|
Post by jetjackson on Feb 4, 2016 13:00:11 GMT -7
After 4 solid weeks of hang-boarding, we're moving into the power phase and started last night working limit boulder problems on the garage woody. We had been prepping a few different routes, and I'd say we have about a dozen routes now, anywhere from V2, up to maybe V9. Grading is hard though, as it's hard to tell what is actually V3 or V5, is a problem actually easy, or are you just finding that problem easy for morpho reasons, or the recently acquired HB strength. Anyway, interested to hear different approached to route setting. At the moment I approach route setting in one of three ways; - Firstly, I might try and recreate a problem that I have been on and struggled with before. I've done this for a goal problem I have for our upcoming trip to Hueco, and I've copied some of the moves from that problem. I had jumped on the problem previously at Hueco. Courtesy of Jesse, www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Dr1xXg6JHw - Ides of March is the problem, and I've recreated the move at 20 sec, with the hand match on that horrible crimpy flake, with a right hand to a side pull thumb pinch. I actually bought the Hueco flakes holds from e-grips, as those horrible flake crimps seem to come up a lot at Hueco. The downside of this approach is that you can't always mimic the problem well. - Secondly, I'll pick a hold that I really like, or want to practice on, and I'll build a route around it. This usually ends up being a route where I have to dead-point or dyno to and from the aforementioned hold. Setting this way always seems to result in routes that are just big moves to crap holds. The other thing about this approach is that I wonder if I am only setting morpho problems. - Thirdly, I'll try and design a route around a move that I have a lot of problems with. Heel hooks at the moment, and rolling onto heel hooks that require a reach across with the same hand, eg. left heel hook rolling left with a big reach to a bad hold up and left of the heel hook. The problem here is that I don't always have a good reference point to set the problem up. i.e. you don't know what you don't know. Am I struggling with the problem because I set it poorly, or because I just have not nailed that technique yet. Anyone else take another approach? Any thoughts on what is the best approach for training?
|
|
|
Post by joev9 on Feb 4, 2016 13:21:50 GMT -7
I start with a blank wall and just put up all my holds. I have ideas of how I want holds to be used but it's just a shotgun blast of holds. Then, my buddy and I start climbing and come up with routes. Sometimes we add holds, spin holds, or move stuff around for a route but mostly it's just figure routes out based on what's available. We don't rate anything either so we never really know how hard anything is...
|
|
|
Post by MarkAnderson on Feb 4, 2016 14:48:21 GMT -7
I usually approach it with a few ideas of the types of moves I want to do an/or the types of grips I want to emphasize. One time when I did a lot of setting I was working a project that seemed to have no horizontal holds--everything was a sidepull, gaston or undercling. So I set a bunch of problems like that, and over a few seasons I really learned how to climb that type of terrain.
Sometimes I just try to create problems on pre-placed holds. That's a lot easier, as you can just mess around with stuff until you find a sequence you like. Probably the best way to go is a combination, where you are starting with pre-existing holds, but you have some extra holds you can add to the wall if you need to tweak something.
As far as grading, it doesn't matter very much how accurate your grades are, but it is nice to be able to gauge your improvement form season to season. For that all you really need is a few benchmark problems at different "grades" that you can keep in place over many seasons. You can return to these benchmarks each season and see how much easier they feel. If you really need to strip your wall, build new benchmarks before you strip the wall and use the old ones to calibrate, then strip the old ones.
And what the hell is a "morpho problem?"
|
|
|
Post by jetjackson on Feb 4, 2016 15:48:26 GMT -7
And what the hell is a "morpho problem?" A problem that matches up with my morphological strengths - height and reach. I think that style of just get on the board and try a move leads you to at least on some level, favor moves that suit your strengths. So you end up with routes that don't necessarily work your weaknesses.
|
|
|
Post by Chris W on Feb 4, 2016 18:21:13 GMT -7
I'm just echoing more of the same. I struggle with setting at home as well. I try to use ideas from problems or route cruxes that have kicked my butt in the past (or present). I try not to set any ergonomically awkward stuff.
I have a problem that's been on the wall for two and a half years now. Still haven't sent it, but have a good shot this spring...
|
|
|
Post by Lundy on Feb 4, 2016 19:05:14 GMT -7
I use the same approach as Joe. Just shotgun blast all the holds up onto the wall, and then start building problems out of them. I find it often leads to movements I wouldn't have come up with if I were trying to set the more traditional way. I also watch a lot of climbing videos, and rather than just drool over the porn, I try to find movements that look cool, and see if I can do something similar on my wall. As Joe said, I will occasionally move a hold or spin them or something, but generally I just go with what is up there. Regarding grading, I gave up pretty much after the first set. There's really no way to tell. Instead, usually once or twice during my power phase, I head on down to the local gym and do a boulder session. It's hard to tell for relatively small improvements, but over the course of a year and a half you can see pretty dramatic improvements in grades (Remember, this is all coming from someone who gets outside only about 2 weekends each spring and 2 weekends each fall, so it's hard to use outside grades to judge progress.) One fun thing I've found about this process is that with each set I try to find/set one problem that seems egregiously hard when the set goes up, but each time I've been able to send it within a year or so before I reset. Of course, I have a relatively new set up right now, and a super hard problem on it that I'm convinced I'll never do, but I've heard that before!
|
|
|
Post by jessebruni on Feb 5, 2016 9:48:58 GMT -7
Dude in that video looks weak, someone should tell him to quit skipping his campus board training.
|
|
|
Post by jetjackson on Feb 5, 2016 11:02:47 GMT -7
Why skip Campus? It's possibly the most fun out of the all the non-climbing training.
|
|
|
Post by jessebruni on Feb 5, 2016 11:14:07 GMT -7
I suck at it, and no one likes to do things they're bad at. Also, I tend to get hurt when I campus, and that's never fun.
|
|
|
Post by tedwelser on Feb 8, 2016 20:19:16 GMT -7
Most of the problems that I set are for other people as a way to build value in our home gym. So I will think about the types of challenges that the harder climbers find interesting and set problems to challenge them, and I will set problems to teach fundamental concepts for the less advanced climbers.
I set some problems for myself, and will tailor them to help me train for goal routes and problems. Currently the dojo is only suitable for taping up problems from existing holds because we have about 85 marked problems and very few free tnuts or wall space. These days I try to identify holds that are "lonely" and build problems that put them into use in ways that differ from the problems that we already have.
However, at Beta Fish, our new local home gym, we have new holds and many new holds on the way so I have been enjoying setting new problems from scratch. In those circumstances I try to make problems that thematically raise issues for particular climbers to learn and master. I think of problems as poems or songs that I try to write for particular audiences to help them experience something valuable or new. When a problem like this is successful it is super satisfying because you see it in the reactions of the climbers.
Difficulty assessment is a whole other challenge, and one that is made interesting because we now have a moonboard to get some sense of external perspective and blend that into the definitions we have built up in our home walls so far. I would say that in general, the moonboard problems are super burly compared to our typical problems, and that generally the grades that I had assigned to Dojo problems in the last year are easier for the grade than the moonboard problems. I am not sure how all of that will settle out, but I am psyched to have the moonboard perspective to consider this coming season.
Finally, my inter-season rest comes to an end on Thursday and I can barely contain my enthusiasm. I would say that I am itching to climb, but I would have to admit that this is much worse than an itch!
|
|
|
Post by Will S on Feb 12, 2016 11:27:26 GMT -7
I use Joe's approach, and occasionally set specific moves. I find that the "spray a bunch of holds on the wall" approach gets me moves that are more realistic for outdoor climbing, more awkward foot/body positions and such. Problems in the gym, setters tend to have feet in convenient locations so the movement feels nicer...that comes at the expense of working new, odd movement IMO.
When I set in commercial gyms, I do it the same way for probably half the problems, just spray a bunch of stuff up and make slight tweaks/adjustments. I also put up more holds than the problem requires or that don't figure into my envisioned sequence, to make people read them better. When every hold on a problem is part of the easiest sequence, IMO it robs the climbers of developing those reading skills. Often I'll put up lots of extra feet and see people climb the problem with many different sequences or subtle differences in movement.
|
|
|
Post by MarkAnderson on Feb 12, 2016 14:52:51 GMT -7
I also put up more holds than the problem requires or that don't figure into my envisioned sequence, to make people read them better. When every hold on a problem is part of the easiest sequence, IMO it robs the climbers of developing those reading skills. Often I'll put up lots of extra feet and see people climb the problem with many different sequences or subtle differences in movement. If only every commercial gym setter were so thoughtful I swear some gyms make the setters pay a fee for every foothold they install.
|
|
|
Post by Otis. on Feb 15, 2016 10:29:46 GMT -7
I also put up more holds than the problem requires or that don't figure into my envisioned sequence, to make people read them better. When every hold on a problem is part of the easiest sequence, IMO it robs the climbers of developing those reading skills. Often I'll put up lots of extra feet and see people climb the problem with many different sequences or subtle differences in movement. If only every commercial gym setter were so thoughtful I swear some gyms make the setters pay a fee for every foothold they install. Although I agree that too many commercial setters don't think of climbers who don't fit their particular size, I think there is a balance between adding a few extra strategic feet and/or a few optional holds to accommodate climbers of all sizes; and randomly scattering holds on the wall. Setting is a creative skill that requires practice to develop and get good at. If you utilize the random scatter approach, you're unlikely to develop your actual setting skills. It's also a lot less efficient in the long run. A good setter can set 20 boulder problems in their tennis shoes and then run through them and maybe a few of them will need a few minor tweaks in forerunning. Granted, it takes time to get to this type of a level.
|
|
|
Post by MarkAnderson on Feb 16, 2016 11:15:26 GMT -7
...A good setter can set 20 boulder problems in their tennis shoes and then run through them and maybe a few of them will need a few minor tweaks in forerunning. Granted, it takes time to get to this type of a level. That's an interesting observation. I wonder if the tendency to set in tennis shoes (which seems ubiquitous in commercial facilities) contributes to the general "foothold problem" (too few, too big, too spaced footholds). If the setter knows s/he will forerun the problem in tennis shoes, it would be wise to use big footholds, or none at all, since small footholds will be useless to him/her.
|
|
|
Post by Otis. on Feb 16, 2016 12:13:22 GMT -7
...A good setter can set 20 boulder problems in their tennis shoes and then run through them and maybe a few of them will need a few minor tweaks in forerunning. Granted, it takes time to get to this type of a level. That's an interesting observation. I wonder if the tendency to set in tennis shoes (which seems ubiquitous in commercial facilities) contributes to the general "foothold problem" (too few, too big, too spaced footholds). If the setter knows s/he will forerun the problem in tennis shoes, it would be wise to use big footholds, or none at all, since small footholds will be useless to him/her.
I think the biggest contributor to the "foothold problem" is due to inexperienced and/or inflexible setters who set to their specific body type/interests. It is a skill to learn how to set a single problem/route that is fun for someone who is 6' tall and someone who is 5'2" tall as well. As for setting in tennis shoes, I've set for about 12 years now, so I can usually envision movement without having to test every move. However, if I am setting something close to my limit, I will always forerun in climbing shoes to make sure my problem/route hits the difficulty I was looking for. Unfortunately there isn't any money in setting, so for most it's a college job that they aren't invested in. Some setters also don't respond well to criticism, so they never learn to adapt their setting style to be more inclusive and/or more focused.
|
|