Hangboarding with Offset Holds

aikibujin wrote:

I would argue that at all levels (not just at the elite level) climbing is about moving from one hold to another. While I agree that just because you can hold on to something doesn't mean you can move off of it, but if you can't hang on, then it's 100% guaranteed that you cannot make any move off of a hold. Therefore, hanging on a hold is a pre-requisite to executing a move.

What I'm trying to say is at the more elite level, you frequently encounter moves you can statically hang on, but don't have a prayer of executing. So yeah, you have the pre-requisite, but now what?

reboot wrote:

What I'm trying to say is at the more elite level, you frequently encounter moves you can statically hang on, but don't have a prayer of executing. So yeah, you have the pre-requisite, but now what?

In that case, my guess is that finger strength is not what's stopping them from executing the move, but other weaknesses (Poor movement initiation? Bad body position? Weak upper body?). For example, if someone can hang on a pullup bar but can't do a pullup, the answer is not to train for a stronger grip, but to train for stronger upper arms. Of course that's a very simplified way to look at it. I'm not climbing at the elite level, so it is entirely possible that I just haven't encountered the situation where I can statically hold on to something, yet lack the finger strength to execute (and not due to less optimal movement).

aikibujin wrote:

In that case, my guess is that finger strength is not what's stopping them from executing the move, but other weaknesses (Poor movement initiation? Bad body position? Weak upper body?). 

Well, it probably isn't the whole reason but it's probably a big factor. The finger strength required to execute a controlled move (so you can actually latch the hold) can be way higher (and in way different angle/body position) than statically hanging with your weight under it. 

For example, if someone can hang on a pullup bar but can't do a pullup, the answer is not to train for a stronger grip, but to train for stronger upper arms. Of course that's a very simplified way to look at it.

For another example, to go from being able to dead hang on the 45 degree beastmaker slopers and being able to do pullups on it,  you don't just train more dead hang on the slopers and more pullups (not saying each isn't useful).

aikibujin wrote:

In that case, my guess is that finger strength is not what's stopping them from executing the move, but other weaknesses (Poor movement initiation? Bad body position? Weak upper body?). For example, if someone can hang on a pullup bar but can't do a pullup, the answer is not to train for a stronger grip, but to train for stronger upper arms. Of course that's a very simplified way to look at it. I'm not climbing at the elite level, so it is entirely possible that I just haven't encountered the situation where I can statically hold on to something, yet lack the finger strength to execute (and not due to less optimal movement).

Part of the problem is that fingers are stronger in certain wrist angles than others. When you quickly lock a crimp off at your chest and move, the lower arm goes from a neutral to flexed wrist position. It changes both the absolute force and the angle. The question isn't which one is better, it's what is your weakness? I can static hang 8mm crimps with over 75lbs on my harness but often can't move between small holds. Something that varies the wrist angle while training the fingers is quite specific (recently started doing single pullups on the worst holds I can grip). It's not necessarily better than hangboarding - it just hits a different part of the "can I do the move" equation

kenr wrote:

So what?
The comparison to the static hanging phase of a system-board move is not relevant. Because the peak loads in a system-board moves are in the dynamic phases of launching the move and then in latching.

I bet if the peak forces (in units of Newtons) during those phases were measured accurately, they would exceed the force (in units of Newtons) sustainable by the same climber statically on a fingerboard.

Therefore we can argue system board provides better training stress for developing strength of muscles and tendons for climbing.
. . . (just much trickier to measure that stress).

Ken

I think you’re talking about power (which is probably best trained bouldering/campus/system board) where as I’m talking about strength.

will ar wrote:

I think you’re talking about power (which is probably best trained bouldering/campus/system board) where as I’m talking about strength.

I think Ken knows what power is. I think he's getting ultra specific (why this is such a great thread) and talking about training the top end strength that is required to move between holds but not necessarily to statically hang them. This isn't necessarily a power issue. If we're talking about static moves on a system wall, you're not really training power so much as the ability to withstand resistance through the entire range of motion (both body motion and mechanical changes in the hand/arm). Lets say hanging the starting holds with feet on requires exactly 50% your bodyweight of force, for example 100 pounds for a 200 pound person. Moving off the hold may require 120 pounds of force. Therefore, you can hang but not move. It's not a question of whether you're able to recruit all of your force generation in time, but whether the amount of force you can generate meets the difficulty of the holds

kenr wrote:

So what?
The comparison to the static hanging phase of a system-board move is not relevant. Because the peak loads in a system-board moves are in the dynamic phases of launching the move and then in latching.

I bet if the peak forces (in units of Newtons) during those phases were measured accurately, they would exceed the force (in units of Newtons) sustainable by the same climber statically on a fingerboard.

Therefore we can argue system board provides better training stress for developing strength of muscles and tendons for climbing.
. . . (just much trickier to measure that stress).

Ken

I kind of doubt the peak finger forces on a system board exceed the peak forces on a hang board.

I would speculate that whatever force you can develop in a static hang will be the top limit of what you can develop in the dynamic phases of a system move. 

Any higher force demand will just lead to failure.

Dynamic force might even be significantly less, due to the constraints of rate fo force development.

So the TUT at peak load during a static hang would be longer. Hence more effective for training.

This would be consistent with the general observation that if you can't maintain a static hold on a grip, then the only dynamic move you are going to make is off and down!

As reboot points out, moving off a hold is more difficult that hanging it. I believe this is true at all levels of difficulty, not just the top, if the climber is nearing the limit of his/her finger strength.

I would argue that movement requires more force due to the need to accelerate the body against gravity as well as the effect of changing wrist angle on the forearm muscle force-length curve.

This need for extra force can be overcome by increasing strength, but elite climbers are likely nearer to their genetically determined ultimate finger strength than the rest of us.

The essence of technique is using the rest of your body to decrease the load on your fingers (assuming they are your constraint for a particular move/climb.)

So perhaps, elite climbers would need to focus more on technique or "try hard" or whatever else actually works at that stage (not being elite, I can only speculate...)

kenr wrote:

So what?
The comparison to the static hanging phase of a system-board move is not relevant. Because the peak loads in a system-board moves are in the dynamic phases of launching the move and then in latching.

I bet if the peak forces (in units of Newtons) during those phases were measured accurately, they would exceed the force (in units of Newtons) sustainable by the same climber statically on a fingerboard.

Therefore we can argue system board provides better training stress for developing strength of muscles and tendons for climbing.
. . . (just much trickier to measure that stress).

Ken

I think I get the point you are trying to make, which is that the peak force you would observe (if we could measure it accurately) would not be while holding onto a hold, but when you move off it or latch on in the first place. That's your first part. I agree with that.

In the second phase, I think you are wrong, for reasons well explained by Mark. Visualize that on a rope for fun (changes in bold):

I bet if the peak forces (in units of Newtons) during those phases were measured accurately, they would exceed the force (in units of Newtons) sustainable by the same [rope] statically on a [static load].

I would not bet my life on that rope. Why would tendons be different?

I think your third point is also wrong, if you really mean "better training stress for developing strength of muscles & tendons for climbing", for a few reasons:

• Developing tendons & muscles are different things, and I don't think they should be bundled together. So let's focus on tendons...
• The best way to stress tendons in order to develop them is to get them as close to their limits, just below the point of failure. Strength training is usually about low short reps (3-5) with long rests for maximal efforts. I would argue it's pretty hard to gage that limit & repeatedly get close to it with dynamic moves on a system board - there's just too many variables involved. Even if you were right let's say, and that exercise is in theory better to develop tendons strength, I would argue that because in practices it would be so hard to get the balance right that you would observe bigger gains, for comparable training time/efforts, with static hangs than with dynamic moves on a finger board.
• I do think you are bundling power & strength together somewhat in a way that isn't quite right. Move off a hold is somewhat about power (depending how dynamic the move is going to be). A weaker climber (in terms of static strength measures) capable of recruiting strength faster from a hold than a "stronger" climber will reach further. Same about latching - you have a fraction of a second to latch (depending on hold) and achieve the minimum amount of force to latch the hold. Force/time is the definition of power.

Therefore, I think that what you are really talking about with the system board is more about power training than strength training. With static hangs, you work pretty much 100% on strength only. With dynamic finger board moves, you work some mix of strengh & power. Generally speaking, the more specific a training (e.g. the fewer things you train at once) the greater the benefits will be for the thing trained (in our case strength). 

kenr wrote:

Yes, but I don't get the relevance.

I've stated something similar elsewhere: It may not be relevant if we're talking about how to place a nut, but it's very relevant when we're discussing training. You may have read a whole bunch of books and papers on the subject, but if you're a 5.10 climber, then you obviously have not been able to apply whatever you read to practical experience.

reboot wrote:

The finger strength required to execute a controlled move (so you can actually latch the hold) can be way higher (and in way different angle/body position) than statically hanging with your weight under it. 

I agree with this. I think we just started the discussion from different points. When talking about having enough strength to "hang on", you're talking strictly about hanging directly under the hold, while I'm thinking more like "holding on" throughout the range of joint angles of a particular move.

Jon Frisby wrote:

Part of the problem is that fingers are stronger in certain wrist angles than others. When you quickly lock a crimp off at your chest and move, the lower arm goes from a neutral to flexed wrist position. It changes both the absolute force and the angle. The question isn't which one is better, it's what is your weakness? I can static hang 8mm crimps with over 75lbs on my harness but often can't move between small holds. Something that varies the wrist angle while training the fingers is quite specific (recently started doing single pullups on the worst holds I can grip). It's not necessarily better than hangboarding - it just hits a different part of the "can I do the move" equation

I agree that you can create different lever arm when executing a move which can put more force on your fingers than when you're doing a deadhang. When I was thinking of the required finger strength to "hold on", I wasn't just thinking of deadhangs, but the ability to hold on throughout a move. When we introduce joint angle in the equation, we also introduce flexibility and strength of that joint. In your case, you're obviously strong enough to hold on, but are you not able to move between small holds because you can't "hold on", or is it because you lack strength/flexibility in your wrist to get into the position required to move between the holds?

Mark E Dixon wrote:

I would speculate that whatever force you can develop in a static hang will be the top limit of what you can develop in the dynamic phases of a system move. 

Perhaps so, but every method I've seen proposed for training with static hangs calls for holding each hang for at least 5 seconds. So the force being trained is not the peak static force possible, but rather some lower force which is sustainable for 5 seconds.

But with a move on a system-board, it's all over in less than a second, so the peak force does not need to be sustained for anywhere near as long, therefore it could be significantly higher than for a normal static training hang.

Mark E Dixon wrote:
> This would be consistent with the general observation that if you can't maintain a static hold on a grip,
> then the only dynamic move you are going to make is off and down!

If that's a key problem blocking your success in actual climbing, then I guess you should devote attention to specific training for it.

But for me (and I think lots of people), the key problem is that I can grasp the lower launching holds to hang statically, and perhaps I can grasp the latching hold configuration to hang statically.

But when I try to move between the two, either my fingers blow off one of the launching holds, or my fingers fail to successfully grasp the latching hold.

Ken

P.S. and somehow in my actual climbing, seems like either the launch or the latch, more often both, is in an
offset configuration.

kenr wrote:

Perhaps so, but every method I've seen proposed for training with static hangs calls for holding each hang for at least 5 seconds. So the force being trained is not the peak static force possible, but rather some lower force which is sustainable for 5 seconds.

True - but I think this has more to do about being able to do at least one rep fully. E.g. if you're trying to build muscle strength, you wouldn't choose a weight with which you cannot fully do a complete motion. Also, if you're doing strength training, you're not choosing a weight you can only lift once - typically you do at least 3 reps, at least more strength training that I have seem (I am not a bit weight lifter however, so perhaps someone more versed in weigth pushing would tell me otherwise).

I think your assumption that the very minimal amount of time that you can hold onto a hold (in a static hang) is what will give you the biggest gain in strength is wrong - just as in weight lifting, aiming for just one rep would be wrong.

kenr wrote:

Perhaps so, but every method I've seen proposed for training with static hangs calls for holding each hang for at least 5 seconds. So the force being trained is not the peak static force possible, but rather some lower force which is sustainable for 5 seconds.

Is it too much of a stretch to compare this to competitive lifting? If not it sounds like you're suggesting that doing a few 1 rep max lifts would develop more strength for a training protocol than doing say a few sets of 3 reps.  While 1 rep Max's are done by many athletes a 1 rep max is often used as more of an evaluation or trying to develop power rather than a technique to build strength and many athletes often do sets of slightly more volume at a slightly reduced load when trying to build strength.

It seems like a lot of people reach the conclusion that hanging statically on a hangboard only translates to hanging statically on holds and I think this is a fallacy.  There's a lot of complex stuff going on when climbing, but I don't hang on a hang board with a bunch of weight on my harness and my feet dangling so that I can hang on a route with a bunch of extra weight and my feet dangling because that isn't something that is usually done in the process of climbing a route. I hang on a hangboard with a bunch of extra weight so that when I only have one hand on the rock in a small pocket and both feet on I have the minimum strength to stay on while I reach for the next hold and than when my other hand hits that next hold I can again exert enough strength to stay on the rock as I'm transferring my weight. Once I've developed that foundation of strength on a hangboard I train power by bouldering/campusing so that I can reach close to the same force my fingers see in my hangboard workouts, but in a fraction of a second. The timing (what really differentiates strength vs power) is key here because when making a dynamic movement you can't slowly ease on to the next hold, rather your muscles have to go from 0 to near maximal recruitment in fractions of a second. It takes a bit of time for your muscles to generate maximum force. While it may feel like it on a system board you're probably not actually getting there and if you fall off it might not be because your muscles couldn't generate enough force, but rather that they couldn't do it quick enough (or of course it could also be due to technique, body tension, etc). In a general sense I don't disagree with you when you say that system boards are a great tool, but I think it trains different aspects than what you are suggesting.