Counterweight Campus System?

Mike Hensley wrote:

 If so, why wait until you're climbing higher grades to start campusing?

I will put this bluntly. If you cannot climb at least mid-5.12, either you are weak, or you have some other glaring deficiency in footwork, movement, tactics, or endurance.

If you cannot climb 5.12 because you are not strong enough, you are also not strong enough to campus safely or effectively on a campus board. 

If you are strong enough to use the campus board but still can’t climb 5.12, there is some other major issue in your skill set that you need to address before your climbing can progress. If this is you, the last thing you need is more power.

Fortunately, campusing is usually self-selecting; i.e., if you can't campus, you don't use the campus board.  Due to the angle, the nature of the movement, and the monolithic nature of the board, any counterweight system that actually worked would be prohibitively complex, and would have to be incorporated in to the actual design of the structure.  But that's beside the point--if you can't do a simple ladder with decent control on large rungs, you're not ready for the campus board.  Hangboarding and weighted pull-ups would be appropriate training to get you there in the meantime.

As to kenr's comments, the fact that he's been campusing for years and _hasn't_ sent more than a couple 12's might warrant some investigation into other elements of his climbing.  Regardless, the idea that 12's are the baseline for campus training is more anecdotally correlative than a hard and fast rule, and if he's having success with it, then kudos.  

aikibujin wrote:

Campusing, on the other hand, is not easily measured and controlled.

Compared to what? Let me remind you that I said, "[C]ampusing can be done with controlled proper form much more easily than general climbing." To clarify further, I'll say that what I mean is campusing is more controllable than climbing dynamic routes, because the holds and spacing are a consistent difficulty that you can progress on gradually. Do you disagree with the italicized claim?

I'm not saying the risk of injury is low (in some general sense) for campusing. Dynamic moves will always carry some risk of injury. But that includes dynamic moves that occur during climbing, too. So unless you're claiming campusing causes more injuries than dynamic moves that occur during climbing, it doesn't make sense to avoid it (unless you're also avoiding dynamic moves during climbing).

I'm not necessarily advocating campusing, either. I don't campus, not because of the injury risk, but because dynamic power isn't holding me back in my climbing right now. I just think if you are going to tell people not to campus, you should have other reasons besides the probably-not-true idea that it causes more injuries than climbing dynamic routes.

David Kerkeslager wrote:

 I don't campus, 

Then why are you offering advice about it's risks and benefits?

A single dynamic move on a climb that you might try a few times is very different from no foot dynamic moves that are purposefully repeated again and again.

In my experience pulley injuries haven't been an issue, but there's a lot of stress on elbows and shoulders. 

I have also injured my lumbricals and the collateral ligaments in my fingers. 

YMMV, of course.

David Kerkeslager wrote:

I'm not necessarily advocating campusing, either. I don't campus, not because of the injury risk, but because dynamic power isn't holding me back in my climbing right now. I just think if you are going to tell people not to campus, you should have other reasons besides the probably-not-true idea that it causes more injuries than climbing dynamic routes.

OK, here's one: The sort of power built by campusing is almost never the primary limiting factor for a sub-5.12 climber (this is honestly also probably true for most sub-5.14 climbers). And their training time would be better spent on other methods that more directly address their needs. That may be bouldering, hangboarding, route laps, getting mileage actually climbing, learning about tactics, buying some shoes other than Mythos, or whatever it is for that individual. But most people you see on the campus board at any given gym would be better served (and safer) doing somethng else.

The campus board was invented by an 8c/+ in order to build power for a short poweful 9a. It is a very appropriate tool for that purpose. It is not a useful or approriate tool for a 5.9 climber that wants to climb 5.10.

David Kerkeslager wrote:

Compared to what?

Compared to hangboarding, of course. Since you're the one who erroneously grouped hangboarding and campusing together, and my whole post was to explain why they're different. I assumed it was pretty obvious that I was comparing hangboarding and campusing, but now I know not to make such a basic assumption.

And no, I will disagree with your italicized claim that campusing is more controllable than climbing dynamic routes. Just because you have a bunch of rungs with numbers at equal spaces, doesn't make campusing controllable and measurable. The whole "gradual progression" idea you mentioned is not the control and measure I'm talking about. You can still have a gradual progression of dynamic moves on a route/problem too, by gradually increasing the difficulty of a dynamic move. If you don't know how to do that... well, ask someone at your gym.  When I'm talking about controllable and measurable, I mean when I go do a hangboard workout, I know exactly how much weight I'm hanging with (that's measurable). With a predetermined weight, I plan and control exactly how much I pull on a grip, because if I pull too hard my grip will change, and if I don't pull hard enough, I'll simply fall off (that's controllable). On a campus board, do you know exactly how much force you're applying to a rung when you launch from a rung, and when you latch a rung? And even if you can create some sort of sensor to measure that, do you have the exceptional fine motor control to hit a rung with a predetermined amount of force, no more, no less?

Lastly, I never claimed "campusing causes more injuries than climbing dynamic moves". They both have the same potential for injuries, especially for people who can't execute the move well. If you're going to claim the definitely-not-true idea that campusing is more controllable than any other dynamic moves, you should at least do some campusing to see for yourself.

Mark E Dixon wrote:

Then why are you offering advice about it's risks and benefits?

I'm not offering advice. I'm asking for people to provide evidence for a claim that sounds like hearsay to me, and explaining why I think it's hearsay.

There's a system for taking weight off at the campus board at Momentum Millcreek here in SLC, but from what I understand, no one uses it for various reasons. I personally think it would be annoying to have a rope in my face the whole time. Others say that is messes up your technique. Still others think that you shouldn't invest in campusing if you're not strong enough to do it at bodyweight. 

I agree with those who say campusing is a very specialized training tool. I would go so far as to say that you shouldn't even start seriously campusing till climbing 5.13. If you want power, there's so much more to learn from nails-hard bouldering than campusing. For instance, learning to keep your feet from cutting during a powerful deadpoint move, learning exactly when it IS more efficient to go footless and make a campus move on a boulder or route, or just knowing what it feels like to pull as freaking hard as you can in a situation that feels more desperate than some rungs on an overhanging board.

If you want a real-world example, check out Dave MacLeod. That guy has had to train for every ounce of his hard climbing (not as naturally talented as the Ondra's and Megos' of the world), and he rarely campuses (mostly just when he's injured-- lower body). Instead he prefers hard bouldering to develop power, as it is accurate to the demands of real climbing, and better teaches the skills associated with hard climbing. Is it as sexy as campusing? Apparently not. Is it exciting? I think so! Does it require more patience? Yeah. Will it pay big dividends to anyone climbing 5.12 and under? Yep. Don't think anyone would argue with that one... unless there are some trolls lurking around.

aikibujin wrote:

Compared to hangboarding, of course. Since you're the one who erroneously grouped hangboarding and campusing together, and my whole post was to explain why they're different. I assumed it was pretty obvious that I was comparing hangboarding and campusing, but now I know not to make such a basic assumption.

And no, I will disagree with your italicized claim that campusing is more controllable than climbing dynamic routes. Just because you have a bunch of rungs with numbers at equal spaces, doesn't make campusing controllable and measurable. The whole "gradual progression" idea you mentioned is not the control and measure I'm talking about. You can still have a gradual progression of dynamic moves on a route/problem too, by gradually increasing the difficulty of a dynamic move. If you don't know how to do that... well, ask someone at your gym.  When I'm talking about controllable and measurable, I mean when I go do a hangboard workout, I know exactly how much weight I'm hanging with (that's measurable). With a predetermined weight, I plan and control exactly how much I pull on a grip, because if I pull too hard my grip will change, and if I don't pull hard enough, I'll simply fall off (that's controllable). On a campus board, do you know exactly how much force you're applying to a rung when you launch from a rung, and when you latch a rung? And even if you can create some sort of sensor to measure that, do you have the exceptional fine motor control to hit a rung with a predetermined amount of force, no more, no less?

Lastly, I never claimed "campusing causes more injuries than climbing dynamic moves". They both have the same potential for injuries, especially for people who can't execute the move well. If you're going to claim the definitely-not-true idea that campusing is more controllable than any other dynamic moves, you should at least do some campusing to see for yourself.

Okay, sure dynamic motions (campusing) are less controlled than static ones (hangboarding). I 100% agree with that.

Campus rungs are of a controlled size and spacing. You can determine exactly how far you go for each move (1-3-5 is riskier than 1-2-3) and most gyms have more than one size of rungs so you can do larger (less risky) or smaller (more risky) rungs. Surely you can see how this is more controllable a routine than climbing dynamic moves where the holds are various sizes, distances, and angles, and it's part of a larger route so you can't focus on keeping the arm in alignment. No, it's not 100% controllable like hangboarding, but that's never been the claim I was making.

I don't campus, but that doesn't mean I've never campused in my life. I saw for myself and didn't see what you claim I would see.

David, you're a 5.10 climber trying to tell 5.13 and better climbers how to train....that's some funny shit

Jon W wrote:

David, you're a 5.10 climber trying to tell 5.13 and better climbers how to train....that's some funny shit

John, you're a full grown adult who can't read. :P I didn't tell anyone how to train.

This has been one of my favorite threads so far.

kenr wrote:

I've been campusing for years. I have not come even close to injuring a pulley.

Most of those years I was using Open grip. But then I noticed that my Crimp grip wasn't very strong. And I saw a video of bouldering champion Jan Hojer campusing with a Crimp grip.

Therefore in the last couple of years I've also been doing campus moves with a Crimp grip. 

. . . Still have not come even close to injuring a pulley tendon.

So I have indeed gone ahead and experimented on myself, and here I have come back to tell you:

You're wrong.

Ken

I haven't heard of anyone injuring pulleys (specifically finger tendon pulleys) while campusing, but I know of plenty of people who have injured shoulders or elbows (gradually or acutely) while campusing.

One more thing: a lot of folks in this thread have kind of been implying that campusing is for training dynos, or deadpoints, whatever.  This is true, but another part of power that folks don't consider as much is the maximum recruitment of fast-twitch muscles (I might not be using the terminology correctly).  What this means is that, in fast moves where you might "pop" for holds a bit, there is a fraction of a second in which your fingers are not yet fully engaged on the hold.  Campusing can train finger muscles to "stick it" more quickly and effectively.

Pnelson wrote:

One more thing: a lot of folks in this thread have kind of been implying that campusing is for training dynos, or deadpoints, whatever.  This is true, but another part of power that folks don't consider as much is the maximum recruitment of fast-twitch muscles (I might not be using the terminology correctly).  What this means is that, in fast moves where you might "pop" for holds a bit, there is a fraction of a second in which your fingers are not yet fully engaged on the hold.  Campusing can train finger muscles to "stick it" more quickly and effectively.

Good point.

I think the technical term for 'contact strength' is 'rate of force development.'

Theoretically campusing should improve this. And anecdotally, it does.

Would be an easy study to perform and maybe useful too. 

The technology for testing climbers' RFD is demonstrated in a paper comparing route and boulder climbers. It would be pretty straight forward to recruit a range of climbers to participate in 6-8 weeks of structured campusing and see what happens to their RFD.

Unfortunately, I think the required equipment is too expensive for climbing science hobbyists. Although maybe Rui is interested?

Mar,k I am not sure I could sneak a couple load cells and a data acquisition system past my wife on the ongoing kitchen remodel budget

Pnelson wrote:

I haven't heard of anyone injuring pulleys (specifically finger tendon pulleys) while campusing,

I have, but it was during down-campusing (reversing 1-3-5) where I tried to re-engage after my hand slipped a bit. 

 but I know of plenty of people who have injured shoulders or elbows (gradually or acutely) while campusing.

Yeah, more than once...

Mark E Dixon wrote:

Good point.

I think the technical term for 'contact strength' is 'rate of force development.'

Theoretically campusing should improve this. And anecdotally, it does.

Would be an easy study to perform and maybe useful too. 

My personal feeling about 'contact strength' is so much of it isn't actually in the fingers, but rather a coordination of the entire body to stabilize/absorb momentum, and this happens during the entire range of the movement, not just during the split second of contact. Of course, if a study does find (not just statistically) significant differences between boulders and sport climbers in static vs dynamic finger load, then that'd be great (although it doesn't mean that's all that's relevant), and if it doesn't, it still doesn't mean 'contact strength' doesn't exist.

Good point about the whole body nature of campusing.

As for studies-

Differences in climbing-specific strength between boulder and lead rock climbers

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22505133

I can't find the full version online at the moment, but have it at home. If you want a copy, lmk.

This one looks interesting too-

Differences in forearm strength, endurance, and hemodynamic kinetics between male boulderers and lead rock climbers.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28753391

I'll see if I can track it down if I get a chance.

in my experience, i feel that hangboarding helped me climb in the 12 range, and campusing was helpful for me sending my first several 13a routes.  i feel that it really helped my coordination and taught me how to use agression at the right moments.  i also had some significant hangboard strength increases during this time, after a really long plateau, so the CB might have helped a bit in this department.  

when i first started campusing (and actually throughout the 2 years i used a campus board) it was pretty hard for me.  large rungs were fairly easy.  ladders on medium rungs were fairly tough.  max ladders on the small rungs were really tough.  i focused on one or two move offset throws on the small rungs.  i think part of my difficulties were due to really pronounced differences in the lengths of my fingers, it was just really hard to hit the small rungs just right.

it's really hard to say for sure if a person is strong enough or too weak to use the campus board.  some of my friends think i have strong fingers, but several more knowledgeable folks have been surprised at the grades i have climbed for how weak my fingers are, so... ?

it's also hard to say for sure if a person is skilled enough or not to use a campus board solely by the grade they climb.  it will depend a lot on too many things (where they climb, weaknesses that are easily attacked, weaknesses that are truly limiting, etc).

in terms of injuries, i never had any finger injuries, but keep in mind i had been using a hangboard on and off for 15 years.  however, my shoulders, elbows, and wrists really disliked campusing.  i could never do it more than once a week, and i had to be on red alert at all times.

i think it is really important to look at it as objectively as possible.  what are you trying to get out of it?  are there other methods of achieving the same result that would also have other simultaneous benefits?  if you do decide to try it, i highly recommend doing it in really small doses at first.  really small doses....