the route's name is 'Way rude' " Dog
>
I just said it was good advice not that I followed it.
David
D B FRAZ
>> a 5.8 crack outdoors.
You know I find this kind of funny people make it sounds like this is par for
the course. I've witnessed many the gym rat sport climber go waltz up trad
routes at nearly the same level they sport climb with little or no experience.
David
D B FRAZ
>
>if you put the technique of a master in a newbie, can they do a hard
>route with the strength a newbie has?
I'll answer your question on point. I know a 5.12+ climber female type who
can't do a pull up or hang from a normal door jam. Good technique and a ton of
endurance.
David
David Kastrup
> In article <theresahNOSPAM-...@goodman11.lsa.berkeley.edu>,
> theresa...@uclink4.berkeley.edu (Theresa Ho) wrote:
> > >In article <Tt6A5.215841$c5.45...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com>,
> > > "A.MacNair" <amac...@elyrium.com> wrote:
>
> > If you're actually _getting_ a lot of crap about working easier routes
> to
> > improve your technique, it's probably because you look like shit when
> you
> > climb.
>
> Good point. Furthermore, by climbing with poor technique, you are
> undoubtedly reinforcing bad habits that will interfere with your
> learning better technique. I have learned a lot by wathching and
> imitating better climbers. Try doing your 5.10s the way the smoother
> climbers do them. See for yourself how much less energy you expend and
> you'll see how important technique really is.
>
> I'm always amazed when I watch beginners week after week struggling up
> overhanging gym routes using nothing but frontal lock-offs, when they
> should be studying how better climbers are able to get up these routes
> effortlessly using good overhang technique.
Now here to some personal experience that is not to be taken too
seriously, as it depends a lot on personal learning styles and
whatever.
I find that climbing (or rather, fighting on) trad routes that are
seriously too hard (as in "even with good technique my strength
wouldnot be enough") will not get me up them, but the things you try
on their crux and other moves (which you partly manage) before
despairing after half an hour or so will improve your technical
performance once you return to routes more appropriate to your skills.
Experiences will differ. And be careful not to injure yourself:
trying this on a route which has its difficulty because it requires
hanging on one or two fingers will gain you nothing if your fingers
just are not made to bear that.
David Kastrup
> "Jay Tanzman" <jtan...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8qtr5a$neq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> > I'm always amazed when I watch beginners week after week
> > struggling up overhanging gym routes using nothing but frontal
> > lock-offs, when they should be studying how better climbers are
> > able to get up these routes effortlessly using good overhang
> > technique.
>
> My point keeps getting conveniently ignored.
No, we just don't agree.
> if you put the technique of a master in a newbie, can they do a hard
> route with the strength a newbie has?
The technique of a master is finely honed to the balance of muscles on
a certain body. This balance is maintained and built when climbing.
If a newbie gets either the technique or the strength of a master,
there might be some *short* things that will be better done with pure
muscles. But on longer routes, muscles lose out.
And after a month of training the master technician will have built up
on those muscles which are most effective when climbing (simply
because he uses them), whereas Mr muscleman will have degraded his
balance in the other way. And probably waste his time doing extra
exercises for those muscles which he would not need half as strong for
his climbing level if he focused on the technique.
David Kastrup
Depends on the character of the route. Things that you don't really
learn in most gyms: finding the most effective smears on the rock,
not getting caught in nice dead-ends, ignoring better holds that might
put you off-balance, ugly body-work (squeezes, some jams, using your
knees), finding holds at all...
On the other hand, some trad routes *are* not too dissimilar to a gym
experience with regard to their difficulties.
A.MacNair
wrote in message
news:m2vgvgn...@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de...
> Experiences will differ. And be careful not to injure yourself:
> trying this on a route which has its difficulty because it requires
> hanging on one or two fingers will gain you nothing if your fingers
> just are not made to bear that.
Exactly, thank God someone brought it up.... There's this 5.10- at the
gym which is a two finger hang jobbie the whole way and balance and
technique aside.... it still hurts to climb it since my fingers are
still adjusting to it.
David Kastrup
I should be surprised if a 5.10- route would not permit taking weight
off those two fingers by proper footwork. And if the route was 5.12,
you probably still could dyno over the passage if done properly,
taking quite a bit off load off, too.
Those constellations would rather occur in 5.13 and 5.14 routes (if I
have the U.S.A. rating system more or less correct in mind).
Julie
> > technique is also one of those chicken/egg things, where you don't
> > understand its benefits until you've felt it. Experience - you can't get
> > some without some.
>
> There is a key point hidden in that suggestion. The goal of this silly
> activity is to have fun. Having fun makes it much more likely that
> he will still be climbing in two or ten years.
Exactly!
All this talk of chasing numbers alludes to that point: focusing on technique,
and enjoying yourself and the feeling of ease and economy of movement, is what
will keep us (interested in) climbing. We can *always* learn more in that
area.
OTOH, as homo sapiens we all have a strength cap/plateau. What happens when
you reach that, when you simply can't get the next number, whatever it is?
While I enjoy pushing my physical limits, there's so much more to it than that.
JSH 'perennial student'
[takeoutthisbit]sidfish@lineone.net
If you want to be climbing in 20 years time and still enjoying it I
suggest you back off the power to weight ratio worries for the moment.
Get out and get some experience. If all you want to do is crank sport
routes it will still do you some good to go and do some proper
climbing.
Something you will learn rapidly is that other people will be far
happier to go to the crag with you if they are confident that you are
safe and have a sound technical base to your climbing.
As a rule they will not be looking for you to be able to get up the
hardest steepest routes.
You will find that in order to get out onto the crag and push it on
hard routes you will welcome having people with you who have the
experience and knowledge to back you up. (Does this make sense)
Most fit people can crank 5.11 on the wall with a bit of practice.
Not so many people can do it onsite, in the rain,in the dark ,
carrying a sack. If you can do that and keep quiet, then you won't be
having to worry about your P:W ratio.
Matt
Irishman
>
> My point keeps getting conveniently ignored.
>
> route with the strength a newbie has?
>
For what it's worth, I know a gal that climbs 5.12 in the gym, she can't do
a chin-up, not even one. Does that address your point?
The one ape type climber I know who CAN climb 5.12+, admits that his
genetically gifted strength was a disadvantage when starting out. It took
him longer to learn the "right" way because he could just muscle up a lot of
the hard stuff. Still it's fun to watch him in an impromptu campusing
competition.
I can't believe it takes massive strength to climb 5.10 to easy 5.12. If
you work on the technique the strength will come on it's own. But my opinion
is just based on watching others. I can't do the 5.12 stuff myself.
You keep mentioning strength to weight ratio. Let me ask you this, if I
may. Are you maybe a little over weight? Generally out of shape? If you
are, then losing the excess flab will help you climb better. One lb. of fat
wont move one lb. of muscle. That's a fact. "BUT" if you're in generally
good shape, Slime's advice about working on your weaknesses is the only way
to go.
David Kastrup
> You keep mentioning strength to weight ratio. Let me ask you this,
> if I may. Are you maybe a little over weight? Generally out of
> shape? If you are, then losing the excess flab will help you climb
> better. One lb. of fat wont move one lb. of muscle. That's a fact.
Fat does not move much, anyhow. Trimming weight off the middle also
helps making technique apply better: flagging and other sillinesses
with weight balancing are more effective when your centre of gravity
actually moves upon moving your limbs. Of course, this can be a
disadvantage too, but one that usually can be ameliorated well enough.
Karl Lew
> experience with regard to their difficulties.
That's a bit of a put-down and I object to it.
I spend 95% of my time in the gym. About the
only thing you can't work on directly in the
gym is dealing with runouts. Even that you can
work on by downclimbing. A gym can be equipped
with finger cracks, hand-cracks, and OW cracks
as well as chimneys, and can therefore be quite
effective as a training tool. My gym experience
definitely translates to the outdoors. I'd prefer
to climb outside, but for now, I'm stuk under
flourescent lites.
--Karl
John Byrnes
> My point keeps getting conveniently ignored.
Now c'mon Adrian... you're just not getting the answer
you wanted.
> if you put the technique of a master in a newbie, can they do a hard
> route with the strength a newbie has?
Yes, but it depends. The converse is easier to observe in real
life. By that I mean that there's very good climbers out there
that are totally out of shape, really weak, yet they can climb
5.10 "off the couch". I know a guy like that. Actually, I know
a couple of them. It's disheartening!
- Lord Slime
Julie
Huh? Explain please...?
> Strength counts. So does brains.
To go the sexist route, one of my fellow instructors tells his classes that
usually at first, bicep-heavy Gold's Gym guys can claw up harder stuff than
the average gal, but then the women make progress faster while the guys
plateau.
Again it's a strength issue - women (and some men!) quickly realize that
they don't have the brute force to pull with, so they figure out different
ways of making moves, which we call technique. The Gold's Gym guys insist
on strength, which only goes so far without technique. But then, how many
different ways have we all come up with of saying the same thing, by
now????
My favorite shirt: "Climb like a girl."
JSH
John Byrnes
> Jeremy the Sumo Climber wrote:
> > Does this guy remind anyone else of Sulam?
>
>
> Doubt that he has the stubborn-ness of the master, though.
>
> Manzanita, where did you go? *sniff*
>
> Brutus "They grow up so fast."
Stop that! I'm supposed to be working here, not laughing.
- Lord Slime
John Byrnes
> > is par for the course. I've witnessed many the gym rat sport
> > climber go waltz up trad routes at nearly the same level they sport
> > climb with little or no experience.
>
> learn in most gyms: finding the most effective smears on the rock,
> not getting caught in nice dead-ends, ignoring better holds that might
> put you off-balance, ugly body-work (squeezes, some jams, using your
> knees), finding holds at all...
I agree with David. You rarely find cracks in a gym, and even if
you do, they are rarely pure cracks.
Time and time again I've taken a very good sport climber to
Vedauwoo and watched them flail on 5.9 handcracks, or even
better, 5.6 offwidth. The most common whine? "There's
no holds!"
And Adrian, it's all technique.
- Lord Slime
Karl Lew
>
> Not so many people can do it onsite, in the rain,in the dark ,
> carrying a sack. If you can do that and keep quiet, then you won't be
> having to worry about your P:W ratio.
>
> Matt
That's a fair bit of misery to be quiet about.
8*) Karl "'twas a dark and stormy nite..."
Kyri
Adrian was talking about muscling over an overhang, I was giving
examples of some techniques that make overhangs easier... twist-locking
rather than reaching frontally, for example.
>
> To go the sexist route, one of my fellow instructors tells his
classes that
> usually at first, bicep-heavy Gold's Gym guys can claw up harder
stuff than
> the average gal, but then the women make progress faster while the
guys
> plateau.
I've actually found that men (as well as children, other women,
Labrador retrievers and GOP senators) make progress faster than me, but
I'm probably an exception.
--K
--
Any significance we try to impose on rock,
any grails we quest for,
we contrive for ourselves.
--Joe Kelsey
Kyri
"Karl Lew" <karl...@intuit.com> wrote:
>
> That's a bit of a put-down and I object to it.
> I spend 95% of my time in the gym. About the
> only thing you can't work on directly in the
> gym is dealing with runouts.
Nut placements.
(:
Irishman
> Fat does not move much, anyhow. Trimming weight off the middle also
> helps making technique apply better: flagging and other sillinesses
> with weight balancing are more effective when your centre of gravity
> actually moves upon moving your limbs. Of course, this can be a
> disadvantage too, but one that usually can be ameliorated well enough.
>
Actually as soon as I sent that I realized I was wrong. My excess flab
helps me move when I fall. In fact it helps me fall!
Seriously you make a point I forgot. The beer belly gets in the way of
applying technique in a lot of ways. In addition to the examples you gave,
there is a slab wall at my gym that fatless people can usually stand on with
no hands. Me? I'm starting that slow motion backwards tipping thing as
soon as I let go of the crimper.
olga_c...@my-deja.com
> Something you will learn rapidly is that other people will be far
> happier to go to the crag with you if they are confident that you are
> safe and have a sound technical base to your climbing.
>
> As a rule they will not be looking for you to be able to get up the
> hardest steepest routes.
Excellent point!
Due to my poor P:W ratio I cat's toprope even close to the level some
of my friends can, But I have no shortage of people who want to
clim,b with me because many of the people who top rope hard grades
at the gym still like to have me around when climbing, because
I have more experience outdoors than they do.
So my advice to Adrian is: forget about grades, think: milage,
make sure you can go out, find the climbs using topos, set up
top ropes, trust your anchors,...
To be specific: take your brother or someone else with equal/less
experience, go to a new climbing area, find a moderate climb
using a guide book, scramble up, set up anchor, walk down or rapell,
do some toproping. I promice You, You will feel much more satisfaction
than getting that 5.10 in the gym. I speak from my past experience!
good luck!
> Not so many people can do it onsite, in the rain,in the dark ,
> carrying a sack. If you can do that and keep quiet, then you won't be
> having to worry about your P:W ratio.
...
"keep quiet?" You mean You climb for YOURSELF, and not to impress???!
:)
Olga
olga_c...@my-deja.com
> if you put the technique of a master in a newbie, can they do a hard
> route with the strength a newbie has?
Yes!
My husband was sick for a year and lost all his muscles. When he
recovered He still
could climb harder grades than I (And I never stopped going to the gym)
especially hand cracks and slabs, all because he has great smooth
technique.
Julie
> examples of some techniques that make overhangs easier... twist-locking
> rather than reaching frontally, for example.
I was asking you to describe a twist-lock - I've never heard that term
before. I (try to) twist my way up overhangs, to be sure, but couldn't
visualize what you meant by twist-lock.
> I've actually found that men (as well as children, other women,
> Labrador retrievers and GOP senators) make progress faster than me
I spent a week watching it blow rain on Rainier earlier this summer,
thinking, Al Gore got up this stupid thing, what's wrong with me????? I
won't even mention how my co-instructor boasts about the kids on his sacred
climbing team onsighting their age.
JSH
Dingus Milktoast
>
> > On the other hand, some trad routes *are* not too dissimilar to a gym
> > experience with regard to their difficulties.
>
> I spend 95% of my time in the gym. About the
> only thing you can't work on directly in the
> work on by downclimbing. A gym can be equipped
> with finger cracks, hand-cracks, and OW cracks
> as well as chimneys, and can therefore be quite
> effective as a training tool. My gym experience
> definitely translates to the outdoors. I'd prefer
> to climb outside, but for now, I'm stuk under
> flourescent lites.
I have never seen a gym capable of simulating a 100' slab
runnout, the horrors of unprotected wide cracks and bombay
chimneys, etc. Have yet to see the gym that can effectively
simulate granite slab friction climbing. In fact, I have yet
to see the gym that can simulate granite at all. Gyms are
not useful to train for moderate terrain either (unless you
have extended moderate boulder traverses available). Gyms
are useless for highball boulder training (unless you're in
good with the gym owner). In fact, gyms are not useful for
training the dangerous aspects of climbing, from objective
to subjective, period. Insurance and all that. Gyms are not
too useful for aid or ice climbing, snow climbing, glissades
and a host of other mountaineering problems.
Gyms are good for training *components* of those things. In
that respect they are like weight training... isolate and
train specific things. And just like weight training, the
significant gains are there only for those willing to apply
the proper techniques. That's why I maintain that strength
is merely ONE component of technique. If you train sloppily
with weights the gains will be minimal (and you will
eventually get hurt). If you apply proper technique to
weight training, the gains can be significant. The same is
true for climbing.
My personal experience in gyms leads me to believe the vast
majority of participants exhibit sloppy footwork *most of
the time.* Even good climbers seem to be guilty of slapping
their feet around on the plastic. There is little *to be
gained* through this type of practice. If foot slapping and
campusing are the main techniques applied on steep gym
routes (and they are), then that is what climbers are
training for. Many of these people attribute their climbing
failures to a lack of power. But if they get stronger and
continue to practice sloppy technique, the only means of
advance left is *more power.* That's like trying to cure the
ills of a Volkswagen Microbus by putting in a 454 hemi.
I'm not getting down on gym climbing. Some of my best
friends use gyms! I have realized nice performance gains
through gym climbing. But it is undeniably easy to
misinterpret these gains. Going from 10a to 10d in the gym
may represent nothing more than learning how to gym climb;
period. Going from 10a to 10d in the world however, and
especially on trad leads, represents a whole lot more than
what's possible in the gym.
DMT
Kyri
Julie <jh...@fu.bu.edu> wrote:
>
> I was asking you to describe a twist-lock - I've never heard that term
> before. I (try to) twist my way up overhangs, to be sure, but
couldn't
> visualize what you meant by twist-lock.
OK, I'll give it a shot: You're on an overhang. You face sideways, body
sideways to the wall, hold on with the hand *closest* to the wall. Then
you pull in and *twist your shoulders* so as to latch the hold above
you with your *other* hand. It gives you more reach and power than if
you just hang on facing the wall and reach up.
That might be a really crappy description (it's something I'm not very
good at) so I'd also refer to Performance Rock Climbing.
I
> won't even mention how my co-instructor boasts about the kids on his
sacred
> climbing team onsighting their age.
>
It took me a while to accept this, but kids (up to age 16 or so) are
often automatically great climbers. Their strength to weight ratio is
awesome, they're flexible, think they're immortal, and have boundless
energy. Sickening.
--K
--
Any significance we try to impose on rock,
any grails we quest for,
we contrive for ourselves.
--Joe Kelsey
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
David Kastrup
> > Adrian was talking about muscling over an overhang, I was giving
> > examples of some techniques that make overhangs easier... twist-locking
> > rather than reaching frontally, for example.
>
> I was asking you to describe a twist-lock - I've never heard that term
> before. I (try to) twist my way up overhangs, to be sure, but couldn't
> visualize what you meant by twist-lock.
http://www.croxhall.freeserve.co.uk/climbing/climb.htm#twistlock
Actually, the twistlock described in there twists in a different
direction, but you'll get the drift.
Kyri
David Kastrup <d...@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> wrote:
>
> Actually, the twistlock described in there twists in a different
> direction, but you'll get the drift.
Interesting. I learned it as a "moving" technique, whereas they seem to
think of it as a way to lock off while hanging onto a hold. It's a way
to get around having limited reach.
tom donnelly
> Strength comes naturally with use; technique doesn't (at least as much).
and Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> It's all technique.
I disagree. There are examples favoring either, unless you're trying to
define "use" as someone who climbs without thinking about technique,
which is not a normal climber.
D B FRAZ wrote:
> I'll answer your question on point. I know a 5.12+ climber female type
> who
> can't do a pull up or hang from a normal door jam. Good technique and a
> ton of
> endurance.
I've got some 5.12+ routes for her to try.
Kyri wrote:
> Nobody here is saying that it's *only* technique. Technique and strength
> work together.
I agree.
I also find for myself that I'm much too lazy to train
for strength. It's boring, like working out with weights.
And the point for me, as Hal Murray said, is to have fun.
So to keep it fun, most of my climbing/training focuses
on "how" to do the moves, and the strength training is
more unconscious. That doesn't make it any less
important. I'm sure I'd be better off if I did have
more willpower to sometimes focus more on strength
and muscle endurance. Especially the endurance,
which for me does not follow technique training.
Tom
Jay Tanzman
"A.MacNair" <amac...@elyrium.com> wrote:
> "Jay Tanzman" <jtan...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8qtr5a$neq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > I'm always amazed when I watch beginners week after week struggling
> up
> > overhanging gym routes using nothing but frontal lock-offs, when
> they
> > should be studying how better climbers are able to get up these
> routes
> > effortlessly using good overhang technique.
>
>
> route with the strength a newbie has?
The weak newbie will be able to climb harder routes with good technique
than with bad. I would think that that would be obvious.
Jay
Hardman Knott
mami...@cris.com wrote:
I've witnessed a 5.11 gym climber humbled on a
> 5.8 crack outdoors.
This reminds me of one of the coolest gym routes I ever had the
perverse thrill of watching honed gym rats get shut down on!
The 10b route started just to the right of a 5.10 hand crack.
The first hold to the left of the crack was too far to reach from
the right, so it was necessary to use a simple hand jamb with
the left, and then match a jamb with the right before reaching up
to the left hand-hold.
Since the feet were large, bomber flat holds, these simple crack
moves were, at most; 5.5 to 5.6...
I watched as several solid 11+ climbers got completely smoked
looking in vain for the "missing hold"!
It never occured to them that a simple hand jamb (for balance)
would make the section utterly trivial.
I thought it was a stroke of genious for the course setter to
play such a cruel, diabolical trick on the sportos!
Hardman Knott
beas...@my-deja.com
Hardman Knott <hardma...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> I watched as several solid 11+ climbers got completely smoked
> looking in vain for the "missing hold"!
> It never occured to them that a simple hand jamb (for balance)
> would make the section utterly trivial.
Maybe because it wasn't readily apparent that the crack was "on"? Some
gyms I've been to consider any "features" (i.e. not a bolted on hold) to
be "on" by default, others consider them to be "off" by default. Could
there have been some confusion in your example?
Just wondering,
SeanM
Karl Lew
> > I spend 95% of my time in the gym. About the
> > only thing you can't work on directly in the
> > gym is dealing with runouts.
> Nut placements.
> (:
> --Kyri
Oh ... is that why they keep falling out?
--Karl
Kyri
In article <8r0bnb$8q0$1...@news.intuit.com>,
--
Any significance we try to impose on rock,
any grails we quest for,
we contrive for ourselves.
--Joe Kelsey
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jay Tanzman
Kyri <catwom...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Insufficient thrust.
No, you don't thrust nuts to keep them in place; you jerk on them.
- Jay
Kyri
Jay Tanzman <jtan...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8r0elj$qhf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Kyri <catwom...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Insufficient thrust.
>
> No, you don't thrust nuts to keep them in place; you jerk on them.
Insufficient... jerking.
--K
ver...@colorado.edu
Forget everything everyone has said, the best way to improve climbing
ability lies in niether strength or technique. It is this, book a flight
right away to denver, and go on a climbing roadtrip. your goal on this
roadtrip (give yourself a few months for this adventure since you are
still only climbing merely at the 5.10 level) is to redpoint a .12a.
A good place to start would be table mountain in golden, or maybe shelf
road. Stay away from places like the south platte, black canyon, or
lumpy; (being a low 5.10 climber you might want to wait a few more
months till you reach the .10+ range, then more climbs open up for
you at these areas.) Get on a .12- right away and throw a toprope on
it, buy some food and camp at the base, you will be around for a while.
Make sure to do your research first, and find the utmost easiest one
for the grade. Work it on toprope, don't forget to take rest days.
it doesn't really matter if you get it or not, the point is that
at least you *could* have gotten it, once you are done working the route,
find some dumbell who will vouch at how hard of a climb it is for
the .12- grade, and convince yourself that given the right time and
conditions you could have actually come pretty close to
onsighting it. Once you believe you are capable of this feat, go home
and tell your muscle bound friend you can onsight .12- on a good day.
he will believe you and consequentially not climb as well because
of the intimidation factor. Doing this you will jump from .10- to .12-
in a matter of weeks, technique and endurance will have nothing to do
with it. Belive it or not, this is how a lot of people "improve"
;)
patrick vernon
gamecat
Chris Wegener wrote:
> "A.MacNair" <amac...@elyrium.com> wrote in message
> news:EqpA5.218383$c5.45...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com...
> > "Dingus Milktoast" <crha...@midtown.net> wrote in message
> > news:39D21D26...@midtown.net...
> > > Just put a kevlar tire on it dude, and crank on. We all have
> > > so much to learn from you.
> >
> > Man, I am reading a lot of ignorant posts here.... Dingus, I always
> > read and respect your opinions. Let me reiterate.
> >
> > I said, I am tired of some beefy climbers *in the gym* saying it's
> > only technique.
> ><more indignant whine snipped>
>
As for Adrians point about being fed up of being told it's *only* technique,
fair enough that's not all there is, and I am sure few people on this list would
turn down a free magical no consequences (i.e. no tendon trouble/ risk of injury
etc.) strength to weight gain. Also I'm not even going to criticise too much for
chasing the numbers, I think that is fairly common when you are new and keen
especially in the gym. BUT I think what people are trying to tell you is that if
you concentrate too much on the numbers then you are missing the point to a
large extent. More importantly what people are saying is, as you have been
climbing only two months, you will get far more improvement from working on your
technique at this stage than worrying on strangth. And soo much more benefit in
the long term and if you want to climb outside.
I've (only) been climbing three years now and in fact I am less strong now than
I was 4 or 5 months ago (cause I haven't been training very hard) but I can
still climb harder now both indoors and out that ever before, because I have
been working on my technique. Also I am enjoying my climbing more than ever
because my *gradually* improving technique and climbing knowledge (placing gear
setting up belays more efficiently, working out sequences of moves etc.) makes
me feel more confident and in control of what I am doing.
Dont sweat it if someone is stronger than you, loads of people are stronger than
me, but for me the only battle is between the rock (or plastic) and my mind
body and soul. I get more saticfaction climbing a difficult route well, than
getting to the top of a very difficult route using brute force and ignorance.
>
> The limiting factor in climbing is height to weight ratio. I remember
> seeing a post somewhere where someone had worked out the maximum level
> anyone could climb given their height and weight. (Yes, yes, I know there
> are some outliers in the data like John Dunne) After this rather depressing
> thought the reality is that technique is the next most important criteria,
> followed by strength.
> <snip>
Hmm I see your point Chris on height to weight being the limiting factor but
it's not as simple as that. Although it bugs me to see my climbing partner reach
up and grab then next positive hold when I had to be more creative, height
doesn't always help. Everyone develops their style to suite their size shape and
strength, different climbs can suite different peopele, and very few people
reach that limiting factor anyhow.
Nick
gamecat
There are some gyms where you can practice nut ( & cam ) placements.
(but it's obiously not the same as real rock)
Kyri wrote:
> In article <8qvqa4$3vh$1...@news.intuit.com>,
> "Karl Lew" <karl...@intuit.com> wrote:
> >
> > That's a bit of a put-down and I object to it.
> > I spend 95% of my time in the gym. About the
> > only thing you can't work on directly in the
> > gym is dealing with runouts.
>
> Nut placements.
>
> (:
Mike Powell
climbing in the gym... I am far stronger than the women I
climb with.... and about twice as heavy!
Everyone can improve technique, but it becomes clear that
your strength to weight ratio is a massive (pun?) liability
especially when the climb moves to the arms... and more
specifically, the fingers. My arms can haul me up pretty
well now, but my fingers give out.
And if you think about it, it makes sense... My fingers
type on the keyboard much of the day... they hold my
fork and spoon, they open the car door, pick up the phone,
etc... the same general 'workout' that my lady friends
get every day... but take those same set's of fingers
and hang 100 lbs on them in one case, and 200 lbs in another,
and it's not rocket science.
So regardless of a bad technique day or a good technique day,
my fingers always fail first. Better technique will help
insulate them from load, but as the wall goes past vertical,
and into total overhang, there are diminishing returns to
technique.
It's easily demonstrated by simply standing... not climbing...
on a set of holds. Those ladies I climb with can take a
static position on pinchy holds... and stay there, while I
can't even get on. There is no technique there... either
a pinch that's strong enough, or not, for the weight it
must bear.
I still have 5.7s that stump me if I'm inverted for any length
of time... but put me on a slab, and I'm doing 10c's.
So, for me anyway, at almost 200 lbs... it's fingers, fingers,
fingers if I want to really advance past the vertical.
mp
A.MacNair <amac...@elyrium.com> wrote:
: Now that I'm finishing 5.10a's in the gym, and barely managing
: 5.10d's, I have a few opinions. You get a lot of people arguing about
: whether it's strength or technique. I hear a lot of crap about how
: it's *all* technique and you should practice your technique on lower
: grades before you attempt the higher ones. All I do is climb and
: boulder at a 5.10 level, and it seems to boost both my strength and
: technique pretty fast. I have been climbing for exactly "two months
: minus one day" and I attribute a lot of my success to my sudden
: strength gains. By concentrating on overhangs my arms got much
: stronger, and by being forced to find better technique to cope with
: overhangs and the 5.10 level, my technique got much better.
: So there I was at the gym and I meet this really buff guy. He says he
: started climbing "one month ago". I drop my jaw because the guy has
: been doing 5.10's around the gym. And I thought *I* was a quick one.
: So anyway, the guys arms are like lead pipes and I point to a 5.10b
: which I have trouble finishing in less than two rests. He says "It's
: all in the technique". Gets on the route and starts crimping the
: holds... his technique is not bad but nothing special. He doesn't even
: sidestep much. Pretty much the same as my technique. He finishes it
: without a rest, but he cheats on a ceiling beam <g>. The guy rested on
: the holds a couple of times on the way, but his arms never failed. His
: strength was just too much. Technique, yeah ok, *rolls eyes*.
: So I watch a couple of women in the gym. They're nailing these 5.11's
: and their technique is sweet. Back and side steps, fluid and perfect
: limb placement, the whole manner is efficient. But is it all
: technique? No. It's strength to weight ratio. I watched some 12 year
: old kid boulder out of the cave and he's hanging upsidedown there,
: reviewing his options, then proceeding. Is that technique? Somewhat.
: But for the most part, the kids strength >= his weight. For me my
: strength <= my weight. The same goes for a lot of 110 pound women who
: use their wiry arms to pull their bodies up a route. And how about the
: 210 pound muscle hardmen in the gym? Pure muscle and you can see the
: effortless movements as they proceed along a 5.11 overhang route.
: Their muscle >= their weight.
: So I'm not so hard on myself at my level. People say "your technique
: is lacking, you need to work on your sidestepping". I can accept that.
: I'm working on it. But I know for a fact that when I build up the
: forearm, bicep, and finger strength to the level I want, technique
: will be a complement to my climbing, and not the entirety. Right now
: my arms and fingers are trying to catch up to where my technique has
: gotten me: 5.10. Because if you put all the technique in the world
: magically into my body, my puny fingers still can't grab a solid 5.11
: crimper. And that's a factoid.
: --
: Adrian MacNair
: Web Developer/Rock climber, Toronto
: amac...@elyrium.com / (416) 893-9170
Mike Powell
: If I lose weight and get stronger, will I climb better on all routes?
Yes.
: Mad "She cried 'No, No, No-wo-wow!' " dog
Mike Powell
: "A.MacNair" <amac...@elyrium.com> wrote in message
: news:squA5.219256$c5.45...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com...
:>
:> My point keeps getting conveniently ignored.
:>
:> if you put the technique of a master in a newbie, can they do a hard
:> route with the strength a newbie has?
:>
: For what it's worth, I know a gal that climbs 5.12 in the gym, she can't do
: a chin-up, not even one. Does that address your point?
I'm not sure that it does... (just speaking for me)...
All Adrian is saying is that strength must accompany
technique, and that the strength part of the equation
is really all about strength to weight ratio.
For a given technique, and a given strength, more weight is
a bad thing. That is his message it seems to me.
One I find it very hard to disagree with.
Mike
: The one ape type climber I know who CAN climb 5.12+, admits that his
: genetically gifted strength was a disadvantage when starting out. It took
: him longer to learn the "right" way because he could just muscle up a lot of
: the hard stuff. Still it's fun to watch him in an impromptu campusing
: competition.
: I can't believe it takes massive strength to climb 5.10 to easy 5.12. If
: you work on the technique the strength will come on it's own. But my opinion
: is just based on watching others. I can't do the 5.12 stuff myself.
: You keep mentioning strength to weight ratio. Let me ask you this, if I
: may. Are you maybe a little over weight? Generally out of shape? If you
: are, then losing the excess flab will help you climb better. One lb. of fat
: wont move one lb. of muscle. That's a fact. "BUT" if you're in generally
: good shape, Slime's advice about working on your weaknesses is the only way
: to go.
Mike Powell
: ...
:> if you put the technique of a master in a newbie, can they do a hard
:> route with the strength a newbie has?
: Yes!
: My husband was sick for a year and lost all his muscles. When he
: recovered He still
: could climb harder grades than I (And I never stopped going to the gym)
: especially hand cracks and slabs, all because he has great smooth
: technique.
Hi Olga... all your answer means is that technique is important.
Everyone already agrees with that, including Adrian.
What you did not say, which addresses Adrian's point, is that
your husband climbed as well after he lost his muscles as
before... that in essence, his technique made the loss of
muscle totally transparent.
If you are not saying that, then I think Adrian makes the
point here.
Regards,
Mike
: Olga
: Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
: Before you buy.
Mike Powell
: In article <squA5.219256$c5.45...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com>,
: "A.MacNair" <amac...@elyrium.com> wrote:
:> "Jay Tanzman" <jtan...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
:> news:8qtr5a$neq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
:> > I'm always amazed when I watch beginners week after week struggling
:> up
:> > overhanging gym routes using nothing but frontal lock-offs, when
:> they
:> > should be studying how better climbers are able to get up these
:> routes
:> > effortlessly using good overhang technique.
:> My point keeps getting conveniently ignored.
:>
:> route with the strength a newbie has?
: The weak newbie will be able to climb harder routes with good technique
: than with bad. I would think that that would be obvious.
: Jay
Everyone already agrees with that, Jay.
So perhaps you really are missing the point...
Mike
Peter Boyle
> Mad Dog <mad...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
> : If I lose weight and get stronger, will I climb better on all routes?
>
> Yes.
err... Slabs?
Peter Boyle pbo...@physics.gla.ac.uk