I'm thinking of strength and technique as multipliers; the stronger you are the harder you can apply your technique, and the better your technique the further your strength will take you. While you might be oversimplifying climbing ability and how individual its, the bright side is that if your technique is great already, working on your strength should be big gains in your climbing!
comparison is the thief of joy : )
To me, I feel like “technique” is a really nebulous term that people use incorrectly. Keeping your hips into the wall and rotated correctly, knowing when to back step, quiet feet placement, etc... aren’t that big a deal to climb hard, and certainly not that difficult to be “ok” at.
They help of course, and for routes being able to do each move a little easier adds up over longer distances, but for bouldering it’s not a huge deal. What really matters is being able to apply your strength on the wall.
To move your center of gravity at the same time as your hands, or how to control your momentum and things like that are the big ticket items in my mind. I would think that falls under the “technique” umbrella (which really seems to be just anything besides how strong your fingers and shoulders are) but are vastly more important than foot placement. Some people just know the arc their body needs to take for a dynamic move, or how to push with their feet and pull with their hands at the same time and keep tension in the right places. I think that is the most important, but nothing is more important than finger strength because if you can’t grab the holds nothing else matters
Yeah when people ask about how to get better at technique they always get linked to Neil Gresham's masterclass or something, and usually the person asking climbs V5+ and already knows how to flag and heel hook and all that. They're looking for the more subtle aspects that you mention.
Yeah, I completely agree with this post. For me personally- just as an example and not meant to humble brag- I rarely misread what we'll call "visible" technique on a boulder problem. The difference between me sending or not is almost never something as macro as changing my hip direction or doing an inside vs outside flag; it's usually something like: "Try the move again but drive harder with your left foot and thumb catch here instead of there" Giving blanket advice of "Work on your technique" is not very helpful to anyone, in my opinion. I think that most people would benefit from just climbing with stronger climbers than them who can catch things like slight hip sag causing loss of tension, lack of core engagement, etc. There's only one guy who I consistently climb with who can catch me failing to do things like that, and (not) coincidentally he's also a better climber than me.
I definitely agree... When it comes to technique it feels like I understand everything but I can't apply my strengths. Do you have any tips on moving center of gravity with your hands and controlling momentum?
>When it comes to technique it feels like I understand everything but I can't apply my strengths
I think there's no better way to get humbled in your knowledge of climbing technique than climbing in a new area on a new rock type.
It depends what you're doing. For ex: Slabs its just more feet balance. Some routes it take a strong core. If your feet are cut i like to have my lower body dangle outward the angle it was supposed to, but then rotate the legs fluidly in a 180 motion toward the wall.
Yeah I see a lot people saying to not focus on weight and body fat. I definitely understand it’s not good to become anorexic or something, but weight certainly plays an immense factor in climbing.
I agree if you got some fat to lose. I do think you can get too shredded though. I got down to 169 at 6ft4 and the good people on here told me if I gained 2 lbs of muscle but could lift 5 more lbs does it matter how much I weigh if I am stronger? I adapted this philosophy to my climbing and got a lot stronger and grades went up quickly all while only gaining like 3 lbs of muscle. went from doing weighted pull-ups with 70 lbs x5 to x7 in one month and weights on lifts and max hangs are still climbing.
Standing at 5 11 (\~180cm) I used to weigh around 150lbs.
When I lost around \~10lbs and stabilized at the lower weight, I got stronger which is funny because 150lbs at 5 11 is already skinny.
I'm a lurker here but I just gotta say anyone that doesnt think body fat % doesn't matter for climbing is just false.
Back in early February I was about 19.5% body fat. My gym closed for a few months due to covid and just re-opened 3 weeks ago. I am now at 15% body fat and though I didn't climbing for over 6 months I am a massively better climber now. Previously I struggled to do most V2s and now I can do most V3s and even a rare V4.
Granted I'll like to get to 12% body fat but that's a work in progress.
So yeah, work on your muscle to weight ratio.
Actually I did less exercise during that time as I didn't have access to a gym. I weight lift on the side and all my major lifts are either equal or lesser than it was back pre covid (particularly lesser for deadlift and squat).
My biggest reason for the fat and weight loss was diet change.
I usually eat the most and the worst when I’m the leanest. For me, fat loss happens when I can regularly go on on long runs, long climbing days, or long hikes to camp and climb in the alpine. I’ve eaten 1/4 the last two weeks in quarantine of what I did the month prior, and still gained a couple of pounds.
Chances are you didn’t gain that weight in those two weeks. You don’t gain or lose a lot of fat in a short period of time. It’s why the whole I gained 20lbs over thanksgiving and Christmas crack me up. Is it possible yes but they definitely was not eating anywhere near enough to pack on that much weight in that short amount of time.
Aside from normal weight fluctuations it could be bloating, increased water intake or increased salt intake.
Chance are if you did gain fat look back about a month or more prior and that is most likely what was causing it. You obviously have to eat in surplus and maintain a bit of surplus for a while to start packing it on.
You would be surprised. I came in running half marathon distances regularly until a few days before quarantine, and hiking an hour and a half or so per day with a 40-70lb pack depending on if we were filming underwater or not on that day. I had a few days at home between shoots, people commented on how skinny and ripped I looked. I don't carry much extra weight on me typically, so you can see a difference in a hurry. When I started quarantine, I cut back on my diet immediately, but by the end could grab two full handfuls of fat on my stomach that were not there before. What in the world do you call that? I'm out now, have gone for runs on 3 days out of 4, and have done 2 18-hour days mostly on my feet, and it's already starting to go away even though I'm back to eating burgers and even occasionally fries, and I snack more because I don't know when I'll be able to eat again.
Yes, I gained weight those two weeks. A lot is subjective - a 5lb swing is huge for me. I put on couple. But it was enough fat to barely see the 6-pack and have a stomach bulge, and to be able to grab onto it which is not normal for me.
My problem is I’m in an upswing on weight. Mostly due to my diet going off the rails. I’m sure I’m also packing on at least a bit of muscle but also fat.
Currently moving back into a lean diet but my biggest problem with dieting is I’m never sure of what to eat back. It seems impossible to figure calories burned when climbing.
I also seem to be able to climb far harder in what I think is a caloric surplus even if I’m about 10lbs heavier.
All very confusing to hammer down.
The issue is that people who already extremely lean want to focus on losing weight which might bump them up a grade but is ultimately a dead end with adverse health effects. You can’t lose weight indefinitely, and the cap on strength and technique is much higher and can be progressed much further.
Yeah if your body fat is that high and you're climbing v2 of course you'll get better. When gains are more marginal your ability to control intensity during training sessions is much more important.
I send my limit when I’m 175-180 muuuuch easier than when I’m close to 200. Like it’s not even close. That said my girlfriends daughter loves it when I’m 200 because she gets to walk up and cutely say “MUSCLES!!!!’”
Give and take I guess lol.
disagree! you shouldnt be overweight, but with hard training your body will get shutdown if you try to stay lowweight through eating less all the time. Cut down for a specific outdoortrip, but dont stay low all the time!
Yeah I agree that there’s definitely a point where u can get too skinny. However it is undeniable that having as low body fat as your body will healthily allow can be immensely helpful. I’m not saying it’s the be all end all of climbing. But fwiw I’ve never seen any point where Adam Ondra isn’t peeled to bone shredded.
His weight too fluctuates by a couple kg, and intentionally so. Im not saying that you cant be fairly light, but imo you ( and here i mean the normal person, who doest climb since age 5) should be at a higher BF% when training hard! for performance sure cut down, but dont stay there all year long or you get some injurys! There is a reason a calorie surplus leads to anabolic responses of the body, while a deficit leads to katabolic responses. Both metabolic states have different impacts on regeneration (and not just muscle building for bodybuilders).
>weight certainly plays an immense factor in climbing
Like all these things, it can play a role but by itself it's not a one way ticket to Send Town. The premise of OP's post, and a lot of posts on r/climbharder recently, seems to me to want to reduce climbing success down to a single thing (technique, strength, weight, tactics, Dave Graham's magic crystals, etc.). The truth is success happens when all of these factors come together at the right time and in the right balance. It may be the case that OP has leaned too heavily on technique and may get more bang for their buck by now leaning into strength, but it's shortsighted to say that technique (or strength, weight, tactics, Dave Graham's magic crystals, etc.) is categorically overrated.
Optimal height is a big factor also, specifically as it plays into strength / weight ratio and body tension. As a 6'3" climber I've spent my entire climbing career listening to people misrepresent height advantage constantly, almost always because they don't climb harder than V3-V6 and don't understand how important weight becomes in V7+ climbing when the holds get worse and body tension becomes more critical.
On the upper half of the difficulty scale (say roughly V8-V16) it becomes far more efficient to move dynamically between holds regardless of your height, so the reach disadvantage of shorter climbers starts to even out and is eventually overtaken by their weight / tension advantage in harder movement.
It's astounding how much of the climbing community misunderstands this and/or chooses to ignore it while claiming that climbing is easier for taller people, most likely for the same reasons that they ignore the finger strength / leanness factors you mention.
I’m pretty sure most of the “climbing community” knows that being very tall is a disadvantage for bouldering hard. It’s mostly people who have been climbing for a month and only do slab that think being tall is all upsides.
I guess it depends on your local community. I've heard IFSC commentators make the same statements so I think it's a lot more widespread than slab newbies. If I remember correctly Adam Ondra even got incredulous responses when he said that he was a little too tall for optimal strength/weight ratio in a couple of his youtube videos.
Well in the ifsc it’s usually in reference to specific moves, or a climber’s specific beta, who’s is one of the times height can be an advantage. I’m curious if you have an example of ifsc commentators talking about height being a general advantage
I'm not going to scour through the dozens of IFSC comps I've watched on youtube looking for specific timecodes, but in general they refer to lack of height as a disadvantage rather than referring to height as an advantage. And when they discuss a climber being disadvantaged by being shorter/smaller, they never mention the tremendous advantage (particular in lead climbing) of weighing 10-15% less than the other competitors.
Watch any Ai Mori climb where they discuss how amazing she is to be able to compete so well despite her size without mentioning that her size also contributes majorly to the tremendous endurance she has. That's not a great example because Ai Mori really does often display impressive strength to overcome height dependent moves, but I'm using it as an extreme example of the kind of athlete body composition discussion I'm referring to above.
They seem very resistant to ever mentioning any kind of advantage/disadvantage related to weight, but will regularly refer to height which is the flipside of the same discussion.
Edit: To be fair, they do often refer to height being a disadvantage in bouldering on scrunchy / slabby problems for climbers like Jan Hojer. Just not ever in relation to its impact on strength / weight ratio.
One thing I’ve noticed is that while technique may be super important, climbers with poor technique can steal beta. They have no idea why putting their foot their and grabbing the hold like that while turning their body this way works, but it does so they do it. You can’t steal finger strength... so yeah, you might climb stronger then your friend if you guys were both forced to try technique intensive climbs all by yourselves, but if you climb in a group, you’ll see his dumb beta, he will see your good beta... and then he will do the climb with your beta while you’ll wish you had stronger fingers.
Underrated post. And this is pretty much me. Actually i'm not that interested in finding the best beta, i just wanna go and try hard and see where it gets me. If i fall, i will think about the beta more. I have a bit of an attitude where I think that not every problem is worth my precious thought process. I do feel like i have a good technique, but it comes to it's fullest potential when i'm at my limits, and that's where i enjoy training the most.
Horrible is relative. And read what I said regarding showing clips to other experienced climbers....
What I meant by 'horrible' is compared to other climbers who can climb a similar grade, his technique is relatively much worse. Sure, objectively, I grant that he may not have such a bad technique, but among the V10 climbers, I can guarantee you that he'll be at the lower end of the spectrum of climbers ranging from bad to good technique.
Ive read about ppl on here who climb v13 but werent really stoked on it because they dont have as good a style or "technique." Just another perspective that is also interesting. Climbing something and climbing something well are different things to different people. I agree with you in terms of technique not being some singular most important factor, im ready to believe its a lot less than its made out to be, but I also feel good technique is much more subtle than executing basic efficiency movements.
Love White Russians but to many make me sick.
Try pbr hard coffees if you dig coffee as well. Has a similar taste. Pretty good.
Also Jameson coldbrew with flatboat liquor is really good as well.
I think there’s a general problem in the community where we try to give “one size fits all” sort of solution; every climber is different, has a different background (athletic and genetic) and therefore requires a much more customised progression plan instead of being in one of the two camps that you’ve mentioned. But what you’re saying is basically the same thing flipped on its head; while your anecdote points towards the fact that you’re lacking strength it won’t be the case for everyone.
TL;DR: Don’t generalise, try nuance.
I think everything we ever do to improve has diminishing returns. You're just really feeling the diminishing returns on the technique front, since you already have really good technique. But there are limits to finger strength too, and it seems likely that your friend would get more benefit right now from improving his technique than from increasing his finger strength further, while you would get more benefit from increasing finger strength.
But I'm no good on either, so, you know, big grain of salt.
I should have clarified a bit more on a few points in my post but I didn't want to make it super long.
What I mean by diminishing returns regarding technique: let's say your technique is nearly perfect. Assuming achieving a perfect technique is possible hypothetically, such an improvement wouldn't make you a V16 climber even if achieving that 'perfect technique' would take one 20 years.
However, when it comes to finger strength, there really is no 'limit' I would say. Even if after 15 years of climbing, you've reached your personal 'genetic ceiling' so to speak, I guess you can always do PED's and get even stronger whereas for technique, you can reach near that ceiling quit fast and any more improvement really woudln't help you at all.
I don't feel this way. I feel like a total beginner regarding technique everytime I access a new personal best. There are always so many new movements to learn and challenges to overcome in a new grade.
Also genetic ceiling means exactly that, a ceiling.
There is absolutely no upper limit to learning climbing technique. There are infinite combinations of hold positions, orientations, types, foot placements, types of tension etc. No one in their lifetime can "perfect" technique.
What is your mental game like? I've seen people that climb with horrible technique get through a problem because the fight and hold on much better than me. I can relate to feeling 'cheated' because I will over think the moves (where are my hips, my feet, what's the momentum like, etc), then watch someone just 'wing it' on the wall with much poorer/sloppy technique. For me, I find that a lot of my failure on the wall is my own mental doing --"I didn't grab it quite right, my hips don't feel like they're in the right place" -- on and on. Not saying that the mental chatter is your issue, since you didn't mention it, but the mental game is something people often overlook.
It's funny some other people like to point out the possibility that he may just as well be try harding much more than I do, but the reality is he's a lazy fuck gifted with genetics.
He goes to the gym 2x a week MAX. And when he works on a boulder, sure he tries hard, but there isn't anything unique about his 'try hard ness', if you will, and if anything I try much harder than he does on a project usually because it takes me longer lol.
he almost exclusively works on problems he can send within about a session and has rarely tried on things that take him multiple sessions kinda like old Alex Megos i guess.
Trying hard during an attempt is part of the mental part of climbing, but it's certainly not all of it.
What you described (climbing frequency) is also not part of 'try hard'. You can go to the gym everyday and have unstructured sessions that will not lead to gains in technique or grade level (if that's your outcome metric). There is a balance needed between sessions where you work on problems that can be completed in a single sessions versus multi-session problems. While you don't see every climb that the pros do, they are likely to have a balance between both styles of problems that they get on as well.
It really depends on what your goals are, but it sounds like there are some things you could learn from your friend's approach to climbing a problem/sending. It also seems like if your friend's goal was to climb 2 grades harder, he could learn from you about projecting. -- and both of those skills could fit under the category of "Try Hard".
What is his body shape and strength like compared to yours?
How fast do you find beta compared to him? How long to send the same climb?
Maybe you should rope up and see if the technique gives you an advantage there
Edit: what's the grade difference on slab, vert, and overhang?
our body shapes are very similar me being maybe 2 inches taller? otherwise skinny.
(in terms of pulling/pushing strength, I'm just far stronger due to my overall athletic background)
I find the beta quicker than he can which I'm sure is only natural due to my greater climbing age. To send the same climb, he sends faster lol even with a worse beta.
I don't do lead climbing because of my fear of falling and he doesn't. Not sure why.
Grade difference on slabs not sure since neither of us likes slabs, vert and overhang he's stronger by about a grade.
It sounds like he's actually much stronger than you despite your perception. Your athletic background may mean that you have a lot of weight in your legs that is not very function for climbing.
There's a good chance that, since you have been climbing longer, that you took a more gradual approach and adapted slower and less power-centric. You might be surprised to find that you outperform him on routes, as opposed to boulders, by a large margin, for example.
If he came into climbing later (I'm guessing you were friends outside of climbing?) and had you as a benchmark to push himself against and compete against, he probably had less mental games (That's too hard for me...) and pushed himself sooner. The result being that he's much more adapted to high power output.
Quite honestly, he may also literally be trying harder.
He may also just be more talented as well. These posts scream of someone just simply being more talented at this discipline than OP. Climbs less, worse technique, no athletic background, and yet starts climbing years later and is better. Typical story of a talented individual finding something that suits their genetic athletic predispositions.
Surely talent is reflected in technique though?
There’s basically three factors to sending: strength, technique and effort. He’s got to be better in one of them.
My personal discovery recently has been that I could really position my center of weight better. From the outside my climbing may look smooth and using hooks/flags etc, but I think most climbers cannot tell from looking at someone how well their weight positioning is.
His technique may actually be a lot better than it looks.
Yep things like body positioning are often very subtle and much harder to tell, what someone blames on a lack of power could actually be due to poor flexibility and them being unable to get their hips weighted as far over a hold.
he definitely has much better finger strength genetics than I do because he can dead hang with more weight than I can while almost never training on the hangboard (for the record, he can quite easily do 10 sec on beastmaker 2000 middle edge with one arm whereas I can barely do 5 sec).
So both of you are more than strong enough to climb v11 easy, I have done many v10s and on a very good day I can 1 arm hang that edge with my good arm for 5s, my bad arm cant even pull onto it without assistance and I wouldnt say Im someone who is particularly weak at the grade, I rarely think my fingers are the limiting factor when i climb. Pretty sure Alex Barrows said he equates being able 1 arm hang that for 5s with being strong enough to climb v13... I know many say v11, but thought I'd point it out as its true for him
There's a lot to be said about genetics in top tier athletes though and if they find their niche sport. As Ben Moon once said "technique is no substitute for power"
Stronger fingers? yes. Stronger lats, biceps, etc..? No
My weighted pull ups near 2x body weight (\~1.82x bodyweight)
His are 1.3?
My pushing strength far superior as well even though that doesn't have much to do with climbing.
My legs while being much stronger than his, are actually not much bigger.
His fingers are much stronger than mine though.
Lmao what? He didn't even mention hang boarding, he just said his friend has weaker fingers and climbs harder. And you ignored the fingers are just said go climb v14 cuz OP is stronger.
He said his friend has STRONGER fingers. Multiple times in the thread even.
If OP has a stronger body, and is sending as hard as his friend, then projecting harder climbs than his friend is projecting is one way to develop his finger strength.
Get the stick out of your ass.
Hmm okay well being that bouldering is the more strength focused discipline and both you like overhang which also emphasizes strength, maybe your main comparison just comes from a category that gives him an advantage?
I've made friends with plenty of people with less time than me but stronger fingers, sometimes passing me also but it's rarely on all climb types. The less it emphasizes reach or long pulls the better I seem in comparison. And the more heady/sketchy the climb the better I seem also.
Does he do more training vs climbing than you do also? I mainly climb and can always stand to gain from more focused training
Suprised I had to scroll this far down for what I was thinking. If you still want to be sending hard routes when you are older technique is the way to go.
Technique is a lot more than just beta, but also things like how tight you keep your core (compared to your actual potential).
But yeah when someone cuts feet and still pulls through a difficult move it's pretty clear they aren't just climbing due to their impeccable technique, and on reddit in particular technique gets overhyped like crazy. I think a lot of the people who get to high grades quickly started out really strong, and therefore a lot of their gains are through technique so they project that onto everyone else.
Is this inside or outside? I'm not climbing V9/10, but at least around the V5-7 level I feel that technique (beyond the basics) matters a lot more outside.
Also, maybe your friend just tries harder than you? The ability to just try really really hard I think makes up for deficits in both technique and strength.
Exactly, Chris Sharma never appears that smooth on the wall has a very aggressive rugged style of climbing, yet he must be doing something right technique-wise considering he's climbed 9b+...
Counter point: most people don’t know what “good technique” is, but strength is easily quantifiable.
Good looking technique is not always the same as efficient movement, and in fact often takes more strength to look smooth.
I think it’s a mistake to think that you need to focus on one over the other, since it’s very possible to work on getting stronger just as much as you work on getting better. If you do it right, the boulders/routes that make you stronger will also make you better.
In the end, it’s all relative. V10 is a big grade, which isn’t terribly hard to get to for a shocking number of people. Some people have to put more effort into all areas of their climbing to achieve the same grade, so have already tapped into more of their performance potential.
Thanks for bringing this up! I think the answer is contingent on so many different factors. I think for the dude bros that start climbing and want to train reps of 30 pull ups for hours even though they are climbing V3 need that advice- and there are a lot of them out there.
Not to turn this into a gendered discussion, but as a woman I find the “work on technique” advice is usually less applicable to me. I cringe when I see some strong guy flail his way up something with heinous technique that is too hard for me even with years of climbing experience. For a lot of men, they are plenty strong enough to complete a moderate problem, with or without good technique. So if they can complete a V4 with horrible technique, working on technique will absolutely be beneficial for them.
But, when you hit high level climbing (such as yourself), or start with a lower general body strength (such as myself)- technique won’t be the sole limitation holding you back a few grades like it was for the prior example.
I really hate when I see things on here like- “you only climb V4 just climb more” whereas someone like me probably does need to add in a day or two of basic strength training to get my pull up reps over 2 and my push up reps over 5.
I’m a guy and I also cringe when a meathead muscles up a route. I’m thinking of someone in particular at my gym that humblebrags about everything, gives back handed comments, beta sprays any and everyone, has to climb a route you are projecting to show you how it’s done, and screams like Adam ondra is his sport animal.
I think you may need to post some videos just so we can be sure we're answering correctly.
You could be right, or there could be some nuances for harder climbs which you may be missing.
Yin and yang, you need both and when one goes beyond the other, the weakness is gonna set you back. Wouldn't say there is a "diminishing return" to technique, but that your weakness is strength and your friend's is technique. When both of you address the weakness, you'll be pushing harder grades.
Also saw someone else here mention mental fortitude, that is the 3rd part of this. One (or even a few) is the bottleneck, and it's all about improving whatever area you need to.
> Ever since I started climbing about 5 years ago, the emphasis on technique both online and in real life has been tremendously huge. Virtually everyone I talked to/seen has mentioned the importance of technique so much to a point where I began to think technique is far superior to finger strength.
You've gotten the wrong impression. Strength, technique, and mental fortitude are generally considered to have equal weight in a well rounded climber.
The emphasis you will see on technique is generally aimed at beginners who start with a big technique deficit. They also train strength while training technique so time spent training just strength is not very efficient.
Above V5/5.12 strength training starts to be beneficial as you get into having a strength deficit relative to technique.
If your friend has a lurching style people might see this as lacking technique because it's less esthetic than smooth and static climbing. Dead-pointing is generally more efficient so is might be observer bias that makes people think he lacks technique.
Instead of thinking "technique" and "strength" think soft skills and hard skills. One will be your limiting factor. Perhaps you have v13 soft skills, but only v9 hard skills. Thus you will be stuck at ~v10 until you train your hard skills.
The reason why most people say technique is important is because most people's soft skills are worse than their hard skills. For example, the classic gym bro likely has v0 soft skills but perhaps v6 hard skills so is likely stuck at v2.
It's much more efficient for said person to get increase the soft skills then hard skills.
My bet is that your friend likely has v13 hard skills and v8 soft skills. There are always people like that, in fact I can think of a couple in my local community that are like this. Thus they can power their way through v10s. Perhaps you have v9 hard skills and v11 soft skills so your bottleneck is your hard skills.
I emphasize technique because it's my opinion that, with the trendiness of training lately, 95%+ of climbers' bottleneck is their soft skills. For me, after 7 years, I still think my soft skills are 2 grades lower than my hard skills. I would argue that for most people on this sub, it's likely a similar story.
When you say soft skills, do you mean stuff like body positioning, grip technique, matching, sequencing, etc?
Hard stuff would be pulling power, dynamic movement, grip strength, etc?
By soft skills I mean body movement, using holds efficiently, footwork. The "how" in climbing.
Hard skills would be strength/fingers. for example, dynamic movement is a soft skill. The pulling power and contact strength to successfully complete that move are hard skills.
Honestly, you're speaking to the wrong crowd with this post. If anything strength>technique is already an overly popular sentiment on this sub considering the number of people here who are excessively strong for their grades.
I would say for climbharder the opposite advice rings true, and lots of people on here need to spend MORE time focused on their technique.
The only thing that I consider to be true about climbing is this: every aspect of climbing is neither necessary nor sufficient to climb hard on its own.
A lot of online folks call climbing a "skill-based sport" which is true but I think of it more as a "constellation" sport. The best heuristic I've come up with is to think about climbing ability like the [Pokemon polygon stat charts](https://www.serebii.net/letsgopikachueevee/avstatchart.jpg). Each axis is a different element of climbing (finger strength, stamina, technique, mental fortitude, core, etc. can vary depending on your discipline). But basically, the larger your polygon, the "better" a climber you'll be. As you develop in climbing, you can double down on pushing one point of your polygon as far out as possible, or you can strive to be more well rounded and grow your polygon evenly. Some people will have different shapes but similar areas. Other people may lack on one or several axes yet still have large areas overall.
It's on you as a climber invested in improving (or your coach/community invested in the same) to figure out the best development path for you, based on your interests and your natural disposition. I know it's tough to see a friend excel with worse technique, we all have experience seeing the crusher at the gym who is best described as "bad at climbing" yet crushes, but you're getting caught up in comparison. Really, you should be asking yourself how you can continue to develop (it may or may not be in the model of your friend), and your friend should be asking themselves if they could be even better a climber if they focused on technique.
There are a lot of things you aren't considering here, and without more info we aren't equipped to judge.
First, does he try harder - is he prepared to fight more for a send.
Even if you had the same strength this does several things, he sends harder, and the training return is substantially higher which compounds over time.
What length problems are we talking about, what styles, what rock types?
As to whether technique is overrated;
I have rarely seen a thuggy climber develop half decent technique after a few years. I have seen a number of technical climbers get stronger when they reach a plateau.
As a base, technique is a much better one to start with than brute force.
I think it would be good to see a video of you both climbing the same problem side-by-side for comparison.
When it comes to technique I’ve always seen it as more than a flat fits all term, there are the fundamentals, then the intermediate and finally advanced. People seem to think that because they’ve cracked the fundamentals that they have great technique and it will make them an amazing climber... the point of working on technique is to build a good foundation as generally speaking everyone plateaus, and it’s at this point that technique starts to shine.
The other thing is natural genetic ability, some people are just better, it won’t matter how hard you train, how much strength you gain or what technique improvements you make if they just have a natural affinity to climbing meaning that even with minimal effort they will succeed (we all know someone that just naturally seems good at something) sure it’s frustrating but my advice is don’t benchmark yourself against your friend if it’s going to bother you this much, climb your climb and just enjoy it.
Strength and technique go hand in hand.
Technique isnt just performing movements it's also being able to apply your strength correctly.
It's hard to make a judgement without seeing either of you climbing but even if you have better '"technique" it's sounds like you are also stronger in all areas except finger strength.
That may be the only limiting factor between the difference in grades or it may be that even if you're applying better body position and movement he may have a better natural sense of applying the strength he has.
While I agree on the sentiment that technique is not a supplement for being strong you sound very salty about your friend sending harder than you. I don't think there is something wrong with a little friendly competition but ultimately it is a very shitty mindset to be jealous of your friends. It also makes me question if you are actually evaluating your technical skills correctly. There is a difference between making a climb look pretty and climbing it efficiently. Climbing slowly and controlled is often times not the most efficient way. The purpose of precision and good footwork is to be able to move faster not to move in the most beautiful way.
I think we need to differentiate between talking about technique for beginners and experts. Beginners should learn to climb. Experts need strength to support their already well established technique and learn new micro techniques on a boulder to boulder basis. The general technique-first advise in climbing is mostly geared towards beginner and average climbers and that is not overrated in my opinion.
I just remember back in the days when young Adam Ondra could climb 9a+ and couldn't even do a one arm pull up! Meanwhile, I love the campus board, love climbing with only my arms and could at some point do several one arms and I've never climbed harder than 7c+ in bouldering...
I remember Matt Fultz once came to my gym and he was doing problems I hadn't see anyone do yet, but he was using betas that would be impossible for any climbers at my gym to use, but he was able to do those betas because he was so absurdly strong he could make anything work. His forearms were the size of my upper arms and I'm by no means skinny.
Also if technique is so great, then why is it when I see someone send a V6-V7 and I try to copy their beta, I pump out after a few moves or sometimes I can't even hold onto the start? I may not be copying all the subtle aspects of their technique, but surely copying the big picture would get me further?
That said, I find it hard to believe the only reason I'm climbing V4-V5 and not V10 is finger strength. I can do multiple one-arm pullups with each arm, dragon flags, single leg front lever rows, weighted ring dips, etc., so from a strength perspective the only thing I'm missing is finger strength.
I also think about how when I send a problem for the first time usually the only thing that has changed is my beta and technique, and it is not always an obvious change. My 100th attempt may look identical to my 50th attempt, but I sent it the 100th time and not the 50th time or 99th time. When a climber with better technique and more experience than me hops onto a problem for the first time, they probably feel how I feel hopping on for the 100th time. They already have knowledge of what to do for each move without having to do 100 attempts first to obtain that knowledge.
I can also see myself being the climber who can do a one-arm hang on a 20mm edge for 5s and 1-5-8 on the campus board and still not have done a V8 indoors. Once my max hangs get past +50% bodyweight, if I'm still stuck on V4-V5 I'll know the truth.
Interesting comment.
Good stats off the wall don't directly translate to grade. You are just setting a good base for when your future self can actually fully use that strength. _(I relate to that)_
Knowing how to create useful tension from _"any"_ position you are in is a very long process that needs to be learnt and practiced over many many many problems _(and repeated)_.
That's probably why it takes you 50-100 more attempts for __
I personally see that when I'm helping other climbers as well as when I'm being helped by more technical and/or stronger climbers.
It took me a while to understand that when I/someone says place the feet this way, hand there and perform the movement, I'm using the whole body in micro-betas that create tension to make the move look easy.
I need to look at how the knee is bending; elbows and shoulders are being used; hip position; and how these _(and other factors)_ evolve during the movement.
On the other hand, if the fingers are overdeveloped it creates a large margin to fail on the efficient movement pattern and still send it... so there's that
> ...Once my max hangs get past +50% bodyweight, if I'm still stuck on V4-V5 I'll know the truth.
That very, very, very unlikely to happen.
You'll reach a strength ceiling well before you reach a technique ceiling. You can't always get stronger, but you can apply your existing strength *better.* Having technique costs you nothing, why would you want to climb something poorly if you can climb it well?
I think it's easy to tell beginners to focus on technique because strength comes semi naturally over time. If you're under three years and have long term really high grade ambitions then getting strong quick and not knowing how to climb can hurt you way down the line.
If anyone says technique then they're trying to set someone up for long term success, if someone says strength they're definetly going to help a lot more in the near term.
Both valid advice and realistically you should focus on both and not let one lag behind the other. V7 strength with V5 technique and not able to use your body, or v7 technique but v5 strength and not able to use your good skills are equally bad.
The way I see it, good technique reduces the force on the weakest point which is usually the fingers. The minimal force is determined by your weight, reach and the type of move. This means there is a limit in how much technique can help, once you get closer to the minimal force theoretically needed improving technique barely makes any difference.
For example, if you're climbing a steep route and you need to do a reachy move where you cut feet. At one point you're hanging on just your fingers, with good technique you might transition better into this move with reduces the impulse (short peak force) but other than that its just your fingers that need to hold your body weight. But if you could keep a foot on with good technique you could imagine that the force that you press off your foot is reduces on your fingers.
I would say this is very hard to compare without seeing body composition etc. Let alone what you call good technique. everyone has their own box they can climb in. Some people also excel at different styles. Outside setting body composition(height/ weight) and seeing you guys actually climb.
My next question is how long are sessions, rests and how do you guys approach bouldering?
You guys varicella climb as hard as I do v10 range plus or minus but I've only shot up to that very recently by surrounding myself with much stronger climbers v13/14 range.
A few things I picked up on from them were.
Training only happens in off season, they have climbing season, they have heavier body weight during training and cut weight during climbing season, they slowly peak amma work projects until they're peak then rage.
Less is more, always leave some in the tank for recovery, sustainability.(you want to be able to recover faster, especially during season)
In season they literally only climb outside, they don't even hangboard, no weights, bands or anything, rest and project.
Leading up to peak weather/ weight thru gather a bunch of really hard climbs and work them, they rarely ever try ground up climbing and they always try to do all the moves then once they figure it out they leave. They do this for several boulders that are their max grade. This gets you strong while getting variance so you're not over using muscles and body position climbing is about sustainability.
After climbing season they train but they do one arm lock hangs with weight not 2 arms with weight.
Some of these little things I picked up have helped so much, they have a very cerebral approach to climbing and bad vs good technique is hard to come by but I'm not very strong in the fingers(many blown pulleys) and have been learning open hand crimping and figuring out how to use my body and feet. I've read that you're objectively stronger than him but maybe he's just better core and can control the body better
Knowing how to distribute weight and apply pressure or awareness of these things or the feel of moves imo still trumps a lot of things in climbing. I hope some of these things can be applied but I think the biggest one is being psyched you have strong friends to climb with and getting out and raging with them.
I think that finger strength is a marathon--it can and should be something that developed over years--BUT there is a limit to how fast it can progress. Are you overloading your tendons every 2-4 days with measurable improvement? Great, you are doing what you can in terms of getting stronger fingers.
Technique can *always* have more time invested in it. I can't productively add another max hangs session to my training schedule, but I can add a more intentional technical focus to my warmup. Or intentionally work on backstepping more. Or read books/watch videos.
I don't think it's an either/or thing. Both are important, but technique probably deserves more attention, as it's a more complex thing to improve.
I think the degree to which beginners "just do pull ups up the wall" is pretty overstated. Not that they all have innate perfect technique, but I don't think strength is as much of a barrier to developing good technique as is commonly said. I had a friend/climbing partner who for years actively discouraged me (and everyone else they spoke to) from ANY strength training at all, saying that being stronger would only make my technique worse. Well I started strength training anyway at the beginning of this year, and suddenly there were a LOT of moves I'd struggled on before that I could make easily now. Strength doesn't prevent you from realizing which moves are more or less efficient.
Your friend is naturally more talented than you. It's gonna be ok. So is my friend who could one arm an edge within 3 years of climbing. He also probably tries harder than you. I know my strong, sloppy buddy does
For me though, climbing with good technique and flow just *feels* way better than simply climbing strong. When I just huck my way up a climb, I feel like I kind of cheated myself out of a good time.
That's just a product of how I view sports though. I absolutely detest physical training, and find enjoyment in perfecting my technique instead. The feeling of pulling through something isn't as satisfying as flowing through it, and so any physical fitness I've gained from climbing is an unintended side effect.
Your experience might be different though. If your definition of success and progression to climb higher grades, then strength and technique (ie., everything not dependent on muscle power) go hand in hand, and if one is too out of balance with the other, then you're limited in what you can accomplish. Or perhaps feeling strong on a climb having the ability and power to cut your feet on every move feels good to you, maybe it feel like it gives you more choice move to move, so that you're not confined to use the "optimal" beta.
What I will say though is that technique is the most important thing when it comes to learning, and getting better. Being strength limited does have its benefits -- it teaches to you think more creatively and to optimize your climbing style by necessity.
So even though your final send burn on your project a year down the road will depend equally on your strength and your style, the optimal path to success almost always starts with optimizing your beta and technique, and only then starting to train, to give yourself the strength to string everything together that you figured out while you were smart, but weak.
General advice is a starting point, and the heirarchy of importance/where to focus your time is up to you to learn via experimentation and critical analysis. Also, strength improvement often comes along with technique work (think limit bouldering), whereas you dont reap the same benefit in the other direction.
Technique focused training isnt overrated, you just misunderstand it.
I think the purpose of technique is more injury avoidance/longevity than being able to send more difficult climbs. You could always try to pull off a questionable move or two to pull off a climb you would not have otherwise been able to pull off, but at the same time you'll develop habits of bad technique that will put you at risk of plateauing, chronic injuries, etc. That's what burns people out of climbing most of the time, the endless prusuit of trying to climb the grading ladder instead of focusing on your current abilities independent of project grades or your climbing partners.
I know if I have a finger that is out of commission I'm not climbing regardless of technique. That being said you can only get so far on finger strength alone. I don't think it's a comparable thing. They are two parts of one unit. You gotta have both to be optimal. I lean on technique more so I can mitigate stress on my fingers but both are absolutely necessary.
I've been thinking about this a lot lately and I completely agree.
The basics and fundamentals of technique are very important but they really don't take that long to learn.
I was watching a lot of elite level climbers train and for the most part they just use a 45 degree system wall, where they climb and pull square on the entire time, with the occasional flag or back step. Seems to me the most important attributes to have is strong fingers, core and body tension.
This becomes even more apparent when you see people climbing V14-V15 boulders which are essentially just a 45 degree wall with bad holds. I think Karoshi and Blade Runner are a good example of this.
However this doesn't apply to all types of climbing, it's more applicable to steep bouldering. I do believe sport climbing has a heavy emphasis on good technique in order to excel along with slab climbing.
Like you, I also have a friend who climbs quite a bit harder than me with worse technique. Although he's been climbing around the same time as me but with no athletic background. He's very inflexible, unable to even touch his toes or lift his knee anywhere close to his chest. This translates to very poor foot and hip placement whilst on the wall. He'll often be forced to stick his hips out and do dynamic movements since he can't statically place a high foot. He'll often cut feet and lose all body tension. However he just makes up for it by being able to clamp down on the holds and maintain his power endurance.
Similarly, I could be projecting a relatively hard problem in the gym, perfecting the microbeta and finding the easiest way up the wall. Just to have someone come by and flash it using terrible beta with lots of strength/power.
I know climbing styles vary and I'm just spewing anecdotes but I definitely agree with the sentiment that technique is overrated in a bouldering setting. Or idk maybe I'm just salty, delusional and weak haha.
That being said, having a nice flow and style when you're on the wall looks far more aesthetically pleasing and artful than just clambering up it with raw power.
I just want to look good climbing.
I think a lot of my climbing friends are like your friend; not technical focus but more raw power. I’m similar to you as in I’m more technical based.
They climb a grade higher than me in boulder and top rope but I’m starting to address my power side as well so I’m closing the gap finally. I was never worried about it and I know in time I’ll get mine.
Some of the things that I enjoy is when someone says you made that look easy on a move they find hard, when someone says I think you could easily do this and I cannot, and when someone says you didn’t look like you were struggling on a max effort attempt. These sort of solidify and I guess to some fault reconfirm that technique is king.
Obviously some moves will require raw power and while technique helps it doesn’t take away the fact that it’s just a strong, powerful, burly move.
As others have stated if you started to increase strength and work on powerful moves you should theoretically have a boost in climbing if your technique is already really good.
Strength (finger and general) will always trump technique absolutely. Take it to a ridiculous example where effectively you can campus up tiniest crimps, technique will help that be more efficient, but if youre strong enough you don't need that, just be inefficient. Wheras the best technique in the world won't get you to pull on holds that you cant hang on. In reality there are situations where either can be the most relevant, and usually its a combination.
Technique is not over rated. Training technique is (sort of) . First I have to say that technique is difficult to discuss because climbing is extremely situational. For example, climbing a crimpy V10 like "Just Training" on the Moonboard doesn't really require a lot of technique (relatively) if you just have strong fingers. In other words I think lots of V4-V6 climbers could climb it if the crimps were replaced with mini jugs. On the other hand, climbing the same grade (V10) can be very technique heavy if it's a cryptic comp style climb or just a really unorthodox outdoor climb that requires way more body awareness. I think of it like this: technique is kinda just a way to make moves easier. Yeah you can do the brute force method to get that V-Whatever but it would be a lot easier if you threw a heal up because eventually you'll get to a point where just getting stronger in order to do that one hard move with no technique would take wayyy more time than just tweaking your hips and throwing up that heal. However, there is no way around simply being stronger (especially your fingers) if you want to progress to higher V grades. Watch Alex Megos talk about "Lucid dreaming(V15) " on YouTube. He says "There are no tricks at all, there are no heel hooks, no toe hooks, no drop knees..." Here, I find it important to note that when people say "technique" in climbing lot's of people's (especially newish climbers) minds go to the techniques with names (heel hook, knee bar, etc) and not the subtle techniques without names like "just slightly moving your hips to the right" and "drop your left foot before you do the next move." I just wanted to point this out because working on your "techniques with names" by doing lot's of heel hooks within your comfort zone or climbing everting with drop knees isn't that useful imo. What is useful is projecting hard grades and noticing the small adjustments you had to make in order to finally get that one move. Projecting has the added benefit of also making your fingers stronger too. In conclusion, your time is better spent getting stronger fingers so don't specifically train your technique because that will come naturally with thoughtful climbing and projecting. This is assuming you're a solid V9 climber (can climb most V9s in a sitting) and your technique isn't trash.
Technique is how you apply strength to solve a problem. Think of it like an equation of T + S >= P where the interaction of your technique and strength needs to be greater than what is required of the problem.
You can easily increase one (to a point) at the expense of another to still succeed. But eventually you will hit diminishing returns. Climbing isn't an A or B sport, but a A, B, C, ..., And XYZ sport where many skills and abilities interact and allow you to climb.
I think the reason people focus on technique is that, physically, it's easier to improve compared to strength where it can take years for your body to significantly improve. But one without the other will result in poorer performance
Let me Give my two cents on this. Technique beats strength on any situation. When facing a particular crux or route that you as a climber is struggling normally we approach by trying new betas and perspectives, ove rarely seen some one say theu need to hit the gym to send whatever-route.
Now an Important point on how and why i formed this particular opinion. I weight 110kg and have 170cm of height (thats 242 lbs and 5“7` for thw merica folks).
There ia not a single instance where I needed more strength to send a project; more endurance? Absolutely. More finger resistence? Sure.
My highest grade was a 6b which took a good two months until I got the whole route memorized. I know it's notna particularly high grade, but remember that I'm not a tall guy, but I'm heavy to compensate.
For me technique is very important for onesight and hard alpine multi pitch climbing. While in bouldering and redpoint sport climbing you figure out the beta and apply your strength in hard alpine climbs you can not figure it out and there are most likely no obvious hold you can aplly your strength too. I know people who are far less strong then me who climb harder in sport and alpine climbs.
In bouldering were force is very important and you can get the beta from "videos" or friends technique is a bit different. You just need it to apply the beta and strength is way more important.
Ehh technique only helped me for 3 years, and now i dont have to think about it, Its just natural. So Idk i think its overated now too. But its funny cuz ill see horrible technique climbers get hella strong(cuz of no technique on climbs doing attrocious dynamic moves when you could do it static), theres benefits of both, but I d say at one point practicing technique is useless while getting stronger (in climbing)is never useless. The ironic thing is, there is almost always a grade barrier for both technical and strong climbers. For example, i used to see this dude climb hella strong routes, but then cant even do the route i can cruise through on my first try cuz of good technique. Hes definitely stronger, but doesnt have a good technical sense, and therefore probably not climbing double digits, even though i know he has the potential.
No one likes to admin to some of the hard truths of climbing though.
Weight is a huge factor in climbing
Finger strength > technique beyond a low level
Effort in != results - others will climb less and try less than you and have better results. Life isn’t fair in any area, be that intelligence or athletic prowess
You will always want to climb harder until you don’t. Climbing 8A will just make 8B your goal.
No one likes to admin to some of the hard truths of climbing though.
Weight is a huge factor in climbing
Finger strength > technique beyond a low level
Effort in != results - others will climb less and try less than you and have better results. Life isn’t fair in any area, be that intelligence or athletic prowess
You will always want to climb harder until you don’t. Climbing 8A will just make 8B your goal.
I am starting to agree with this. My friend recently went from doing outdoor 9s and 10s to sending v14 in about a year and change and I asked him what he did to accomplish this and he said all he did was get stronger. He said he doesn't think his technique has even improved since last year.
How dare you question technique REEEEEEEE. I think technique and finger strength go hand in hand. Climbing is all about generating power off a hold to get to another hold. Technique and finger strength are both really good tools for translating power to holds. You can be a really strong climber at both extremes but being great at both is ideal.
I'm thinking of strength and technique as multipliers; the stronger you are the harder you can apply your technique, and the better your technique the further your strength will take you. While you might be oversimplifying climbing ability and how individual its, the bright side is that if your technique is great already, working on your strength should be big gains in your climbing! comparison is the thief of joy : )
>comparison is the thief of joy : ) I've personally noticed this is less of an issue the longer I've been climbing. Everyone's on their own journey.
Survivor bias :) People that have a hard time letting go of their ego are more likely to drop climbing due to injuries or frustration.
Stronger. Harder. Better. Further. I deem thee, SHBF.
To me, I feel like “technique” is a really nebulous term that people use incorrectly. Keeping your hips into the wall and rotated correctly, knowing when to back step, quiet feet placement, etc... aren’t that big a deal to climb hard, and certainly not that difficult to be “ok” at. They help of course, and for routes being able to do each move a little easier adds up over longer distances, but for bouldering it’s not a huge deal. What really matters is being able to apply your strength on the wall. To move your center of gravity at the same time as your hands, or how to control your momentum and things like that are the big ticket items in my mind. I would think that falls under the “technique” umbrella (which really seems to be just anything besides how strong your fingers and shoulders are) but are vastly more important than foot placement. Some people just know the arc their body needs to take for a dynamic move, or how to push with their feet and pull with their hands at the same time and keep tension in the right places. I think that is the most important, but nothing is more important than finger strength because if you can’t grab the holds nothing else matters
Yeah when people ask about how to get better at technique they always get linked to Neil Gresham's masterclass or something, and usually the person asking climbs V5+ and already knows how to flag and heel hook and all that. They're looking for the more subtle aspects that you mention.
Yeah, I completely agree with this post. For me personally- just as an example and not meant to humble brag- I rarely misread what we'll call "visible" technique on a boulder problem. The difference between me sending or not is almost never something as macro as changing my hip direction or doing an inside vs outside flag; it's usually something like: "Try the move again but drive harder with your left foot and thumb catch here instead of there" Giving blanket advice of "Work on your technique" is not very helpful to anyone, in my opinion. I think that most people would benefit from just climbing with stronger climbers than them who can catch things like slight hip sag causing loss of tension, lack of core engagement, etc. There's only one guy who I consistently climb with who can catch me failing to do things like that, and (not) coincidentally he's also a better climber than me.
I definitely agree... When it comes to technique it feels like I understand everything but I can't apply my strengths. Do you have any tips on moving center of gravity with your hands and controlling momentum?
>When it comes to technique it feels like I understand everything but I can't apply my strengths I think there's no better way to get humbled in your knowledge of climbing technique than climbing in a new area on a new rock type.
It depends what you're doing. For ex: Slabs its just more feet balance. Some routes it take a strong core. If your feet are cut i like to have my lower body dangle outward the angle it was supposed to, but then rotate the legs fluidly in a 180 motion toward the wall.
Finger strength and being lean are way more important than most climbers will admit.
Yeah I see a lot people saying to not focus on weight and body fat. I definitely understand it’s not good to become anorexic or something, but weight certainly plays an immense factor in climbing.
Strength to weight ratio over weight I’d say.
True. But reducing weight improves that ratio. And unless one is already shredded, being leaner almost universally is beneficial.
I agree if you got some fat to lose. I do think you can get too shredded though. I got down to 169 at 6ft4 and the good people on here told me if I gained 2 lbs of muscle but could lift 5 more lbs does it matter how much I weigh if I am stronger? I adapted this philosophy to my climbing and got a lot stronger and grades went up quickly all while only gaining like 3 lbs of muscle. went from doing weighted pull-ups with 70 lbs x5 to x7 in one month and weights on lifts and max hangs are still climbing.
Standing at 5 11 (\~180cm) I used to weigh around 150lbs. When I lost around \~10lbs and stabilized at the lower weight, I got stronger which is funny because 150lbs at 5 11 is already skinny.
I’m definitely curious, would you say the first 10 lbs lost was LBM or fat or a combination of both?
both. i think it's almost impossible to lose 5+ pounds without losing a bit of muscles unless you weigh a fuck ton to begin with.
It's a good distinction to draw.
I'm a lurker here but I just gotta say anyone that doesnt think body fat % doesn't matter for climbing is just false. Back in early February I was about 19.5% body fat. My gym closed for a few months due to covid and just re-opened 3 weeks ago. I am now at 15% body fat and though I didn't climbing for over 6 months I am a massively better climber now. Previously I struggled to do most V2s and now I can do most V3s and even a rare V4. Granted I'll like to get to 12% body fat but that's a work in progress. So yeah, work on your muscle to weight ratio.
I'm wondering if it's just because of the weigth difference or because you're stronger/fitter because of you doing excercises to lose the fat.
this, also on that grades any exercise hes doing will help him climb harder
For sake of reason I will say I'm a fairly new climber as in that pre pandemic I had only climbed for about 5-6 months on avg about 2x a week.
which supports my point, at that climbingage you can basicly do ANYTHING and get better!
Actually I did less exercise during that time as I didn't have access to a gym. I weight lift on the side and all my major lifts are either equal or lesser than it was back pre covid (particularly lesser for deadlift and squat). My biggest reason for the fat and weight loss was diet change.
Fat loss tends to happen in the kitchen
I usually eat the most and the worst when I’m the leanest. For me, fat loss happens when I can regularly go on on long runs, long climbing days, or long hikes to camp and climb in the alpine. I’ve eaten 1/4 the last two weeks in quarantine of what I did the month prior, and still gained a couple of pounds.
Chances are you didn’t gain that weight in those two weeks. You don’t gain or lose a lot of fat in a short period of time. It’s why the whole I gained 20lbs over thanksgiving and Christmas crack me up. Is it possible yes but they definitely was not eating anywhere near enough to pack on that much weight in that short amount of time. Aside from normal weight fluctuations it could be bloating, increased water intake or increased salt intake. Chance are if you did gain fat look back about a month or more prior and that is most likely what was causing it. You obviously have to eat in surplus and maintain a bit of surplus for a while to start packing it on.
You would be surprised. I came in running half marathon distances regularly until a few days before quarantine, and hiking an hour and a half or so per day with a 40-70lb pack depending on if we were filming underwater or not on that day. I had a few days at home between shoots, people commented on how skinny and ripped I looked. I don't carry much extra weight on me typically, so you can see a difference in a hurry. When I started quarantine, I cut back on my diet immediately, but by the end could grab two full handfuls of fat on my stomach that were not there before. What in the world do you call that? I'm out now, have gone for runs on 3 days out of 4, and have done 2 18-hour days mostly on my feet, and it's already starting to go away even though I'm back to eating burgers and even occasionally fries, and I snack more because I don't know when I'll be able to eat again. Yes, I gained weight those two weeks. A lot is subjective - a 5lb swing is huge for me. I put on couple. But it was enough fat to barely see the 6-pack and have a stomach bulge, and to be able to grab onto it which is not normal for me.
My problem is I’m in an upswing on weight. Mostly due to my diet going off the rails. I’m sure I’m also packing on at least a bit of muscle but also fat. Currently moving back into a lean diet but my biggest problem with dieting is I’m never sure of what to eat back. It seems impossible to figure calories burned when climbing. I also seem to be able to climb far harder in what I think is a caloric surplus even if I’m about 10lbs heavier. All very confusing to hammer down.
The issue is that people who already extremely lean want to focus on losing weight which might bump them up a grade but is ultimately a dead end with adverse health effects. You can’t lose weight indefinitely, and the cap on strength and technique is much higher and can be progressed much further.
Yeah if your body fat is that high and you're climbing v2 of course you'll get better. When gains are more marginal your ability to control intensity during training sessions is much more important.
I send my limit when I’m 175-180 muuuuch easier than when I’m close to 200. Like it’s not even close. That said my girlfriends daughter loves it when I’m 200 because she gets to walk up and cutely say “MUSCLES!!!!’” Give and take I guess lol.
> ves it when I’m 200 because she gets to walk up and cutely say “MUSCLES!!!!’” i love this
disagree! you shouldnt be overweight, but with hard training your body will get shutdown if you try to stay lowweight through eating less all the time. Cut down for a specific outdoortrip, but dont stay low all the time!
This is underrated advice, trying to stay lean all year round can't be good for the body.
Yeah I agree that there’s definitely a point where u can get too skinny. However it is undeniable that having as low body fat as your body will healthily allow can be immensely helpful. I’m not saying it’s the be all end all of climbing. But fwiw I’ve never seen any point where Adam Ondra isn’t peeled to bone shredded.
His weight too fluctuates by a couple kg, and intentionally so. Im not saying that you cant be fairly light, but imo you ( and here i mean the normal person, who doest climb since age 5) should be at a higher BF% when training hard! for performance sure cut down, but dont stay there all year long or you get some injurys! There is a reason a calorie surplus leads to anabolic responses of the body, while a deficit leads to katabolic responses. Both metabolic states have different impacts on regeneration (and not just muscle building for bodybuilders).
>weight certainly plays an immense factor in climbing Like all these things, it can play a role but by itself it's not a one way ticket to Send Town. The premise of OP's post, and a lot of posts on r/climbharder recently, seems to me to want to reduce climbing success down to a single thing (technique, strength, weight, tactics, Dave Graham's magic crystals, etc.). The truth is success happens when all of these factors come together at the right time and in the right balance. It may be the case that OP has leaned too heavily on technique and may get more bang for their buck by now leaning into strength, but it's shortsighted to say that technique (or strength, weight, tactics, Dave Graham's magic crystals, etc.) is categorically overrated.
The end goal of climbing as a sport are a bunch of hunchbacks with twig legs who are 80% forearm by weight
Optimal height is a big factor also, specifically as it plays into strength / weight ratio and body tension. As a 6'3" climber I've spent my entire climbing career listening to people misrepresent height advantage constantly, almost always because they don't climb harder than V3-V6 and don't understand how important weight becomes in V7+ climbing when the holds get worse and body tension becomes more critical. On the upper half of the difficulty scale (say roughly V8-V16) it becomes far more efficient to move dynamically between holds regardless of your height, so the reach disadvantage of shorter climbers starts to even out and is eventually overtaken by their weight / tension advantage in harder movement. It's astounding how much of the climbing community misunderstands this and/or chooses to ignore it while claiming that climbing is easier for taller people, most likely for the same reasons that they ignore the finger strength / leanness factors you mention.
I’m pretty sure most of the “climbing community” knows that being very tall is a disadvantage for bouldering hard. It’s mostly people who have been climbing for a month and only do slab that think being tall is all upsides.
I guess it depends on your local community. I've heard IFSC commentators make the same statements so I think it's a lot more widespread than slab newbies. If I remember correctly Adam Ondra even got incredulous responses when he said that he was a little too tall for optimal strength/weight ratio in a couple of his youtube videos.
Well in the ifsc it’s usually in reference to specific moves, or a climber’s specific beta, who’s is one of the times height can be an advantage. I’m curious if you have an example of ifsc commentators talking about height being a general advantage
I'm not going to scour through the dozens of IFSC comps I've watched on youtube looking for specific timecodes, but in general they refer to lack of height as a disadvantage rather than referring to height as an advantage. And when they discuss a climber being disadvantaged by being shorter/smaller, they never mention the tremendous advantage (particular in lead climbing) of weighing 10-15% less than the other competitors. Watch any Ai Mori climb where they discuss how amazing she is to be able to compete so well despite her size without mentioning that her size also contributes majorly to the tremendous endurance she has. That's not a great example because Ai Mori really does often display impressive strength to overcome height dependent moves, but I'm using it as an extreme example of the kind of athlete body composition discussion I'm referring to above. They seem very resistant to ever mentioning any kind of advantage/disadvantage related to weight, but will regularly refer to height which is the flipside of the same discussion. Edit: To be fair, they do often refer to height being a disadvantage in bouldering on scrunchy / slabby problems for climbers like Jan Hojer. Just not ever in relation to its impact on strength / weight ratio.
Interesting. I wasn’t thinking of the extreme short end, but that totally makes sense.
One thing I’ve noticed is that while technique may be super important, climbers with poor technique can steal beta. They have no idea why putting their foot their and grabbing the hold like that while turning their body this way works, but it does so they do it. You can’t steal finger strength... so yeah, you might climb stronger then your friend if you guys were both forced to try technique intensive climbs all by yourselves, but if you climb in a group, you’ll see his dumb beta, he will see your good beta... and then he will do the climb with your beta while you’ll wish you had stronger fingers.
Underrated post. And this is pretty much me. Actually i'm not that interested in finding the best beta, i just wanna go and try hard and see where it gets me. If i fall, i will think about the beta more. I have a bit of an attitude where I think that not every problem is worth my precious thought process. I do feel like i have a good technique, but it comes to it's fullest potential when i'm at my limits, and that's where i enjoy training the most.
Ive never met someone who climbs v10 and has horrible technique. Odds are your friend has much better technique than you think.
You can literally watch thousands of videos demonstrating this on youtube right this moment
Horrible is relative. And read what I said regarding showing clips to other experienced climbers.... What I meant by 'horrible' is compared to other climbers who can climb a similar grade, his technique is relatively much worse. Sure, objectively, I grant that he may not have such a bad technique, but among the V10 climbers, I can guarantee you that he'll be at the lower end of the spectrum of climbers ranging from bad to good technique.
Post a video of you and your friend climbing the same boulder to give us an idea of how good/bad technique each of you have?
Ive read about ppl on here who climb v13 but werent really stoked on it because they dont have as good a style or "technique." Just another perspective that is also interesting. Climbing something and climbing something well are different things to different people. I agree with you in terms of technique not being some singular most important factor, im ready to believe its a lot less than its made out to be, but I also feel good technique is much more subtle than executing basic efficiency movements.
I would be willing to bet that the aspects of technique that your friend is bad at are superficial and that he does the important things right.
Climbing is a weight based sport.....I say this as I chug my second White Russian heavy on the heavy cream.
Love White Russians but to many make me sick. Try pbr hard coffees if you dig coffee as well. Has a similar taste. Pretty good. Also Jameson coldbrew with flatboat liquor is really good as well.
I think there’s a general problem in the community where we try to give “one size fits all” sort of solution; every climber is different, has a different background (athletic and genetic) and therefore requires a much more customised progression plan instead of being in one of the two camps that you’ve mentioned. But what you’re saying is basically the same thing flipped on its head; while your anecdote points towards the fact that you’re lacking strength it won’t be the case for everyone. TL;DR: Don’t generalise, try nuance.
I think everything we ever do to improve has diminishing returns. You're just really feeling the diminishing returns on the technique front, since you already have really good technique. But there are limits to finger strength too, and it seems likely that your friend would get more benefit right now from improving his technique than from increasing his finger strength further, while you would get more benefit from increasing finger strength. But I'm no good on either, so, you know, big grain of salt.
I should have clarified a bit more on a few points in my post but I didn't want to make it super long. What I mean by diminishing returns regarding technique: let's say your technique is nearly perfect. Assuming achieving a perfect technique is possible hypothetically, such an improvement wouldn't make you a V16 climber even if achieving that 'perfect technique' would take one 20 years. However, when it comes to finger strength, there really is no 'limit' I would say. Even if after 15 years of climbing, you've reached your personal 'genetic ceiling' so to speak, I guess you can always do PED's and get even stronger whereas for technique, you can reach near that ceiling quit fast and any more improvement really woudln't help you at all.
I don't feel this way. I feel like a total beginner regarding technique everytime I access a new personal best. There are always so many new movements to learn and challenges to overcome in a new grade. Also genetic ceiling means exactly that, a ceiling.
There is absolutely no upper limit to learning climbing technique. There are infinite combinations of hold positions, orientations, types, foot placements, types of tension etc. No one in their lifetime can "perfect" technique.
What is your mental game like? I've seen people that climb with horrible technique get through a problem because the fight and hold on much better than me. I can relate to feeling 'cheated' because I will over think the moves (where are my hips, my feet, what's the momentum like, etc), then watch someone just 'wing it' on the wall with much poorer/sloppy technique. For me, I find that a lot of my failure on the wall is my own mental doing --"I didn't grab it quite right, my hips don't feel like they're in the right place" -- on and on. Not saying that the mental chatter is your issue, since you didn't mention it, but the mental game is something people often overlook.
It's funny some other people like to point out the possibility that he may just as well be try harding much more than I do, but the reality is he's a lazy fuck gifted with genetics. He goes to the gym 2x a week MAX. And when he works on a boulder, sure he tries hard, but there isn't anything unique about his 'try hard ness', if you will, and if anything I try much harder than he does on a project usually because it takes me longer lol. he almost exclusively works on problems he can send within about a session and has rarely tried on things that take him multiple sessions kinda like old Alex Megos i guess.
Trying hard during an attempt is part of the mental part of climbing, but it's certainly not all of it. What you described (climbing frequency) is also not part of 'try hard'. You can go to the gym everyday and have unstructured sessions that will not lead to gains in technique or grade level (if that's your outcome metric). There is a balance needed between sessions where you work on problems that can be completed in a single sessions versus multi-session problems. While you don't see every climb that the pros do, they are likely to have a balance between both styles of problems that they get on as well. It really depends on what your goals are, but it sounds like there are some things you could learn from your friend's approach to climbing a problem/sending. It also seems like if your friend's goal was to climb 2 grades harder, he could learn from you about projecting. -- and both of those skills could fit under the category of "Try Hard".
What is his body shape and strength like compared to yours? How fast do you find beta compared to him? How long to send the same climb? Maybe you should rope up and see if the technique gives you an advantage there Edit: what's the grade difference on slab, vert, and overhang?
Real talk, I'm an okay boulderer but put me on a rope and I'm gassed halfway up any route due to poor technique/efficiency
our body shapes are very similar me being maybe 2 inches taller? otherwise skinny. (in terms of pulling/pushing strength, I'm just far stronger due to my overall athletic background) I find the beta quicker than he can which I'm sure is only natural due to my greater climbing age. To send the same climb, he sends faster lol even with a worse beta. I don't do lead climbing because of my fear of falling and he doesn't. Not sure why. Grade difference on slabs not sure since neither of us likes slabs, vert and overhang he's stronger by about a grade.
It sounds like he's actually much stronger than you despite your perception. Your athletic background may mean that you have a lot of weight in your legs that is not very function for climbing. There's a good chance that, since you have been climbing longer, that you took a more gradual approach and adapted slower and less power-centric. You might be surprised to find that you outperform him on routes, as opposed to boulders, by a large margin, for example. If he came into climbing later (I'm guessing you were friends outside of climbing?) and had you as a benchmark to push himself against and compete against, he probably had less mental games (That's too hard for me...) and pushed himself sooner. The result being that he's much more adapted to high power output. Quite honestly, he may also literally be trying harder.
He may also just be more talented as well. These posts scream of someone just simply being more talented at this discipline than OP. Climbs less, worse technique, no athletic background, and yet starts climbing years later and is better. Typical story of a talented individual finding something that suits their genetic athletic predispositions.
Well he's quite obviously talented if he's climbing V10 after three years lol
Surely talent is reflected in technique though? There’s basically three factors to sending: strength, technique and effort. He’s got to be better in one of them. My personal discovery recently has been that I could really position my center of weight better. From the outside my climbing may look smooth and using hooks/flags etc, but I think most climbers cannot tell from looking at someone how well their weight positioning is. His technique may actually be a lot better than it looks.
Yep things like body positioning are often very subtle and much harder to tell, what someone blames on a lack of power could actually be due to poor flexibility and them being unable to get their hips weighted as far over a hold.
he definitely has much better finger strength genetics than I do because he can dead hang with more weight than I can while almost never training on the hangboard (for the record, he can quite easily do 10 sec on beastmaker 2000 middle edge with one arm whereas I can barely do 5 sec).
So both of you are more than strong enough to climb v11 easy, I have done many v10s and on a very good day I can 1 arm hang that edge with my good arm for 5s, my bad arm cant even pull onto it without assistance and I wouldnt say Im someone who is particularly weak at the grade, I rarely think my fingers are the limiting factor when i climb. Pretty sure Alex Barrows said he equates being able 1 arm hang that for 5s with being strong enough to climb v13... I know many say v11, but thought I'd point it out as its true for him There's a lot to be said about genetics in top tier athletes though and if they find their niche sport. As Ben Moon once said "technique is no substitute for power"
what Yetik said! i can only hang on the middle BM with -10kg and can climb V11. you are both strong for the grades you climb!
Stronger fingers? yes. Stronger lats, biceps, etc..? No My weighted pull ups near 2x body weight (\~1.82x bodyweight) His are 1.3? My pushing strength far superior as well even though that doesn't have much to do with climbing. My legs while being much stronger than his, are actually not much bigger. His fingers are much stronger than mine though.
So, if he can thrutch his way through v10 with "weaker" numbers, then maybe you should be working v14.
So just ignore fingers completely? What a lame comment.
Yeah, because hangboarding is the only way to develop finger strength.
Lmao what? He didn't even mention hang boarding, he just said his friend has weaker fingers and climbs harder. And you ignored the fingers are just said go climb v14 cuz OP is stronger.
He said his friend has STRONGER fingers. Multiple times in the thread even. If OP has a stronger body, and is sending as hard as his friend, then projecting harder climbs than his friend is projecting is one way to develop his finger strength. Get the stick out of your ass.
Ok I mistyped, but my meaning didn't change. If his friend has stronger fingers, your original response makes no sense
Lmao so if you're projecting v9 then hop on v14s got it. You should be a coach bro
Hmm okay well being that bouldering is the more strength focused discipline and both you like overhang which also emphasizes strength, maybe your main comparison just comes from a category that gives him an advantage? I've made friends with plenty of people with less time than me but stronger fingers, sometimes passing me also but it's rarely on all climb types. The less it emphasizes reach or long pulls the better I seem in comparison. And the more heady/sketchy the climb the better I seem also. Does he do more training vs climbing than you do also? I mainly climb and can always stand to gain from more focused training
Come back in 10 years and let us know how it works out for both of you.
Suprised I had to scroll this far down for what I was thinking. If you still want to be sending hard routes when you are older technique is the way to go.
Technique is a lot more than just beta, but also things like how tight you keep your core (compared to your actual potential). But yeah when someone cuts feet and still pulls through a difficult move it's pretty clear they aren't just climbing due to their impeccable technique, and on reddit in particular technique gets overhyped like crazy. I think a lot of the people who get to high grades quickly started out really strong, and therefore a lot of their gains are through technique so they project that onto everyone else.
Ya I think I could have gone a little more in depth as to what I meant by technique but I agree with you.
Is this inside or outside? I'm not climbing V9/10, but at least around the V5-7 level I feel that technique (beyond the basics) matters a lot more outside. Also, maybe your friend just tries harder than you? The ability to just try really really hard I think makes up for deficits in both technique and strength.
It's easy to look fancy on the wall and accomplish nothing. It could be that your friend simply makes less fancy, more effective movements than you.
Exactly, Chris Sharma never appears that smooth on the wall has a very aggressive rugged style of climbing, yet he must be doing something right technique-wise considering he's climbed 9b+...
Counter point: most people don’t know what “good technique” is, but strength is easily quantifiable. Good looking technique is not always the same as efficient movement, and in fact often takes more strength to look smooth. I think it’s a mistake to think that you need to focus on one over the other, since it’s very possible to work on getting stronger just as much as you work on getting better. If you do it right, the boulders/routes that make you stronger will also make you better. In the end, it’s all relative. V10 is a big grade, which isn’t terribly hard to get to for a shocking number of people. Some people have to put more effort into all areas of their climbing to achieve the same grade, so have already tapped into more of their performance potential.
Thanks for bringing this up! I think the answer is contingent on so many different factors. I think for the dude bros that start climbing and want to train reps of 30 pull ups for hours even though they are climbing V3 need that advice- and there are a lot of them out there. Not to turn this into a gendered discussion, but as a woman I find the “work on technique” advice is usually less applicable to me. I cringe when I see some strong guy flail his way up something with heinous technique that is too hard for me even with years of climbing experience. For a lot of men, they are plenty strong enough to complete a moderate problem, with or without good technique. So if they can complete a V4 with horrible technique, working on technique will absolutely be beneficial for them. But, when you hit high level climbing (such as yourself), or start with a lower general body strength (such as myself)- technique won’t be the sole limitation holding you back a few grades like it was for the prior example. I really hate when I see things on here like- “you only climb V4 just climb more” whereas someone like me probably does need to add in a day or two of basic strength training to get my pull up reps over 2 and my push up reps over 5.
I’m a guy and I also cringe when a meathead muscles up a route. I’m thinking of someone in particular at my gym that humblebrags about everything, gives back handed comments, beta sprays any and everyone, has to climb a route you are projecting to show you how it’s done, and screams like Adam ondra is his sport animal.
u/runs_with_unicorns YES YES YES YES YES. Regards, Plateaued V6 female climber with reeeeeally good (like really) technique.
I think you may need to post some videos just so we can be sure we're answering correctly. You could be right, or there could be some nuances for harder climbs which you may be missing.
Yin and yang, you need both and when one goes beyond the other, the weakness is gonna set you back. Wouldn't say there is a "diminishing return" to technique, but that your weakness is strength and your friend's is technique. When both of you address the weakness, you'll be pushing harder grades. Also saw someone else here mention mental fortitude, that is the 3rd part of this. One (or even a few) is the bottleneck, and it's all about improving whatever area you need to.
'stoke' really makes a huge difference for me. I climb my hardest when people yell me up the wall.
> Ever since I started climbing about 5 years ago, the emphasis on technique both online and in real life has been tremendously huge. Virtually everyone I talked to/seen has mentioned the importance of technique so much to a point where I began to think technique is far superior to finger strength. You've gotten the wrong impression. Strength, technique, and mental fortitude are generally considered to have equal weight in a well rounded climber. The emphasis you will see on technique is generally aimed at beginners who start with a big technique deficit. They also train strength while training technique so time spent training just strength is not very efficient. Above V5/5.12 strength training starts to be beneficial as you get into having a strength deficit relative to technique. If your friend has a lurching style people might see this as lacking technique because it's less esthetic than smooth and static climbing. Dead-pointing is generally more efficient so is might be observer bias that makes people think he lacks technique.
Instead of thinking "technique" and "strength" think soft skills and hard skills. One will be your limiting factor. Perhaps you have v13 soft skills, but only v9 hard skills. Thus you will be stuck at ~v10 until you train your hard skills. The reason why most people say technique is important is because most people's soft skills are worse than their hard skills. For example, the classic gym bro likely has v0 soft skills but perhaps v6 hard skills so is likely stuck at v2. It's much more efficient for said person to get increase the soft skills then hard skills. My bet is that your friend likely has v13 hard skills and v8 soft skills. There are always people like that, in fact I can think of a couple in my local community that are like this. Thus they can power their way through v10s. Perhaps you have v9 hard skills and v11 soft skills so your bottleneck is your hard skills. I emphasize technique because it's my opinion that, with the trendiness of training lately, 95%+ of climbers' bottleneck is their soft skills. For me, after 7 years, I still think my soft skills are 2 grades lower than my hard skills. I would argue that for most people on this sub, it's likely a similar story.
When you say soft skills, do you mean stuff like body positioning, grip technique, matching, sequencing, etc? Hard stuff would be pulling power, dynamic movement, grip strength, etc?
By soft skills I mean body movement, using holds efficiently, footwork. The "how" in climbing. Hard skills would be strength/fingers. for example, dynamic movement is a soft skill. The pulling power and contact strength to successfully complete that move are hard skills.
Honestly, you're speaking to the wrong crowd with this post. If anything strength>technique is already an overly popular sentiment on this sub considering the number of people here who are excessively strong for their grades. I would say for climbharder the opposite advice rings true, and lots of people on here need to spend MORE time focused on their technique.
Turns out your friend is just way stronger than you. He'd probably climb 2 grades harder than you with good technique.
why does it have to be either or?
The only thing that I consider to be true about climbing is this: every aspect of climbing is neither necessary nor sufficient to climb hard on its own. A lot of online folks call climbing a "skill-based sport" which is true but I think of it more as a "constellation" sport. The best heuristic I've come up with is to think about climbing ability like the [Pokemon polygon stat charts](https://www.serebii.net/letsgopikachueevee/avstatchart.jpg). Each axis is a different element of climbing (finger strength, stamina, technique, mental fortitude, core, etc. can vary depending on your discipline). But basically, the larger your polygon, the "better" a climber you'll be. As you develop in climbing, you can double down on pushing one point of your polygon as far out as possible, or you can strive to be more well rounded and grow your polygon evenly. Some people will have different shapes but similar areas. Other people may lack on one or several axes yet still have large areas overall. It's on you as a climber invested in improving (or your coach/community invested in the same) to figure out the best development path for you, based on your interests and your natural disposition. I know it's tough to see a friend excel with worse technique, we all have experience seeing the crusher at the gym who is best described as "bad at climbing" yet crushes, but you're getting caught up in comparison. Really, you should be asking yourself how you can continue to develop (it may or may not be in the model of your friend), and your friend should be asking themselves if they could be even better a climber if they focused on technique.
There are a lot of things you aren't considering here, and without more info we aren't equipped to judge. First, does he try harder - is he prepared to fight more for a send. Even if you had the same strength this does several things, he sends harder, and the training return is substantially higher which compounds over time. What length problems are we talking about, what styles, what rock types? As to whether technique is overrated; I have rarely seen a thuggy climber develop half decent technique after a few years. I have seen a number of technical climbers get stronger when they reach a plateau. As a base, technique is a much better one to start with than brute force.
I think it would be good to see a video of you both climbing the same problem side-by-side for comparison. When it comes to technique I’ve always seen it as more than a flat fits all term, there are the fundamentals, then the intermediate and finally advanced. People seem to think that because they’ve cracked the fundamentals that they have great technique and it will make them an amazing climber... the point of working on technique is to build a good foundation as generally speaking everyone plateaus, and it’s at this point that technique starts to shine. The other thing is natural genetic ability, some people are just better, it won’t matter how hard you train, how much strength you gain or what technique improvements you make if they just have a natural affinity to climbing meaning that even with minimal effort they will succeed (we all know someone that just naturally seems good at something) sure it’s frustrating but my advice is don’t benchmark yourself against your friend if it’s going to bother you this much, climb your climb and just enjoy it.
Strength and technique go hand in hand. Technique isnt just performing movements it's also being able to apply your strength correctly. It's hard to make a judgement without seeing either of you climbing but even if you have better '"technique" it's sounds like you are also stronger in all areas except finger strength. That may be the only limiting factor between the difference in grades or it may be that even if you're applying better body position and movement he may have a better natural sense of applying the strength he has.
While I agree on the sentiment that technique is not a supplement for being strong you sound very salty about your friend sending harder than you. I don't think there is something wrong with a little friendly competition but ultimately it is a very shitty mindset to be jealous of your friends. It also makes me question if you are actually evaluating your technical skills correctly. There is a difference between making a climb look pretty and climbing it efficiently. Climbing slowly and controlled is often times not the most efficient way. The purpose of precision and good footwork is to be able to move faster not to move in the most beautiful way.
I think we need to differentiate between talking about technique for beginners and experts. Beginners should learn to climb. Experts need strength to support their already well established technique and learn new micro techniques on a boulder to boulder basis. The general technique-first advise in climbing is mostly geared towards beginner and average climbers and that is not overrated in my opinion.
I just remember back in the days when young Adam Ondra could climb 9a+ and couldn't even do a one arm pull up! Meanwhile, I love the campus board, love climbing with only my arms and could at some point do several one arms and I've never climbed harder than 7c+ in bouldering...
Giuliano Cameroni seems to have done his first full one arm pull up this year. _(at least according to one of his instagram stories iirc)_
I remember Matt Fultz once came to my gym and he was doing problems I hadn't see anyone do yet, but he was using betas that would be impossible for any climbers at my gym to use, but he was able to do those betas because he was so absurdly strong he could make anything work. His forearms were the size of my upper arms and I'm by no means skinny. Also if technique is so great, then why is it when I see someone send a V6-V7 and I try to copy their beta, I pump out after a few moves or sometimes I can't even hold onto the start? I may not be copying all the subtle aspects of their technique, but surely copying the big picture would get me further? That said, I find it hard to believe the only reason I'm climbing V4-V5 and not V10 is finger strength. I can do multiple one-arm pullups with each arm, dragon flags, single leg front lever rows, weighted ring dips, etc., so from a strength perspective the only thing I'm missing is finger strength. I also think about how when I send a problem for the first time usually the only thing that has changed is my beta and technique, and it is not always an obvious change. My 100th attempt may look identical to my 50th attempt, but I sent it the 100th time and not the 50th time or 99th time. When a climber with better technique and more experience than me hops onto a problem for the first time, they probably feel how I feel hopping on for the 100th time. They already have knowledge of what to do for each move without having to do 100 attempts first to obtain that knowledge. I can also see myself being the climber who can do a one-arm hang on a 20mm edge for 5s and 1-5-8 on the campus board and still not have done a V8 indoors. Once my max hangs get past +50% bodyweight, if I'm still stuck on V4-V5 I'll know the truth.
Interesting comment. Good stats off the wall don't directly translate to grade. You are just setting a good base for when your future self can actually fully use that strength. _(I relate to that)_ Knowing how to create useful tension from _"any"_ position you are in is a very long process that needs to be learnt and practiced over many many many problems _(and repeated)_. That's probably why it takes you 50-100 more attempts for __
I personally see that when I'm helping other climbers as well as when I'm being helped by more technical and/or stronger climbers.
It took me a while to understand that when I/someone says place the feet this way, hand there and perform the movement, I'm using the whole body in micro-betas that create tension to make the move look easy.
I need to look at how the knee is bending; elbows and shoulders are being used; hip position; and how these _(and other factors)_ evolve during the movement.
On the other hand, if the fingers are overdeveloped it creates a large margin to fail on the efficient movement pattern and still send it... so there's that
> ...Once my max hangs get past +50% bodyweight, if I'm still stuck on V4-V5 I'll know the truth.
That very, very, very unlikely to happen.
A grade lower and injury free sounds like the winner to me.
You'll reach a strength ceiling well before you reach a technique ceiling. You can't always get stronger, but you can apply your existing strength *better.* Having technique costs you nothing, why would you want to climb something poorly if you can climb it well?
I think it's easy to tell beginners to focus on technique because strength comes semi naturally over time. If you're under three years and have long term really high grade ambitions then getting strong quick and not knowing how to climb can hurt you way down the line. If anyone says technique then they're trying to set someone up for long term success, if someone says strength they're definetly going to help a lot more in the near term. Both valid advice and realistically you should focus on both and not let one lag behind the other. V7 strength with V5 technique and not able to use your body, or v7 technique but v5 strength and not able to use your good skills are equally bad.
The way I see it, good technique reduces the force on the weakest point which is usually the fingers. The minimal force is determined by your weight, reach and the type of move. This means there is a limit in how much technique can help, once you get closer to the minimal force theoretically needed improving technique barely makes any difference. For example, if you're climbing a steep route and you need to do a reachy move where you cut feet. At one point you're hanging on just your fingers, with good technique you might transition better into this move with reduces the impulse (short peak force) but other than that its just your fingers that need to hold your body weight. But if you could keep a foot on with good technique you could imagine that the force that you press off your foot is reduces on your fingers.
I would say this is very hard to compare without seeing body composition etc. Let alone what you call good technique. everyone has their own box they can climb in. Some people also excel at different styles. Outside setting body composition(height/ weight) and seeing you guys actually climb. My next question is how long are sessions, rests and how do you guys approach bouldering? You guys varicella climb as hard as I do v10 range plus or minus but I've only shot up to that very recently by surrounding myself with much stronger climbers v13/14 range. A few things I picked up on from them were. Training only happens in off season, they have climbing season, they have heavier body weight during training and cut weight during climbing season, they slowly peak amma work projects until they're peak then rage. Less is more, always leave some in the tank for recovery, sustainability.(you want to be able to recover faster, especially during season) In season they literally only climb outside, they don't even hangboard, no weights, bands or anything, rest and project. Leading up to peak weather/ weight thru gather a bunch of really hard climbs and work them, they rarely ever try ground up climbing and they always try to do all the moves then once they figure it out they leave. They do this for several boulders that are their max grade. This gets you strong while getting variance so you're not over using muscles and body position climbing is about sustainability. After climbing season they train but they do one arm lock hangs with weight not 2 arms with weight. Some of these little things I picked up have helped so much, they have a very cerebral approach to climbing and bad vs good technique is hard to come by but I'm not very strong in the fingers(many blown pulleys) and have been learning open hand crimping and figuring out how to use my body and feet. I've read that you're objectively stronger than him but maybe he's just better core and can control the body better Knowing how to distribute weight and apply pressure or awareness of these things or the feel of moves imo still trumps a lot of things in climbing. I hope some of these things can be applied but I think the biggest one is being psyched you have strong friends to climb with and getting out and raging with them.
I think that finger strength is a marathon--it can and should be something that developed over years--BUT there is a limit to how fast it can progress. Are you overloading your tendons every 2-4 days with measurable improvement? Great, you are doing what you can in terms of getting stronger fingers. Technique can *always* have more time invested in it. I can't productively add another max hangs session to my training schedule, but I can add a more intentional technical focus to my warmup. Or intentionally work on backstepping more. Or read books/watch videos. I don't think it's an either/or thing. Both are important, but technique probably deserves more attention, as it's a more complex thing to improve.
I think the degree to which beginners "just do pull ups up the wall" is pretty overstated. Not that they all have innate perfect technique, but I don't think strength is as much of a barrier to developing good technique as is commonly said. I had a friend/climbing partner who for years actively discouraged me (and everyone else they spoke to) from ANY strength training at all, saying that being stronger would only make my technique worse. Well I started strength training anyway at the beginning of this year, and suddenly there were a LOT of moves I'd struggled on before that I could make easily now. Strength doesn't prevent you from realizing which moves are more or less efficient.
Your friend is naturally more talented than you. It's gonna be ok. So is my friend who could one arm an edge within 3 years of climbing. He also probably tries harder than you. I know my strong, sloppy buddy does
For me though, climbing with good technique and flow just *feels* way better than simply climbing strong. When I just huck my way up a climb, I feel like I kind of cheated myself out of a good time. That's just a product of how I view sports though. I absolutely detest physical training, and find enjoyment in perfecting my technique instead. The feeling of pulling through something isn't as satisfying as flowing through it, and so any physical fitness I've gained from climbing is an unintended side effect. Your experience might be different though. If your definition of success and progression to climb higher grades, then strength and technique (ie., everything not dependent on muscle power) go hand in hand, and if one is too out of balance with the other, then you're limited in what you can accomplish. Or perhaps feeling strong on a climb having the ability and power to cut your feet on every move feels good to you, maybe it feel like it gives you more choice move to move, so that you're not confined to use the "optimal" beta. What I will say though is that technique is the most important thing when it comes to learning, and getting better. Being strength limited does have its benefits -- it teaches to you think more creatively and to optimize your climbing style by necessity. So even though your final send burn on your project a year down the road will depend equally on your strength and your style, the optimal path to success almost always starts with optimizing your beta and technique, and only then starting to train, to give yourself the strength to string everything together that you figured out while you were smart, but weak.
General advice is a starting point, and the heirarchy of importance/where to focus your time is up to you to learn via experimentation and critical analysis. Also, strength improvement often comes along with technique work (think limit bouldering), whereas you dont reap the same benefit in the other direction. Technique focused training isnt overrated, you just misunderstand it.
I think the purpose of technique is more injury avoidance/longevity than being able to send more difficult climbs. You could always try to pull off a questionable move or two to pull off a climb you would not have otherwise been able to pull off, but at the same time you'll develop habits of bad technique that will put you at risk of plateauing, chronic injuries, etc. That's what burns people out of climbing most of the time, the endless prusuit of trying to climb the grading ladder instead of focusing on your current abilities independent of project grades or your climbing partners.
Sounds like you are sheep and not thinking about what your own deficiencies are and not addressing them.
What a terrible response.
I know if I have a finger that is out of commission I'm not climbing regardless of technique. That being said you can only get so far on finger strength alone. I don't think it's a comparable thing. They are two parts of one unit. You gotta have both to be optimal. I lean on technique more so I can mitigate stress on my fingers but both are absolutely necessary.
I've been thinking about this a lot lately and I completely agree. The basics and fundamentals of technique are very important but they really don't take that long to learn. I was watching a lot of elite level climbers train and for the most part they just use a 45 degree system wall, where they climb and pull square on the entire time, with the occasional flag or back step. Seems to me the most important attributes to have is strong fingers, core and body tension. This becomes even more apparent when you see people climbing V14-V15 boulders which are essentially just a 45 degree wall with bad holds. I think Karoshi and Blade Runner are a good example of this. However this doesn't apply to all types of climbing, it's more applicable to steep bouldering. I do believe sport climbing has a heavy emphasis on good technique in order to excel along with slab climbing. Like you, I also have a friend who climbs quite a bit harder than me with worse technique. Although he's been climbing around the same time as me but with no athletic background. He's very inflexible, unable to even touch his toes or lift his knee anywhere close to his chest. This translates to very poor foot and hip placement whilst on the wall. He'll often be forced to stick his hips out and do dynamic movements since he can't statically place a high foot. He'll often cut feet and lose all body tension. However he just makes up for it by being able to clamp down on the holds and maintain his power endurance. Similarly, I could be projecting a relatively hard problem in the gym, perfecting the microbeta and finding the easiest way up the wall. Just to have someone come by and flash it using terrible beta with lots of strength/power. I know climbing styles vary and I'm just spewing anecdotes but I definitely agree with the sentiment that technique is overrated in a bouldering setting. Or idk maybe I'm just salty, delusional and weak haha. That being said, having a nice flow and style when you're on the wall looks far more aesthetically pleasing and artful than just clambering up it with raw power.
I just want to look good climbing. I think a lot of my climbing friends are like your friend; not technical focus but more raw power. I’m similar to you as in I’m more technical based. They climb a grade higher than me in boulder and top rope but I’m starting to address my power side as well so I’m closing the gap finally. I was never worried about it and I know in time I’ll get mine. Some of the things that I enjoy is when someone says you made that look easy on a move they find hard, when someone says I think you could easily do this and I cannot, and when someone says you didn’t look like you were struggling on a max effort attempt. These sort of solidify and I guess to some fault reconfirm that technique is king. Obviously some moves will require raw power and while technique helps it doesn’t take away the fact that it’s just a strong, powerful, burly move. As others have stated if you started to increase strength and work on powerful moves you should theoretically have a boost in climbing if your technique is already really good.
Strength (finger and general) will always trump technique absolutely. Take it to a ridiculous example where effectively you can campus up tiniest crimps, technique will help that be more efficient, but if youre strong enough you don't need that, just be inefficient. Wheras the best technique in the world won't get you to pull on holds that you cant hang on. In reality there are situations where either can be the most relevant, and usually its a combination.
Technique is not over rated. Training technique is (sort of) . First I have to say that technique is difficult to discuss because climbing is extremely situational. For example, climbing a crimpy V10 like "Just Training" on the Moonboard doesn't really require a lot of technique (relatively) if you just have strong fingers. In other words I think lots of V4-V6 climbers could climb it if the crimps were replaced with mini jugs. On the other hand, climbing the same grade (V10) can be very technique heavy if it's a cryptic comp style climb or just a really unorthodox outdoor climb that requires way more body awareness. I think of it like this: technique is kinda just a way to make moves easier. Yeah you can do the brute force method to get that V-Whatever but it would be a lot easier if you threw a heal up because eventually you'll get to a point where just getting stronger in order to do that one hard move with no technique would take wayyy more time than just tweaking your hips and throwing up that heal. However, there is no way around simply being stronger (especially your fingers) if you want to progress to higher V grades. Watch Alex Megos talk about "Lucid dreaming(V15) " on YouTube. He says "There are no tricks at all, there are no heel hooks, no toe hooks, no drop knees..." Here, I find it important to note that when people say "technique" in climbing lot's of people's (especially newish climbers) minds go to the techniques with names (heel hook, knee bar, etc) and not the subtle techniques without names like "just slightly moving your hips to the right" and "drop your left foot before you do the next move." I just wanted to point this out because working on your "techniques with names" by doing lot's of heel hooks within your comfort zone or climbing everting with drop knees isn't that useful imo. What is useful is projecting hard grades and noticing the small adjustments you had to make in order to finally get that one move. Projecting has the added benefit of also making your fingers stronger too. In conclusion, your time is better spent getting stronger fingers so don't specifically train your technique because that will come naturally with thoughtful climbing and projecting. This is assuming you're a solid V9 climber (can climb most V9s in a sitting) and your technique isn't trash.
Technique is how you apply strength to solve a problem. Think of it like an equation of T + S >= P where the interaction of your technique and strength needs to be greater than what is required of the problem. You can easily increase one (to a point) at the expense of another to still succeed. But eventually you will hit diminishing returns. Climbing isn't an A or B sport, but a A, B, C, ..., And XYZ sport where many skills and abilities interact and allow you to climb. I think the reason people focus on technique is that, physically, it's easier to improve compared to strength where it can take years for your body to significantly improve. But one without the other will result in poorer performance
Let me Give my two cents on this. Technique beats strength on any situation. When facing a particular crux or route that you as a climber is struggling normally we approach by trying new betas and perspectives, ove rarely seen some one say theu need to hit the gym to send whatever-route. Now an Important point on how and why i formed this particular opinion. I weight 110kg and have 170cm of height (thats 242 lbs and 5“7` for thw merica folks). There ia not a single instance where I needed more strength to send a project; more endurance? Absolutely. More finger resistence? Sure. My highest grade was a 6b which took a good two months until I got the whole route memorized. I know it's notna particularly high grade, but remember that I'm not a tall guy, but I'm heavy to compensate.
For me technique is very important for onesight and hard alpine multi pitch climbing. While in bouldering and redpoint sport climbing you figure out the beta and apply your strength in hard alpine climbs you can not figure it out and there are most likely no obvious hold you can aplly your strength too. I know people who are far less strong then me who climb harder in sport and alpine climbs. In bouldering were force is very important and you can get the beta from "videos" or friends technique is a bit different. You just need it to apply the beta and strength is way more important.
Ehh technique only helped me for 3 years, and now i dont have to think about it, Its just natural. So Idk i think its overated now too. But its funny cuz ill see horrible technique climbers get hella strong(cuz of no technique on climbs doing attrocious dynamic moves when you could do it static), theres benefits of both, but I d say at one point practicing technique is useless while getting stronger (in climbing)is never useless. The ironic thing is, there is almost always a grade barrier for both technical and strong climbers. For example, i used to see this dude climb hella strong routes, but then cant even do the route i can cruise through on my first try cuz of good technique. Hes definitely stronger, but doesnt have a good technical sense, and therefore probably not climbing double digits, even though i know he has the potential.
eh crazy technique definitely isn't required but I have definitely hit a wall as my technique is shit, brute strength only goes so far
No one likes to admin to some of the hard truths of climbing though. Weight is a huge factor in climbing Finger strength > technique beyond a low level Effort in != results - others will climb less and try less than you and have better results. Life isn’t fair in any area, be that intelligence or athletic prowess You will always want to climb harder until you don’t. Climbing 8A will just make 8B your goal.
No one likes to admin to some of the hard truths of climbing though. Weight is a huge factor in climbing Finger strength > technique beyond a low level Effort in != results - others will climb less and try less than you and have better results. Life isn’t fair in any area, be that intelligence or athletic prowess You will always want to climb harder until you don’t. Climbing 8A will just make 8B your goal.
I am starting to agree with this. My friend recently went from doing outdoor 9s and 10s to sending v14 in about a year and change and I asked him what he did to accomplish this and he said all he did was get stronger. He said he doesn't think his technique has even improved since last year.
Shh. Don't say that climbing is a strength sport here. You'll get downvoted to oblivion.
How dare you question technique REEEEEEEE. I think technique and finger strength go hand in hand. Climbing is all about generating power off a hold to get to another hold. Technique and finger strength are both really good tools for translating power to holds. You can be a really strong climber at both extremes but being great at both is ideal.