Why are climbing walls so different to real rock???????????
|
Bad course setters are bad. |
|
I think you could make gyms more like crags, but it would be very expensive. Everyone complaining about $20 day passes would be complaining about $40 day passes. |
|
if you trace everything back to it's simplest origins, Climbing walls are wood whereas real rock is actual real rock. there really isn't a comparison whatsoever. |
|
paddyrock wrote:I climb in Oakland GWPC.The setters. You should take a trip over to PGSF... But at least the gym owner completely ignores wall maintenance so you still get the experience of almost getting blinded by dust and pebbles when you exhale too hard in the wrong spot. |
|
because its FAKE. ITS NOT ROCK CLIMBING. It's practice for rock climbing. It can make you really strong which helps you be really good at rock climbing but it is plastic climbing Not rock climbing. |
|
ViperScale wrote:none of them that really replicate what it is like outdoors without making a wall that can't change.My feeling is that the point is not to replicate the outdoor rock. The goal is to have interesting climbing (not boring crimp ladders like the OP described). What I want is indoor route-setting that is more sustained interesting than most outdoor routes - (and more sustained at the same difficulty level). At some gyms, I usually get that. In many gyms, I don't. Basic causes are: (1) management lacks vision (has never been exposed to how interesting indoor routes can be); (2) management just doesn't put priority on making the routes of my grade and style to be made interesting; (3) customers don't demand better. Also important for me is that most of the sequences are good training for outdoors. Some of the sequences (e.g. pinches) are not relevant to most of my outdoor climbing. But if a gym delivers on the "interesting", then I'll be able select enough to get sufficient benefit for my outdoor climbing. Anyway some of the sequences which are not relevant training for outdoors (e.g. literal handles) can still be rather fun. Ken |
|
kenr wrote: What I want is indoor route-setting that is more sustained interesting than most outdoor routes - (and more sustained at the same difficulty level).I personally find this a problem at some of the gyms I have been to. They have some routes that are completely sustained climbing that is boring and I personally hate it. I understand for training purposes sometimes it is ok to have some of this, but lets face it a sustained 50ft 5.12+ climb isn't really what I consider fun. So maybe a few of those for the people in the gym training for something outdoors but most people at a gym are there for fun when I can't get outdoors. Your the minority if you are there just to train for climbing hard. I personally like most of the 5.11+ routes at the gym I go to. They are normally really good. They start having problems setting routes that are 5.10 or easier, I think the problem is the setters they have climb so hard that they can't realistically set easy routes anymore and sometimes you just run into either stuff that is way to easy for the grade or stuff that is just strange. I don't really like any of the bouldering problems at my gym either, they have almost no technical problems and they are all just power through moves. The gym I went to when I first started climbing had a great setter who was very technical / balance climbing so maybe that is why I prefer that style over big almost dynoish moves the entire way up. |
|
Mike Mellenthin wrote:Let's talk about Planet Granite vs. Touchstone (specifically Dogpatch) setting, cause that's kind of but not really what this thread is about and life outside the Bay Area isn't real anyway (kidding). Problems at both gyms feel materially different. There are some obvious reasons for this: Planet Granite generally sets less "party trick" volume problems than Dogpatch, the walls at Dogpatch are way higher so they can set more big moves in a row, etc. I think a more subtle difference that still matters a ton is that when holds get smaller at PG they bias towards flat or incut but "sharp" (for plastic I guess) holds, whereas Dogpatch biases heavily towards rounded crimps. This pretty significantly changes the style of climbing -- lots more deadpoints to crappy holds at PG IMO because the small holds are easier to latch -- and is the main thing that I think makes Planet Granite boulder problems a lot more like the "real world", which I am defining mostly as bouldering on Sierra granite. Am I crazy?I agree for the most part. I climb much more often at DP than PG, but what I've found is: In favor of PG: - More huge blobby party trick problems at DP - More diverse grip selection at PG (rarely ever see pockets or small incut crimps used at DP) - More endurance problems at DP, more power problems at PG - No training wall at DP. They used to have the systems wall but have since removed it due to the reno. Hoping they add one back in when they finish the reno In favor of DP: - More awkward/hard finishing moves at PG. I don't want to finish a hard problem with a sideways dyno to the lip when I'm 12 feet off the deck! This seems weirdly common - More variety of terrain at DP Although I have a slight preference for the style at PG, DP is more convenient for me and the value of getting access to the whole Touchstone network is quite nice. And I do find the route setting at DP to be quite good, though just not always my cup of tea stylistically. |
|
"Take this section of wall here," |
|
Russ Keane wrote:"Take this section of wall here," ViperScale: Is that Moore's Wall in NC?Yes it is. |
|
I think more than setting style, the reason gym climbing and outside climbing correlate but do not directly transfer without a careful approach is that gym holds generally are not fingery enough, and because in most gyms, one will get isometries through the back and shoulders for the walls where one does most of their climbing. Since outside rocks are rarely to never based around these isometries, any contribution they make to ones gym climbing does not transfer so well outside, and any lack of them in any particular climber shows up strongly inside. The main reason I mention this is it is easy for people newer to gym climbing to confuse the gaining of these isometries for a bump in overall strength and become disappointed when a significant amount of their gym strength gain does not transfer to outside. Do not despair, seek to denounce gym climbing, nor give up hope that you can ever improve at climbing through gym climbing as this is a mutually shared hurdle. |
|
paddyrock wrote: Why do the vast majority of the routes i climb indoors feel more like ladders with crimps thrown in?? Should i blame the setters?? Or is this just the difference between indoor and out door?? More importantly how can designers of climbing walls hit the mark better when setting routes or building walls??climbing friend, if the route is soft you feel warm feeling and you praise the route and setter. if it is difficult for you, you say it sucks and the setter they would be horrible! myah! |
|
Aleks Zebastian wrote: climbing friend, if the route is soft you feel warm feeling and you praise the route and setter. if it is difficult for you, you say it sucks and the setter they would be horrible! myah!On that topic from one of top setters. ctclimbingpodcast.com/bret-… |