Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
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?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!