|
Post by tetrault on Apr 5, 2017 18:38:46 GMT -7
If you are defining "technique" in gymnastics as part of what is being judged to win a competition, like landing a dismount without an extra step or hop, then I think the correlation in climbing would be defined that as "ethics"; not pulling on gear during a free ascent as an example.
Since climbing is more of a "race" (for maximum grade, as opposed to minimum time) than a judged event, any aspect of your technique/skill should be based on maximizing efficiency on the wall. Whether that efficiency is realized through powerful lunges, or slow, static crawling; if you aren't seeking to maximize efficiency, you aren't going to "win".
If we want to define it as technique, efficiency, or strategic awareness, that's fine. It's a complex pursuit either way. However, I am more interested learning more about its pursuit than about its definition.
|
|
mclay
Junior Member
Posts: 96
|
Post by mclay on Apr 6, 2017 1:43:45 GMT -7
I've enjoyed reading a vital and interesting discussion. It does seem like this aspect of improving at climbing gets less attention. Definition of terms and understanding the context (of the climb and of the climber's body) seems to be important for clarification.
I'm always intrigued when watching someone I consider to have "good technique" climb. Kim Jain's style comes to mind. But most of her perfect technique originates, at least on the overhanging comp stuff, from a freakish flexibility that most of us just will never have.
More clarification - You see certain areas described as "super technical climbing" but I'm curious as to what actually comprises this style of climbing. Is it limited to certain rock types or angles?
|
|
|
Post by MarkAnderson on Apr 6, 2017 6:49:21 GMT -7
Really interesting discussion, thanks for starting it.
I think some of the confusion about what is "good technique" is due to most of what REALLY matters (technique-wise) can't be seen from the ground. We watch climbers from afar, one looks really smooth, one doesn't, and we say the smooth one has "good technique". Yet there often is little correlation between what seems from afar to be good technique and overall climbing ability (eg, the jerky climber is getting up much harder things). Really, the first climber has good STYLE (not in the ethical sense). But style may not make climbing easier, it just makes it look better, as for gymnasts, etc in the OP.
IMO, the most essential and overwhelming technique is the ability to maximize weight distribution to your feet, and its very difficult to detect one climber's ability to do that over another's (especially from the ground). Everything else pales in comparison. This is determined by subtle things like minimizing overgripping, hip and shoulder use, effectiveness in gripping hand holds and making the most of footholds.... [must take kids to school now]
|
|
|
Post by aikibujin on Apr 6, 2017 7:22:35 GMT -7
If we want to define it as technique, efficiency, or strategic awareness, that's fine. It's a complex pursuit either way. However, I am more interested learning more about its pursuit than about its definition. Improving technique is definitely the end goal here. But like mclay said above, it may be nice to have some clarification so we're all speaking the same language. Otherwise, if your idea of good technique is slow static crawling, and my idea of good technique is dynamic sprinting, once we start talking about how to improve technique, it all become oranges and apples. I've enjoyed reading a vital and interesting discussion. It does seem like this aspect of improving at climbing gets less attention. Definition of terms and understanding the context (of the climb and of the climber's body) seems to be important for clarification. I'm always intrigued when watching someone I consider to have "good technique" climb. Kim Jain's style comes to mind. But most of her perfect technique originates, at least on the overhanging comp stuff, from a freakish flexibility that most of us just will never have. More clarification - You see certain areas described as "super technical climbing" but I'm curious as to what actually comprises this style of climbing. Is it limited to certain rock types or angles? You summed up my feelings pretty well. I think of “technical climbing” as moves that are slightly slabby to slightly overhanging, with small holds that require good static balance and good finger strength but not “big muscle strength” to execute; whereas “powerful climbing” are moves that are usually bigger, on vertical to big overhanging routes, that need “big muscle strength” to execute. I think this distinction between “technical climbing” and “powerful climbing” is based on how most of us thinking of technique. If you’re getting up a climb without relying on big powerful muscles, then you must be replying on technique, right? So for most of us, myself included, we tend to think of "good technique" as the ability to utilize all sort of twisting, turning, and body trickery to get up a climb without pulling too much. But in the last couple of months or so I started to think that “technique” and “power/strength” are not like two ends of a stick: you can only have one but not the other. I think “technique” is actually integrated with strength/power, good technique for a particular climber should depend on their strength (or lack of). I'm not really hoping that we define "good technique" here, we can call it “efficiency”, “movement”, “style”, whatever, it really doesn’t matter. What matter is we open the possibility that there are other aspects of technique/style/movement/efficiency beyond body trickery. The reason I think we need to look at technique in more than one dimension is because when we start looking at ways to improve, one of the best way is to mimic climbers with better technique. But if we only think of climbers who can utilize amazing body trickery as the one with good technique, we may not be aiming in the right direction for improvement. Your example of Kim Jain is a good one. Ashima Shiraishi is another good (but fairly extreme) example: with her matchstick arms and legs that are no thicker than my pinky, there is no doubt in my mind that she has great technique. But if I try to mimic the way she climbs, I’m going to fail miserably. The last time I did a full split was more than 20 years ago, when I was her age. And my flexibility is not likely going to improve with age. So instead of mimicking Ashima or Kim Jain because I think they have amazing technique, I should first look at my own strength and weakness, and find a better climber with similar strength and weakness to mimic. I think that would be a more effective way to improve my technique.
|
|
|
Post by Otis. on Apr 6, 2017 8:44:31 GMT -7
Really interesting discussion, thanks for starting it. I think some of the confusion about what is "good technique" is due to most of what REALLY matters (technique-wise) can't be seen from the ground. We watch climbers from afar, one looks really smooth, one doesn't, and we say the smooth one has "good technique". Yet there often is little correlation between what seems from afar to be good technique and overall climbing ability (eg, the jerky climber is getting up much harder things). Really, the first climber has good STYLE (not in the ethical sense). But style may not make climbing easier, it just makes it look better, as for gymnasts, etc in the OP. IMO, the most essential and overwhelming technique is the ability to maximize weight distribution to your feet, and its very difficult to detect one climber's ability to do that over another's (especially from the ground). Everything else pales in comparison. This is determined by subtle things like minimizing overgripping, hip and shoulder use, effectiveness in gripping hand holds and making the most of footholds.... [must take kids to school now] I think Mark hit it on the head with his comment. Good technique in climbing is the ability to transfer as much weight to your feet as possible, which usually coincides with a strong core, strong fingers and decent balance. Jain Kim and Ashima utilize their extreme flexibility to transfer an incredible amount of weight to their feet. In comps, you will see Ashima shake out on some of the worst hand holds because her flexibility allows her to make that weight transfer better than anyone else. Now, I'm willing to bet that no one on this board has the flexibility to do what Jain and Ashima do, but we can all work on continuing to find better body placements and improving movement with a focus on keeping tension with our feet. To me, that is "good technique", even if the climber doesn't look nearly as graceful.
|
|
|
Post by MarkAnderson on Apr 6, 2017 10:51:28 GMT -7
...In summary, I would say the climber with the best technique is the one who gets up the hardest things despite having the worst Finger Strength-to-weight ratio.
If I had the time, interest, etc, I would do a study in which I measured the Finger Strength-to-weight ratio of a bunch of different climbers, then have them climb various problems of varying difficulty on an instrumented wall (measuring the load applied to each hold). The purpose of the experiment would be to establish the relationship between: 1) overall climbing ability 2) Finger Strength to weight ratio 3) ability to maximize weight distribution on footholds.
|
|
|
Post by aikibujin on Apr 6, 2017 12:04:11 GMT -7
If I had the time, interest, etc, I would do a study in which I measured the Finger Strength-to-weight ratio of a bunch of different climbers, then have them climb various problems of varying difficulty on an instrumented wall (measuring the load applied to each hold). The purpose of the experiment would be to establish the relationship between: 1) overall climbing ability 2) Finger Strength to weight ratio 3) ability to maximize weight distribution on footholds. Measurements? Experiment? I think Mark’s inner engineer is showing! But yeah, I agree with Otis, Mark brought up this huge factor that none of us have been able to put in words. This factor is true across the board, no matter if you’re a static climber or a dynamic climber. Maybe not only passively transferring more weight to footholds, but even utilizing your feet to push and pull more actively. If I think about the way Ashima or Jain climbs, they are sometimes pulling themselves up by using those crazy heel-over-head moves. Even a dynamic climber should be able to work on initiating movement with their legs, and keep their feet from coming off the wall. True campus and dyno moves are pretty rare outside of a gym, especially at the lower grades. Great discussion! I’ve certainly learned a lot.
|
|
|
Post by MarkAnderson on Apr 6, 2017 14:13:30 GMT -7
You see certain areas described as "super technical climbing" but I'm curious as to what actually comprises this style of climbing. Is it limited to certain rock types or angles? When I say something is technical, I usually mean the beta is complicated. The most obvious way of climbing something is the way a normal person climbs a ladder. The further a sequence gets from that obvious/basic movement pattern, the more "technical" it is. I think slabby to vertical routes can have obvious sequences, and horizontal roofs can be very complicated, so its not necessarily correlated to steepness. But, lower-angled stuff does lend itself to complicated sequences, perhaps because having your weight on your feet allows the use of a greater variety of hold sizes/shapes/orientations.
Another (quantifiable) way of thinking about it, is that usually "technical" climbing will require more hand/foot movements per vertical distance climbed. If it takes 50 hand moves to ascend 25 feet, it's probably pretty damn technical*
(*at least a few people on here have been subjected to this type of climbing in "action" (or more like lack-of-action))
|
|
|
Post by MarkAnderson on Apr 6, 2017 14:19:40 GMT -7
So instead of mimicking Ashima or Kim Jain because I think they have amazing technique, I should first look at my own strength and weakness, and find a better climber with similar strength and weakness to mimic. I think that would be a more effective way to improve my technique. +1.
|
|
|
Post by tetrault on Apr 6, 2017 18:23:42 GMT -7
"and find a better climber with similar strength and weakness to mimic. I think that would be a more effective way to improve my technique."
So, I will ask essentially what I interpreted your original post as asking:
How will you know what to mimic? How can we "see" a climber minimizing the load on their fingers, or maximizing the load on their feet?
|
|
|
Post by aikibujin on Apr 6, 2017 21:00:57 GMT -7
Another (quantifiable) way of thinking about it, is that usually "technical" climbing will require more hand/foot movements per vertical distance climbed. If it takes 50 hand moves to ascend 25 feet, it's probably pretty damn technical* Does that mean a very large horizontal roof is the most technical climbing, since you can make a lot of moves but don't gain any vertical distance at all? How will you know what to mimic? How can we "see" a climber minimizing the load on their fingers, or maximizing the load on their feet? That's the tough question, isn't it? If it's easy, we would all be technical wizards. Like Mark said, it's very hard to "see" someone maximizing the load on their feet. If you're asking me how I would do it, in an idealized situation, I would find a climber who is about my height, my build, with a similar climbing style but climbing harder than I am, watch them climb something, and just mimic everything they do. So to me, it's not a question of "what" to mimic, but "who". Obviously, there could be many reasons why someone with similar body type is climbing harder than I am, maybe they have stronger fingers, maybe they're just stronger overall, maybe they have better technique... or maybe it's all of the above. So it's going to take a bit of trial and error. I'm basically stealing beta, but if they can do a sequence and I can't, then I will analyze, for example: did I fail because I couldn't use the hold (weak fingers), did I fail because my lock-off is not strong enough (lack of strength), or did I fail because I didn't use my feet correctly (technical deficiency)? But currently, my technique improvement is done while sitting in front of my computer, eating ice cream, and think very, VERY hard about climbing. It may not be the most effective way of improving, but it sure is the most delicious way! BTW, while I'm sitting here eating ice cream and watching climbing videos, I came across a little snippet of Adam Ondra talking about technique in Matt Groom's (of Epic TV) latest Vlog from yesterday. Seems to fit well with what we've been discussing!
|
|
|
Post by MarkAnderson on Apr 7, 2017 6:40:10 GMT -7
He hits the nail on the head when he says (sic): "you shouldn't focus on trying to climb as elegantly as possible". I identify strongly with his statement about watching himself on video and realizing he doesn't have a particularly nice style (to watch).
RE: Horizontal roof, ya, I probably shouldn't define it as "vertical distance climbed." Maybe "linear progress" or something.
|
|
|
Post by climber511 on Apr 7, 2017 6:55:43 GMT -7
I always enjoyed watching Patrick Edlinger climb - so graceful and yet powerful. Probably considered "old school" these days I'd still be quite happy to climb like he did.
|
|
|
Post by jonfrisby on Apr 7, 2017 7:06:21 GMT -7
You see certain areas described as "super technical climbing" but I'm curious as to what actually comprises this style of climbing. Is it limited to certain rock types or angles? When I say something is technical, I usually mean the beta is complicated. The most obvious way of climbing something is the way a normal person climbs a ladder. The further a sequence gets from that obvious/basic movement pattern, the more "technical" it is. I think slabby to vertical routes can have obvious sequences, and horizontal roofs can be very complicated, so its not necessarily correlated to steepness. But, lower-angled stuff does lend itself to complicated sequences, perhaps because having your weight on your feet allows the use of a greater variety of hold sizes/shapes/orientations.
Another (quantifiable) way of thinking about it, is that usually "technical" climbing will require more hand/foot movements per vertical distance climbed. If it takes 50 hand moves to ascend 25 feet, it's probably pretty damn technical*
(*at least a few people on here have been subjected to this type of climbing in "action" (or more like lack-of-action))
My first thought on this was Yosemite granite climbing, but the more I thought about it, it seems that the same principles apply to Rifle routes, but it looks a lot different in practice. For example, the Pumparama crux move is like V8 without a kneebar, but with one it's a little shakeout to a V3 because the dynamic load on your fingers is greatly reduced in the sloper throw move by having the kneebar in. So I guess "getting weight off your hands" rather than "on your feet" but basically the same concept.
|
|
|
Post by aikibujin on Apr 7, 2017 7:28:22 GMT -7
RE: Horizontal roof, ya, I probably shouldn't define it as "vertical distance climbed." Maybe "linear progress" or something. Haha, I know what you're getting at, I was just picking bones in an egg. He hits the nail on the head when he says (sic): "you shouldn't focus on trying to climb as elegantly as possible". I think that's a mistake I've been making for years. It's probably a very common mistake too. I know when I started climbing, better climbers told me that good technique is "silent feet", climbing in control, and as smoothly as possible. So I spent years trying to fit into that box. But now I realized that's more of a style thing. I think for beginners it's good to focus on those things so they're paying attention to foot placement, balance, and movement efficiency. But once you get these basics, there are plenty of other things to work on.
|
|