Question about transition phase in a block periodization plan, ref: Steve Bechtel

Slim,

there is so much variation in the climbing population such that I can state the exact opposite of each of your second and third statements and find climbers that fit that description.

Never the less, climbing does require both excellent technique and strength as the difficulty increases, it is up to each individual to figure out where they are in their progression, assess their weaknesses and address them.

Maybe I'm reading into Steve's comment a bit too much but what I took from it wasn't that he was saying you shouldn't train strength until you're perfect technically, but rather you shouldn't focus solely on strength gain until you're perfect.

People (myself included) love to focus on the minutia of training training plans and stress over protocol while not really thinking big picture. A good hangboard plan doesn't need to be absolutely perfect, just consistent to develop long term gains, while your primary focus is on actual "practice" and skill development. Maybe once you've achieved those mythological near perfect movement skills, you should stress over the minuscule details on the hangboard. For now, just be consistent and don't get hurt.

That was my take...

MClay,

regarding your current situation it appears that you need to simulate route climbing with your training, whether it be bouldering or other means in order to improve your endurance capacity.

Brake down when, how and why your are getting the pump. For example, are you having issues with recovery while resting mid-route, if so then you can train to improve your rests and so on. Other questions to consider is whether your technique good enough to find resting positions or not, are you using the most efficient way to climb, etc.

Also consider your nutrition, rest/sleep, etc.

There is a lot of information available online on all of these topics.

Thanks, Rui.

I do need focus more on routes, no doubt. I think I've been slacking on trying hard to attack this weakness, especially since I've found the instant satisfaction of bouldering to inflate the bruised ego. But it's a poor segregate that doesn't get me closer to my goal.

Objectively, I think finding mid-route rests is one of the few technical areas I'm half-way decent at. Route reading and efficient, propulsive footwork seems to be bigger technical weaknesses. ARCing seems to have really improved the ability to get feet to stick on bad holds for rests, but in the actual process of climbing I really don't trust my footwork.

McClay

I wonder if you are over-gripping?? When I boulder a lot I find I have to grip the hell out of holds. However, when I get on a rope, I have to figure out how to hold each hold with the least amount of strength to optimize efficiency.

rui, to some extent i can see your point. but only to a certain extent. seriously, name one climber who climbs in the 14 range that isn't really strong.

one of the most common misconceptions that is constantly perpetuated is that 'girls aren't that strong, they just have better technique'. i read this BS over and over and over. it is such BS, and it just encourages weakness. I think even a lot of strong girls think that this is true.

I am telling you, if you think that girls who climb in the 14 range aren't strong-as-fuck, you are completely delusional. take paige claussen for example. i think she kind of likes to ham it up that she isn't very strong, but just tries hard, etc. trust me when i say this - she is really, really strong.

the main point that i want to make, where i disagree w/ steve is this: it is very easy to train BOTH technique and strength. reboot has made a great point in other posts about 'practicing'. using 'practicing' as a warm up, and then combining a strength workout is a really effective use of time. also, both of these (technique and strength) are lifelong pursuits. the biggest mistake in my climbing career was basically quitting strength training and trying to focus too much on technique training for a long period. it took a lot of work to dig myself out of that hole.

(reboot - please don't feel like i am picking on you, i think you have a lot of great training wisdom. we definitely agree on a lot of things, and hopefully the different angles in which we view training/climbing concepts can be helpful to people.)

reboot wrote: I hope that's obvious to everyone... If not, I'll offer some anecdotal evidence: I (along w/ my wife) saw Robyn Erbesfield-Raboutou bouldering w/ a younger partner in the gym yesterday. We both commented on her route reading, body/foot position and execution of her movements, without any hint of conscious thinking or hesitation. It put both of us to shame, even if on good days we could probably get on the same (indoor) problems as her. But at the same time, I can see the younger guy she was bouldering w/, while not as precise in the same way, was very agile w/ his body, much more playful in general & less concerned w/ exerting absolute control over all his movements. I agree w/ 2) in principle, but good fundamental techniques can foster strength development, while too much strength in certain areas can stunt technique development. You see this in climbing all the time. The quote "the key to good footwork is stiff fingers" is a joke, it's only the appearance of good footwork, good actual footwork would alleviate enough pressure that you wouldn't need very stiff fingers. While true, at the higher end of everything, there's diminishing return. Those dudes will never be close to elite climbers, even if they have elite level strength. I don't remember the exact context, but that's not what I meant. Certainly, there's body strength & finger strength, and they are all relative to the level you are climbing. But, I was sort of picking on you for mostly engaging in a very specific style of (sport) climbing that does tend to be fingery (in the small hold but not necessarily heavy load sense), with controlled & relatively static movement. At any rate, let's move this part of discussion offline if you wish to continue.

1)Not necessarily, for a couple reasons. First, some routes will really limit the amount of weight you can get on your feet. Second, in reality when you are really at your limit, there is a cost to your motor skills. It sounds great that in theory that your technique should remain perfect despite the extreme physical and mental challenge, but you don't get anything for free....

2) sharma. sure, his technique has improved a ton and he is actually very technically proficient. however, he entered the elite realm when his climbing was pure physical brutality and literally zero technical ability.

3) you make an assumption that i pretty much just climb vertical crimping, but this isn't really the case. i have climbed in roughly the same grade (within a few letters) on most types of climbing (slab, face, steep, cracks of all sizes...). of the routes at the hardest grade that i have sent, most have been steeper stuff with big moves on open handed holds.

sharma. sure, his technique has improved a ton and he is actually very technically proficient. however, he entered the elite realm when his climbing was pure physical brutality and literally zero technical ability.

I've been wondering lately about this general notion that technical and physical abilities are on two different end of a stick. Climbers talk about "good technique" like there's a static standard, if you do this and this, you must have good technique. Well first of all, how do we define having "good technique"? I define it as having the movement skills to climb something with the least amount of effort possible for a given climber. If we use this definition, then “good technique” is very dynamic, it changes from climber to climber, based on their individual strengths and weaknesses.

Consider climber A and climber B. Climber A is not very powerful, but he makes it up by being very flexible. He climbs a route statically by twisting and turning, using backsteps, drop knees, twist locks, high hand-foot matches, and basically fully utilizing his flexibility.

Climber B is not very flexible, he cannot twist into most of the position that Climber A can get into. But he is powerful and he has good coordination. He climbs the same route in a very dynamic style, sprinting from hold to hold, generating power using his legs, hitting deadpoints with perfect precision, using momentum from one move to carry him into the next.

Now, most climbers who watch them climb will probably say climber A has better technique. But is it really the case? Both climbers climbed the route in the most efficient manner giving their strengths and weaknesses. Does Climber B have worse technique simply because he is more powerful?

What if Climber A got stronger and more powerful, and he starts to move more dynamically. What if Climber B did a lot of yoga (you know, for the yoga pants), and starts to use more drop knees and static reaches. Did Climber A’s technique decline? Did Climber B’s technique improve? Or is it neither?

That’s why it’s interesting that you think Sharma became an elite climber with pure physical strength and no technique.

slim wrote:rui, to some extent i can see your point. but only to a certain extent. seriously, name one climber who climbs in the 14 range that isn't really strong.

There are always statistical outliers...one of my climbing partners just sent his first 14a, sent multiple 13+ climbs last year and cannot do one single pushup! Is that indicative of lacking strength? At some level it is...

aikibujin wrote: That’s why it’s interesting that you think Sharma became an elite climber with pure physical strength and no technique.

Very good post and something that I have thought about a lot. I think he definitely re-defined technique in a lot of ways. It took a while for people to realize how he was using dynamic movement in out-of-balance situations. However, at the beginning of his career I don't think it is controversial to say that he just crushed the shit out of everything.

Rui Ferreira wrote: There are always statistical outliers...one of my climbing partners just sent his first 14a, sent multiple 13+ climbs last year and cannot do one single pushup! Is that indicative of lacking strength? At some level it is...

that is very interesting, and i actually have a friend who is pretty similar (i think he can maybe do 5 pushups and 5 situps, maybe...). however, he has pretty crushing hand strength. he is an off the couch master. he can literally not climb for a year, and then come out for a day and climb harder than i can. at least for 1 pitch, ha ha. his stamina struggles a bit...

SMR wrote:McClay I wonder if you are over-gripping?? When I boulder a lot I find I have to grip the hell out of holds. However, when I get on a rope, I have to figure out how to hold each hold with the least amount of strength to optimize efficiency.

I totally agree there, if I have a long period bouldering I find myself tremendously over gripping on roped routes/outside after. I try to make my warm ups gradually increase in difficulty starting into what would be arc training level of pump for a solid 5-10 minutes now. The main focus being on relaxing my grip as much as possible. This helps me stay out of the iron grip mindset.

McClay how often do you work your extensors? I started doing reverse curls and working the finger extensors with those "powerfingers" deals (I'd just use produce rubber bands instead of dumping the cash on them). After working these I found that for the same routes my level of pump went down and grip strength increased.

slim wrote: 1)Not necessarily, for a couple reasons. First, some routes will really limit the amount of weight you can get on your feet. Second, in reality when you are really at your limit, there is a cost to your motor skills. It sounds great that in theory that your technique should remain perfect despite the extreme physical and mental challenge, but you don't get anything for free....

Not sure what you are saying here, we are talking about footwork here. Sure if your hands aren't strong enough, maybe you can't execute it. But that does not make it better or worse.

slim wrote: 2) sharma. sure, his technique has improved a ton and he is actually very technically proficient. however, he entered the elite realm when his climbing was pure physical brutality and literally zero technical ability.

As has already been said, it is wrong to assume Sharma had zero technical ability even when he was young. He was a natural climber, always has, always will be, as are many kids these days. They have movement patterns, subconscious body awareness that is very difficult to teach to adults, and ironically, especially ones that have been climbing for a long time. What you are referring to as technique is only the more "conscious" subset that's not too difficult to learn/practice by most experienced climbers (often indistinguishable from "micro-beta").

I saw this from years of martial arts all the time: some people are natural. You still need to teach them the mechanics, alignment, etc, but they can move beautifully. Others were just more uncouth. They'd eventually get a bit better & can even execute very effective if simple techniques. Now, it doesn't always mean the former were just more talented, more often than not, they have other athletic background.