Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
| Messages 1 - 28 of total 28 in this topic |
Fishy
climber
Zurich, Switzerland
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Mar 16, 2010 - 05:00pm PT
|
Hi All,
Some time ago I came across some interesting comments from Bachar and Largo concerning the general question of technique vs strength.
Largo's comment was something along the lines of "technique take me up into the 5.11's when only climbing say once a week, but to get beyond that, I need to more dedicated training"
JB said basically that from 5.11 onwards, there is not much new technique, it is simply doing the same stuff with more power or endurance.
With this in mind, I would like some of your inputs:
1) Do these comments match with your experience?
2) As a "week-end warrior" climbing only one or two days on the weekends, what would be a realistic goal? 10's? 11's? 12's?
3) Hypothetical question: you were a 5.12 climber in Yos, but then took a 1 year climbing break. During the break, you had a job requiring average activity, so you didn't put on any significant fat, but equally you didn't do anything that would develop climbing-relevant muscles. What kind of grade (crack climbing) would you expect to start at again?
Cheers!
|
|
brett
climber
oregon
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2010 - 05:04pm PT
|
1. yes
2. easy 11's unless you hang with folks who routinely get on harder stuff
3. ? don't know
|
|
Euroford
Trad climber
chicago
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2010 - 05:07pm PT
|
lacking any particularly developed technique or fitness, apparently motivation and desire are good for 8-9's....
|
|
Mungeclimber
Trad climber
sorry, just posting out loud.
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2010 - 05:22pm PT
|
1) Do these comments match with your experience?
2) As a "week-end warrior" climbing only one or two days on the weekends, what would be a realistic goal? 10's? 11's? 12's?
3) Hypothetical question: you were a 5.12 climber in Yos, but then took a 1 year climbing break. During the break, you had a job requiring average activity, so you didn't put on any significant fat, but equally you didn't do anything that would develop climbing-relevant muscles. What kind of grade (crack climbing) would you expect to start at again?
1. yes
2. if not fat, even up to hard 11s. I'm an overweight middle age punter and I can do the technical moves of 11s. willing to rehearse? less than a pitch? yes.
3. depends on desire, grades are only a rough guide, and 5.6 is supposed to be hard.
|
|
tolman_paul
Trad climber
Anchorage, AK
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2010 - 05:28pm PT
|
It's an interesting question, because it shows the limitations of the ratings.
Is a 5.11 climber one who can climb every 5.11? Or is a 5.11 climber some one who can make a couple of 5.11 moves on a sustained 5.9?
I've seen new climbers who have good balance and body movement learned in other activities making 5.10 moves after having climbed only a few times, and others that have been climbing off and on for years that just can't break into 5.10 climbing.
My climbing partner who hits the climbing gym or natural rock once a week weather permitting is pretty solid on 5.11 moves and pulls the occasional 5.12. Me on the otherhand who at my peak was solid on easier 5.11's, with many years of getting out of shape and putting on way to many pounds, I need to climb a few times a week for several months to get to the point that I'll have a go at 5.10 moves.
One last thing, it also depends on the angle of the climb. I can climb harder low angle routes when out of shape, and will peel off of overhanging 5.8's.
I do think I could jump onto most any 5.9 crack climb and not have a problem.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2010 - 05:36pm PT
|
I would generally agree with Paul. I found that the technique doesn't go away as fast as one might think, but we also forget how much strength gets used as the climbing gets steeper. I have had the distinct displeasure of spending months at a time separated from climbing of any sort. Somewhat to my surprise, my face climbing technique was still there, even if my center of gravity shifted.
On crack climbs, though, the change is more noticeable, as all the cracks have shrunk in width!
John
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2010 - 05:37pm PT
|
This a head game in your head.
By the time you've figured it out you'll be an old man with no climb or country left ......
|
|
tom woods
Gym climber
Bishop, CA
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2010 - 07:50pm PT
|
Strength and endurance can help technique as you have more time to figure out what to do.
Otherwise I agree with Largo and Bachar.
|
|
alpinerockfiend
Trad climber
greater Yosemite
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2010 - 08:43pm PT
|
"This is a head game in your head"- classic!
|
|
Maysho
climber
Soda Springs, CA
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2010 - 09:40pm PT
|
I agree with JL and JB, but such a statement needs to be put in perspective, meaning, if one has developed the technique and power to boulder hard and climb hard 5.12, then yes, when out of shape, one can do 5.11 - 5.11+, and beyond that some time on the stone to re-develop specific power and endurance is required.
For working their way up the grades for the first time, who knows?
Peter
ps. I also think that for many, probably most, intermediate climbers, improved footwork will help them progress more than stronger fingers.
|
|
slevin
Trad climber
New York, NY
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2010 - 10:26pm PT
|
The grade alone is not enough information. What kind of routes are we talking about? Cracks, for example, are very much about technique and are very "democratic" - it's all about practice and mileage. Roofs are usually pure power-endurance and there is no way around it. Micro-crimpy verticals and slabs are very footwork dependent and can be "techniqued" up to low 12s.
I found that my brush with cancer and chemo has improved my technique a bit - when you are weak, you have to find the right body positions and footwork to pull through.
|
|
Tarbuster
climber
right here, right now
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2010 - 11:30pm PT
|
Yes, to qualify it a bit more.
And tossing out gym/sport ratings, say moving through the grades in Yos, Taquitz/Suicide, JT, Eldo, Canyonlands, Cathedral, Gunks and so forth: staid trad areas, where you place all your gear on lead or prep for serious run outs, by the time you are unflapped (solid) leading 5.11+ you will be fit, ripped, and plenty strong, sharp in the mind and light on the feet.
And conversely, if you do not maintain the latter (strength & technique), you aren't likely to be in full command on the former (full boat, well rounded trad expertise at the solid 5.11 level).
It comes with the territory; strength & technique, they are not exclusive or independent states of being.
|
|
taorock
Trad climber
Okanogan, WA
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2010 - 11:59pm PT
|
Personally, I feel that technique evolves into grades harder than JL and JB stated. Or in other words there are new techniques developing all the time. Many of them are directly related to strength, tension, timing and even visualization. A 5.14 climber needs to respond.
tao
|
|
pip the dog
Mountain climber
planet dogboy
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2010 - 01:26am PT
|
[1] yes.
[2] simply too many variables to answer, chaos theory. how good is this weekend warrior's baseline technique? how long have they been at it? at least your third Q limits the variables a bit.
[3] me, i'd guess the soft end of .11 -- at least in any quantity
(i define astroman as real .11 -- not two V4 boulder moves on an otherwise .9 one pitch schport climb)
~~~
well, that's been my personal experience.
i've only gotten reliably above sustained .11's when i've had the chance to do at least a few months of consistantly climbing 30+ hrs/wk -- and in combination with climbing-focused strength training (mostly fingers/hands).
~~~
now do recognize that my buddies have the "dogboy rule": which states that if i can get up a pitch in less than 30 tries -- it is _definately_ NOT .13
a couple routes in my neighborhood have been officially downgraded based solely on this rule.
and rightfully so.
~~~
Bachar was once kind enough to write and remind me that i really needed to get serious about climbing-focused strength training -- that or accept being forever mired in the swamp of "pretty good, but..."
fine man, and of course totally in the know and totally right. alas, i apparently chose to remain in the swamp.
^,,^
|
|
Melissa
Gym climber
berkeley, ca
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2010 - 01:56am PT
|
Someone said it above. What does it mean to climb 5.11 to you? Being a 5.11 climber, I was taught and pretty much believe, means you do it onsight, w/ bad pro, in a light rain, essentially whenever you try. To me, solid at 11...any 11, is a world class standard.
But for one little 5.11 to hang on the mantle, it's an easier weekend warrior accomlishment. Proud, all the way. But, you can probably get to that if you choose carefully, rehearse, etc. And maybe w/ less route-specific prep if you have the natural chops. (I sure don't.)
Another thing that has helped me...in the immortal words of Fern Webb, "Strength IS a technique."
Last, but not least, and again as others have mentioned, I think that some routes are more yielding to techniques (other than strength). At Indian Creek some years back there was a famous climber dude...very nice and leagues stronger than us...who had some crack technique dialed, but it wasn't his bread and butter. He was struggling w/ a 12a (really the < parts) by getting through on sheer strength (layback!!!). If my bf hadn't had the technique (weight on his carefully jammed feet), he couldn't have bullied his way through in a similar manner b/c that sort of energy simply was not in his tank. But he climbed it using a whole lot less E b/c he knew the tricks. Moral of the story...muscle can get you through the crux, but style might get you through with less grunting. If you've got both, then won't you be a happy guy?
-Melissa...cherry pickin' for glory, sometimes getting a little, and still fixin' to become a 5.9 climber weekend warrior princess.
|
|
Fletcher
Trad climber
The beckoning silence
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2010 - 02:10am PT
|
And I thought this thread was going to be about picking up the ladies (or dudes)...
Despite my disappointment, good discussion nonetheless!
Eric
|
|
Curt
Boulder climber
Gilbert, AZ
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2010 - 02:33am PT
|
"...-Melissa...cherry pickin' for glory, sometimes getting a little, and still fixin' to become a 5.9 climber weekend warrior princess..."
I don't even know you (except from the intardnet) but I'm glad to hear that you're "sometimes getting a little." Congrats.
Curt
|
|
Prod
Trad climber
Dodge Sprinter Dreaming
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2010 - 09:58am PT
|
1) Do these comments match with your experience?
2) As a "week-end warrior" climbing only one or two days on the weekends, what would be a realistic goal? 10's? 11's? 12's?
3) Hypothetical question: you were a 5.12 climber in Yos, but then took a 1 year climbing break. During the break, you had a job requiring average activity, so you didn't put on any significant fat, but equally you didn't do anything that would develop climbing-relevant muscles. What kind of grade (crack climbing) would you expect to start at again?
1. Never been a solid .11 climber, so I don't know.
2. I would think that if you are fit, not fat, and have some advanced knowledge of technique, that climbing 2 days a week should get you into the solid .10+ to .11 range, and sporting it into the .12's? At least I hope so as my goal by 2011 is to be more solid into the .11's.
3. I would expect that I would be able to climb off the couch at .12, but would most likely fail on .10's. What can I say, I have high expectations...
Prod.
|
|
ydpl8s
Trad climber
Santa Monica, California
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2010 - 12:35pm PT
|
There's strength and there's strength-to-weight ratio.
There's great technique with great finger strength.
There's great foot technique (think Diane Hunter)
There's overall strenth and technique (Largo and JB)
There's enormous mental strength (Derek H. and Alex H.)
That's the cool thing about this sport. It's like a math problem, you have the equation of your body, and the equation of the rock. Your job is to find the best way to convolve those 2 equations, taking into account your personal equation (size, strength, technique) to find the easiest way for you to get up that particular piece of rock.
Unfortunately, for most of us, as we get older, our equation solving probably includes less elegant solutions than it used to. However, the thrill of the solved equation still spurs us on, no matter the difficulty.
|
|
tarek
climber
berkeley
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2010 - 01:23pm PT
|
Tommy Caldwell said something along the lines of taking 4 years to understand how to stand on small footholds on El Cap--after he already climbed hard 14s. Tough questions. If you have the technique to climb 13d, but cannot do 1 pull-up, or a one-handed finger-tip edge hang, well you probably have technique to apply to 12s that most 12 climbers do not. You could truly os 12s off of the couch (not the more common "fake-off-of-the-couch," where you hid some secret training and claimed OTC status).
I think Werner has it right. You could be in incredible shape and strong, and therefore not feel sufficient urgency at cruxes, waste yourself, and fail. You could fumble gear placements, going through 2-3 sizes, and waste yourself. You could be somewhat out of shape, yet remember flow and gear sizes and cruise, etc.
And, another point: if you get hung up on always using good technique, you will rob yourself of many an os. You have to know when to thrutch and be fine with it. You see these people using hovercraft footwork--it's just inefficiency. Check Kauk out in videos--just bip, nails the foot placement. Rarely ever any hover.
|
|
ydpl8s
Trad climber
Santa Monica, California
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2010 - 01:58pm PT
|
I'd say that being able to place the foot and stand up on it with confidence and no hesitation IS good technique.
|
|
tarek
climber
berkeley
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2010 - 02:38pm PT
|
yeah, what I was trying to say. But my point is you might have to err on the side of being sloppy in order to get quick and precise. If you get hung up on slow motion, you'll never get efficient. Being both careful and quick with the feet is something I admire in the best climbers.
|
|
EdBannister
Mountain climber
CA
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2010 - 05:43pm PT
|
My partner for many years Jeff Bosson took two years off,
he was bicycle fit, but had not touched stone in the interim.
when he stopped, he could climb any 11 i saw him attempt.
on his return,
I was going to take us to this 10b/c corner for a reintro,
choosing that hard of a climb so as not to insult,
instead he chose the 11b face to the right, he floated it.
but, he was about 32...... that was 20 years ago....
the other factor... age.
|
|
Elcapinyoazz
Social climber
Redlands
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2010 - 06:15pm PT
|
5.13b, after that you really gotta start pullin'.
|
|
tarek
climber
berkeley
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2010 - 06:57pm PT
|
basically, you can have the world's best technique, but you still ain't getting up a uniform, 100' 11d layback after a full year out of climbing, mind or no mind. That might be a good measure of pure climbing fitness minus technique.
|
|
pip the dog
Mountain climber
planet dogboy
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2010 - 11:17pm PT
|
[bad dog long -- use that [PgDn] key to skip it]
to all of those who mentioned footwork as the core of "technique" -- i say amen.
[amen - from the aramaic greek, via it's hebrew predecessor, meaning "truth" or "i believe")
~~~
i myself believe that truly exceptional feet are simply genetic, in the DNA. i've watched meatloaf couch potatoes do slack line tricks most truly fit and skilled athletes can only dream of. fair? no. true? yes -- i've seen it.
that said, even those with standard issue DNA footwork can raise their game rather massively by focusing on... their feet! that and the core muscle balance that make feet work. or so has been my experience.
~~~
i was lucky to be born with good feet DNA. a friend has a photo of me on his bad dog website, staring up at the stars and walking backwards on a railing on the golden gate bridge -- this with, well, let's say about 3 cocktails too many in my system. did i earn this? of course not. do i recommend this? DEFINITELY NOT! though i have been quite willing to milk it for all it's worth when i climb.
i was also lucky (in the evolutionary lottery) to be born cwazy skinny, tall-ish, and with knuckle dragging long arms. my longtime go-to bestus buddy climbing partner is 5'4" or so (he alone knows his height, i don't care). and he has, can, and likely forever will, blow my doors off. so many times i have been able to reach past true cruxes on climbs we've done together, while he had to do them all (and then some).
now _he_ is a truly great climber. he has the head for it, does the hard work to stay on top of it, and has yet to complain about his DNA (though on occasion i've seen that look in his eyes -- as i happily reached past the crux that he had to actually do). perhaps later i will write about him. i want to, and should. perhaps what is most remarkable about him is that if i do put in ascii instances in which he has proven how good he is -- he'll likely kill me. or worse yet, no longer climb with me. how lucky i am to have so long had such a partner.
~~~
um, meanwhile, back at the ranch...
OTOH: upper body/hand/finger strength i was definitely NOT born with. i suspect very few of us are -- but i was born with only me, so that's as far as i can guess.
"climbing focused" strength (which i myself have found to be finger/hand/forearm work) is, as i see it, not DNA/lucky genetics but rather simple discipline -- the willingness to do the work, on a regular and coherent schedule, no matter how much you'd rather stay in bed or do something else.
the truly exceptional climbers that i have been lucky to be close to, were born with the form, but more importantly have the latter part wired in -- the simple hard work part. me, i simply don't (though later this month i finally will, really...)
~~~
i've long told young climbers mesmerized by big numbers (i was once surely one) that:
big numbers (defined as at or beyond you limit) are rarely fun. far better to chase perfect lines. forget the numbers. a gorgeous .10 or .8 is far better than that single pitch of .13 on schport choss.
ok, granted, if you are Dave Graham or Ueli Steck or the like -- your idea of the do-able perfect lines grows exponentially. or so i'd guess.
if you still really want to go "there" (big grade numbers) -- accept the fact that you simply have to do the grinding training to get there. find out precisely what you need to do (careful research essential), then work out a specific schedule of when you're gonna do it. and then actually do it -- no matter how busy, tired, or hungover you might be just then.
~~~
i suspect that most of us fail on the part. i am absolutely certain that i myself have failed on the part. though i might grant myself some slack as i do in fact actually believe, deeply, in the part. but i also believe in the part -- hence must ipso-factso measure myself against the part.
~~~
feel free to take a break about now; for a pee, or a beer, or actual life. i myself am also rather lost as to the point i think i might have started with.
~~~~
ok, now that all 3 or us are back.
for years now (almost two decades, actually) -- i have been adamant and unrelenting on the "a ton of actual climbing (on actual rock, not plastic) is the _only_ way to up your game" front.
i now openly and freely recant that idea. i did truly believe it, BITD, but no longer. to get deep into the 'big numbers' one simply has to do the dull, grinding training required -- on schedule and even when you really don't wanna.
that, as i can best guess, is the difference between you and me -- and JB, JL, Hudon, Jones, Graham, Sharma, the Huber's... (oh, where to end this list? -- let's just say all of the rest of the 'big kids' of their day).
~~~
all that said, if you are truly solid on trad .11 -- there are surely a lifetime of exquisite lines available to you. i suspect many lifetimes. i've yet to run out of dream lines within (if only remotely) my skills.
me, i'm good with small numbers on great lines.
~~~
if big numbers are at present really important to you -- at least pause just a moment to ask yourself why? why as in the big numbers part. your answer might well be a really good one, in which case 'Go Dog, Go!' climb a lot, and actually do the boring, grinding strength work, and with both -- get it done.
^,,^
|
|
SteveW
Trad climber
The state of confusion
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2010 - 11:30pm PT
|
Sounds fishy to me. . .
Uh, nature, you been around here?
|
|
| Messages 1 - 28 of total 28 in this topic |
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!