|
Post by jetjackson on Feb 6, 2018 20:45:47 GMT -7
I think we need more vodcasts FTR.
|
|
|
Post by aikibujin on Feb 6, 2018 22:07:58 GMT -7
Is there anyway to download this to my mp3 player, so I can listen to it while doing one of my epic hangboard ARC sessions?
|
|
|
Post by erick on Feb 6, 2018 23:02:33 GMT -7
Good listen, but I would have liked less injury talk and I always think questioners always want to speak as much as they want to ask a question.
I would have loved the whole discussion to be based around the idea of how best to learn and teach movement outside the standard “climb more” I kept hearing. Not that that’s a bad idea but in no other sport is just playing the game just as effective as specific training drills.
|
|
|
Post by Chris W on Feb 7, 2018 5:17:44 GMT -7
-This has made me think a lot about starting some kind of climber-related podcast.
I would listen to the podcast
|
|
|
Post by jivemiguel on Feb 7, 2018 11:27:07 GMT -7
MarkAnderson would love to hear your reflections after the event. Did the other panelists say anything that you didn't agree with at all? Or maybe more importantly, that made you think differently about your own training (and therefore, your acolytes' training)? Loved listening to the podcast, probably the most insightful & entertaining climbing training podcast I've heard!
-There were a ton of topics I would have liked to discuss further, like "what is good technique", but it seemed like there wasn't enough time, and I was conscious of how much I was talking relative to others and didn't want to dominate the conversation. In some ways it was great having a moderator, particularly at the beginning, but once we got the juices flowing it would have been better to direct the conversation ourselves. This kinda goes back to the makeup of the panel too, since at times you would get some comment out of left field that would derail an otherwise productive discussion.
I would love to read/hear a more in depth discussion on technique. I thought your comment that you weren't sure you would be able to visually identify who is doing a move in the most efficient manner. was particularly interesting. Would you care to expand on this? Assuming we had some way to measure finger strength/power used during a climb I am somewhat skeptical that climbing coaches would be able to visually point out which climbers were more or less efficient in their movements. This assumes of course that the study population aren't newcomers to the sport and have at least a reasonable amount of climbing experience and technique. FWIW, I have read that the running coach, Jack Daniels, once taped a group of runners and asked coaches to rank them in order of who had the best running economy (as measured in o2 consumed per kg of body weight per km of distance) and none of the coaches got it right.
|
|
|
Post by aikibujin on Feb 7, 2018 11:27:30 GMT -7
-This has made me think a lot about starting some kind of climber-related podcast. I think it's a really cool medium that takes less effort to create and less effort to consume than written blogs. I think it's a great idea. I've been listening to tons of podcasts, and the ones focused on climbing training are honestly not that great. But they all make it sound like it is pretty time consuming to make a podcast, so maybe it is harder than you think. I still think you should do an interview with Chris Kalous on the Enormocast. His podcast is not centered on training but on climbing in general, and he is a pretty funny guy.
|
|
|
Post by daustin on Feb 7, 2018 16:30:06 GMT -7
-It seemed like Justin's views were pretty much diametrically opposed to mine on almost every topic. I really enjoyed the contrast and I think it would be cool to do something more in-depth with him in the future. It felt like whenever we hit on a disagreement the topic quickly shifted and we rarely had a chance to really explore or even understand the nature of the disagreement. I would expect that we would see things similarly, but I think we're coming at it from very different perspectives, so it would take some time to identify and characterize our common ground.
Yeah, this is interesting and something I picked up on. This is a simplification, but it felt to me like Justen thinks through a lot of these questions and issues from an emotional and mental perspective, whereas you (and I'm guessing Peter though less sure) think through things more from a physiological perspective. Obviously it's not black and white, but that's the best I could do to sum up the difference I picked up on. To your point, there wasn't quite enough discussion to really tease this out, but I actually feel like you guys might not be totally diametrically opposed all that much, but that even with the common ground you share, it's obscured by very different lenses you use to filter the world. Would love to listen to you guys get a chance to tease that apart more. -There were a ton of topics I would have liked to discuss further, like "what is good technique", but it seemed like there wasn't enough time, and I was conscious of how much I was talking relative to others and didn't want to dominate the conversation. In some ways it was great having a moderator, particularly at the beginning, but once we got the juices flowing it would have been better to direct the conversation ourselves. This kinda goes back to the makeup of the panel too, since at times you would get some comment out of left field that would derail an otherwise productive discussion.
-Ideally, you could optimize the composition of the panel to get a group that already has a good rapport, mutual respect, similar interests, but differing views. Obviously that's really hard to do, but it would make for an awesome discussion.
-This has made me think a lot about starting some kind of climber-related podcast. I think it's a really cool medium that takes less effort to create and less effort to consume than written blogs. It also allows for more spontaneity and, frankly, honesty since it's not so easily searchable. When writing, I feel like I can't be my true self because everything will be read in the most negative light, you can't infer tone/sarcasm very well, and any mistake or criticism will be held against you. With something like a "live" podcast you can get away with a bit more sincerity (I think).
Just another vote that I'd love to hear more along this vein from you and some of the other panelists. The current model of climbing training podcasts is mostly "interview a special guest about their area of expertise", which isn't terrible, but can be pretty hit or miss. A panel discussion format would be a welcome change, especially if you were able to optimize the panel as you described.
|
|
|
Post by aikibujin on Feb 7, 2018 21:07:28 GMT -7
Yeah, this is interesting and something I picked up on. This is a simplification, but it felt to me like Justen thinks through a lot of these questions and issues from an emotional and mental perspective, whereas you (and I'm guessing Peter though less sure) think through things more from a physiological perspective. I've only listened to part of the podcast for now, but I can't really buy into Justin's whole "love your foothold" thing. Place your feet with precision, sure. But place it with "love"? That's getting a little too hippie to me.
|
|
|
Post by jetjackson on Feb 8, 2018 3:37:11 GMT -7
After listening through, I have to agree that the audience questions needing significant moderation.
On what is good technique? I have to agree with Tetrault.
The greatest thing for me about climbing is about how brutally honest the rock and gravity are. The route is defined, and you either climb it, or you fall off. Good technique to me, is whatever gets you to the top of the route. The Fosbury flop I think is a good example to cite here. For a very long time, high jumpers used a range of different techniques to clear the bar. Then in 68 Fosbury comes along and does the flop, smashes the competition and wins gold. It gets adopted as the standard because it was the most effective. So "good technique" is whatever is the most effective at getting you up the wall. Eventually, your technique will have to improve.
These conversations around people lamenting the lack of technique and the pursuit of strength in climbing are a bit elitist in my opinion. There are no style points here. This isn't figure skating. There are not a dozen judges at the bottom giving scores out of 10 after a climb. It's just me, and gravity keeping me honest. If some guy muscles his way through a route that you need to use good technique for, so what, get over. It's like we're computer geeks upset because the varsity football team found a shortcut for coding java. It seems to me that all these people lamenting the 'lack of technique' are upset that someone brute force hacked their sport by 'getting strong fast'.
It's like the story of Chris Young, 61 year old potato farmer who came out of nowhere to win the Sydney to Melbourne ultramarathon. He was at the end of the pack the entire first day, but when the other runners finished up for the night to sleep, he just kept running - super slow. It's the real life tortoise and hare story. He had this weird shuffle that a few ultramarathon runners have now adopted - it's called the "The Young Shuffle" now. He won the race, by 10 hours.
That takes me back to this elitist, or one-sided view also, by non sport or performance oriented climbers, that we must somehow be missing out because we sacrifice climbing for training. Like training and the process of training, and or continuous improvement can't be an enjoyable and rewarding thing for other people.
Each to their own.
|
|
|
Post by tetrault on Feb 8, 2018 5:20:20 GMT -7
That takes me back to this elitist, or one-sided view also, by non sport or performance oriented climbers, that we must somehow be missing out because we sacrifice climbing for training. Like training and the process of training, and or continuous improvement can't be an enjoyable and rewarding thing for other people. Each to their own. Great post, thanks. Though, I don't really think of people touting technique improvement as elitist, I just find it odd that often people make a point of how important it is to improve, yet almost always fail to give any specifics on how to do so, let alone what the end product looks and feels like. I could stop hangboarding and trying hard LB problems and instead climb mileage like sh*t all day and just get weaker and even better at sucking at climbing. But place it with "love"? That's getting a little too hippie to me. I can see where you are coming from, but I like what he is saying if thought of as an exaggeration, and I think it would be significantly more productive than the standard reaction to difficult footholds or movement when the climbing is cruxy. Not that I know too many climbers, but I seem to hear anything other jugs often refered to as "sucking" or being "terrible". This is climbing! If you aren't enjoying every aspect of the movement and think it sucks, go do something else. (Unless you are climbing a crack, then just get through it to get to the sweet face crux ) Arno speaks of this in his book, paraphrasing poorly, if you think of the footholds, or the way you are placing your feet on them, in a more positive light, you are more likely to find a way to work with what you've got.
|
|
|
Post by MarkAnderson on Feb 8, 2018 8:48:18 GMT -7
Yeah, this is interesting and something I picked up on. This is a simplification, but it felt to me like Justen thinks through a lot of these questions and issues from an emotional and mental perspective, whereas you (and I'm guessing Peter though less sure) think through things more from a physiological perspective. I've only listened to part of the podcast for now, but I can't really buy into Justin's whole "love your foothold" thing. Place your feet with precision, sure. But place it with "love"? That's getting a little too hippie to me. This is a good example of the entire problem with telling beginners to not train, but instead, "learn how to climb." What does that mean? What does "place it with love" mean? What would be helpful is some specific instructions, like, "stare down the foothold while you place your foot, then work your toe into it until it feels latched onto the rock."
|
|
|
Post by MarkAnderson on Feb 8, 2018 9:09:26 GMT -7
The greatest thing for me about climbing is about how brutally honest the rock and gravity are. The route is defined, and you either climb it, or you fall off. Good technique to me, is whatever gets you to the top of the route. The Fosbury flop I think is a good example to cite here. For a very long time, high jumpers used a range of different techniques to clear the bar. Then in 68 Fosbury comes along and does the flop, smashes the competition and wins gold. It gets adopted as the standard because it was the most effective. So "good technique" is whatever is the most effective at getting you up the wall. Eventually, your technique will have to improve.
Great rant! Cheers for citing the Fosbury Flop. Dick Fosbury was a National Champion high jumper at Oregon State University, which is located in my home town. My mom "went to school with him", so to speak (in the same sense I "went to school with Steve Nash"--I saw him walking down the street once, lol). He's definitely a local hero.
Anyway, I've kinda been saving this, but here's my thought on what "good technique" is:
Let's assume Overall Climbing Ability is the sum of all the characteristics that make someone a "good climber". For simplicity, let's lump those into 3 categories:
Technique Physical Traits (Strength, endurance, body mass, etc) Mental Ability (try hard, courage)
Therefore,
Overall Climbing Ability = Technique + Physical Ability + Mental Ability.
Solve for Technique:
Technique = Overall Climbing Ability - Physical Ability - Mental Ability
So in the simplest terms, assuming a safe situation where no one is afraid and everyone is trying hard (essentially making Mental Ability a Constant so we can remove it from the equation*), the climber with the best technique is the best climber, with the worst Physical Ability, or, whoever gets up the hardest route(s) with the worst finger strength-to-weight ratio**
(*I think you could make a good argument that Technique and Mental Abilty go hand-in-hand, and are really one broad thing, so the equation could also be: Technique + Mental Ability = Overcall Climbing Ability - Physical Ability) (**Saying "finger strength" is an oversimplification, but I think most of us here would agree that finger strength pretty much overwhelms other physical abilities most of the time)
Now this doesn't mean I "know" what good technique is, but it at least gives me a relatively quantifiable method for identifying the climbers who have it. Based on the climbers I know who climb hard, how strong they actually are, and how they look when they climb, (and admittedly, decades of watching literal posers at Smith Rock) I feel very confident that the good technique defined by my equation is not what we classically think of as good technique. In other words, the ability to float gracefully like Patrick Edlinger is not necessarily helpful at high levels. On the contrary, it might actually be less efficient, and therefore (mathematically speaking) "bad" technique.
That takes me back to this elitist, or one-sided view also, by non sport or performance oriented climbers, that we must somehow be missing out because we sacrifice climbing for training. Like training and the process of training, and or continuous improvement can't be an enjoyable and rewarding thing for other people. Each to their own. That's another great point. There was definitely an anti-training sentiment (and I think it is symptomatic of the larger community) that I would say goes hand-in-hand with a deep misunderstanding of what we actually do and what it's like to do it. I think it would help some of these haters to actually try it with an open mind, see what it's like, and then judge at that point. Anti-training people seem to think it's horrible misery bordering on sadism, and that we must all hate climbing (or at least hate ourselves). On the other hand, I don't need any more competition for 5.14 first ascents, so I'm not going to be put off if they stick with their current approach to improvement, lol.
|
|
|
Post by MarkAnderson on Feb 8, 2018 10:21:33 GMT -7
These conversations around people lamenting the lack of technique and the pursuit of strength in climbing are a bit elitist in my opinion. There are no style points here. This isn't figure skating. There are not a dozen judges at the bottom giving scores out of 10 after a climb. This is another great point I neglected to comment on...
There was a lot of discussion after the Panel about how climbers who come from gymnastics, martial arts or dance have such "good technique." But, like you said, in those sports competitors are being judged directly on form/style. The reason a gymnast must do an Iron Cross without trembling is that ITS MUCH HARDER TO DO!!! Yet we apply the same standard in climbing despite the absence of style points. If the gymnast just needed to sketch through the Iron Cross, that is what they would do, in order to save strength for the next element.
Consider moving a foot from one hold to the next. With the "right" body position, this can be done "statically," removing the foot casually and slowly lifting it to the next hold. Or, with "bad" body position, it can be done by dragging/scraping/kicking the foot up to the next hold. The former looks much "better", but the latter allows the climber to keep weight on the moving foot, thus reducing the load on the hands and fingers. Plus it may avoid additional hand/foot movements to get in the "right" body position for the foot move. I don't think it's clear that one is better than the other, maybe they both have a place in the "good technique" quiver.
Another example to consider is Josune Beriatzu. She appears to dyno EVERY move on a hard route. To a casual observer, she might appear to be out of control or barely scraping through, compared to some strong guy locking off every move and dancing statically between holds. But clearly Josune's approach minimizes the expenditure of lock-off and finger strength, and clearly it would take much more practice to dial a route to the point that you could successfully latch every dyno. Isn't that good technique? Yet its the antithesis of Patrick Edlinger.
|
|
dsm
New Member
Posts: 48
|
Post by dsm on Feb 8, 2018 10:30:02 GMT -7
This actually made me think of Margo Hayes' recent climb of Biographie. There's unedited footage of the ascent if you Google it. Anyway, some people were talking about how she had much better technique than Chris Sharma, which I thought was really confusing. They both made it to the top in the way they could get their bodies to the top. To me, that's the bottom line.
|
|
|
Post by tetrault on Feb 8, 2018 11:46:59 GMT -7
the climber with the best technique is the best climber, with the worst Physical Ability, or, whoever gets up the hardest route(s) with the worst finger strength-to-weight ratio** But, how can we define "best technique" if a group of climbers all made it up a specific route?As in, climber x used better technique than climber y? By "we" I mean these "elitists" that are claiming they can do so... Is the climber who used the best technique the one who minimized the load on their fingers (relative to their body weight)? Even if we agree to define best technique this way, how would we determine "minimized the load"? Lowest average load? What if a climber rested in a good position for a real long time, then climbed the crux super fast with no feet- they end up with a low average load for the entire climb. Lowest maximum load? What if a climber made 1 dynamic move that involved an extremely brief but high load on their fingers in order to save a significant amount of load in the moves immediately before/after? Other climbers may have not hit such a high load but still used more finger effort overall. Lowest definite integral of load for the time on the route (relative to body weight)? A climber that transferred nearly all of their weight to their feet, but took a significantly longer time on the route could end up with a higher result here than someone who blazed up the route with 1 arm pullups... Maybe a "finger effort" would have to be defined, not simply a measure of load on the fingers.
|
|