Adam Ondra versus static hanging

aikibujin wrote:

kenr, who's probably a 5.10 climber at most (based on his via ferrata trip reports and route comments since he can't be honest about what he actually climbs) yet thinks he's some expert in training because he read some books and papers.

If believing that I've claimed to be an expert somehow energizes you to think more about your own training -- or even better ... stimulates you to contribute something positive to this forum, then Good.

If I'm good at finding interesting stuff in books or other sources and connecting it to training questions -- Why not exercise that?
I do think it's a safe bet that I'm better at the mechanical engineering and physics of climbing (and skiing) than 99% people willing to put in the work of writing posts for this forum (because of my career background). Also a safe bet that I'm 99% better at assessing the statistics of evidence for what works or doesn't (again career background). So if I'm willing to do the work of attempting an analysis of that sort if thing and taking the time to carefully write it to the forum -- Why not exercise that, even tho it doesn't make me an expert on training.
Since this is a community, even when I'm wrong, it least it can stimulate someone else's energy to write a correction. Or to think of a better idea and apply it to their own training (and keep it secret until they milk it for advantage for a couple of years?)

"Honest" ... I don't think most people are much interested in whatever I (or most other MP members) might have climbed on some particular day -- so I don't post ticks. Instead I post routes which I think some other MP members or readers might enjoy climbing themselves. And work (harder than most) to provide enough careful "honest" detail to help them to decide if some route is suitable for them, and enough info to find it and prepare for it.

In the last couple of years I've been devoting lots of my time and labor to develop new routes for other people to enjoy. Most of what I choose to work on indeed turns out to be easier tham 5.10 (likely influenced by the fact that some of my favorite partners don't climb more than 5.10). Anyway the rock is what it is, I can only post what I find - "honest".

Note also that several of my favorite routes that I post to MP were done as on-sight solos, and my free solo level is ("honest") less than 5.10. Since long solos seem to have become my favorite climbing goal, my training has gotten skewed away from raising my sport red-point grade and toward not dying on 5.7 or less -- which for me includes lots of practice down-climbing easy/moderate grades.
. . . so . . .
time now to get "honest" about reporting that on my last trip to SW Utah in December, it was my first time I down-climbed two 5.10b pitches (on Top-Rope, honest).

Ken

Do I foresee a "Training for downclimbing" thread in the future? :-)

Dude, downleading is no joke.  Seemed simple enough the first time I tried it, until you start unclipping draws and piss your pants.

Ted Pinson wrote:

Dude, downleading is no joke.  Seemed simple enough the first time I tried it, until you start unclipping draws and piss your pants.

Maybe it's just me, but I find downleading moves I did dynamically to be the most terrifying thing I do with any sort of regularity. I had to jump up to reach the handhold I'm currently on, so I now have to "fall" down onto the foothold below? No thank you.

Mark E Dixon wrote:

I wouldn’t have guessed that you were doing any standard hangboarding. 

Funny thing is that it was one of your contributions to this forum that helped me get back to into static hanging. Sometime I think in the last year you reported that you'd found a study that showed that hypertrophy results from isometric exercise could be (nearly?) as large as from standard concentric/eccentric-cycle exercise - (likely in response to one of my many times passionately arguing against the mainstream-American assumption of the unique rightness of hangboard training).

Didn't change anything at the time, but it stayed in my mind. A few months later I began to feel that with my disjointed lifestyle, I was not able to get _consistent_ measurable repeatable training stimulus on whichever dynamic exercises of my finger/forearm muscles happened to be available at the exact day and time and place where my training strategy called for it.

So I decided I needed something very portable, and that turned out to be a portable hang-from-a-cord fingerboard which has only one simple horizontal wood hold in each depth size. Now my consistent "base" finger/forearm training is on even-horizontal grip (tho I don't think that's best for overall fingers and arms) and static dead hangs (tho I'm not really convinced it's best for hypertrophy) with extra weight in a backpack -- because for now seems like (based on your sharing what you found from another published source) the best fit for my lifestyle.

But also whenever I get the chance, I add to that base . . . dynamically "rolling up" from 4-finger open to half-crimp with vertically-uneven hand grips (campus board) . . . and various simple campus sequences on the medium-size Metolius rungs (or sometimes I work up to doing something on the small rungs if I'm in one place long enough to get my perceptions re-wired for those moves).

"protocol" is whatever sequence of hang and rest-in-between I can motivate to get myself to go through to some sort of "failure" of each obvious basic grip -- in the context of whatever strange place and temperature I found to hang the portable board -- and whatever level of sleepiness and distraction I'm fighting against.

My thought now is that:
(a) there's no good controlled statistically-valid evidence for what static-hang protocol is better (better for me in the context of my specific biochemistry and my specific  muscle-tendon physiology, and my other training and climbing -- as opposed to some 19-year-old college students some researcher was able to round up to do their experiment);
(b) any sort-of-climbing-relevant exercise I can motivate myself to get through to some sort of finger-failure is better than some optimal equipment and protocol that I don't quite get around to setting up and actually using.

Ken

Ted Pinson wrote:

Tommy talked about how Fingerboard repeaters were crucial for him developing the strength to send the Dawn Wall.  Maybe a part of it is the style of climbing?

Yes I'm thinking about that now too. The much-slabby Dawn Wall is very different terrain from sustained way-overhanging 5.15c. So maybe Ondra's climbing strategy of quick on+off holds / switching hands is not so relevant to most Dawn Wall crux sequences. And maybe on less-than-vertical rock, Caldwell was not so eager to just take lots of falls while working out some quick on+off switch-hands sequence. Instead hang longer on and do more feeling around and thinking.

For myself since my big training goal is free-solo of long (mostly less-than-vertical routes), down-climbing / reversibility is critical for safety (especially on-sight which is often the more practical way to do long solos) . . .

It's hitting me that when down-climbing, static hanging is often required -- to hang _out_ to look down to find the next lower footholds, sometimes extra time to shift head positions to see past legs. Sometimes hanging while _feeling_ for footholds.

And often extra holding-on time so can make a tricky down-move extra-slowly, to minimize the accelerating downward momentum that needs to be "caught" to finish the move.

So maybe I've now become a good candidate for following Tommy Caldwell's training approach.

Ken

Chris Sharma recently switched training strategies for his latest 5.15 project "Le Blond" in Spain.

First time with a structured training program - (I'll guess because he's getting interrupted by his growing challenges of business management and family).

Although he lives in Spain and hired a personal coach, he did _not_ choose Eva Lopez.

The nice video of him performing his new train program did not show anything remotely static or isometric. 

I assume there must be a fingerboard _somewhere_ in that giant training room, but I challenge you to find it in that video.

Ken

kenr wrote:

If believing that I've claimed to be an expert somehow energizes you to think more about your own training -- or even better ... stimulates you to contribute something positive to this forum, then Good.

Don't worry kenr, I spend plenty of time thinking about my own training without your inspiration. Whenever I'm not working, sleeping, or spending time with my family, I'm thinking about my own training. I also have made plenty of posts in the training forum, whether they were positive contributions is up for others to decide.

Maybe you never posted that "I am an expert in training", not in these exact words. But you post with an air of "I know it all" to imply you are an expert. Want an example?

I do think it's a safe bet that I'm better at the mechanical engineering and physics of climbing (and skiing) than 99% people willing to put in the work of writing posts for this forum (because of my career background). Also a safe bet that I'm 99% better at assessing the statistics of evidence for what works or doesn't (again career background). 

What got me annoyed with your posts in the training forum is that you don't post with an openness for learning, even though you said that you're trying to stimulate discussion. You post your opinions as facts, and when people actually try to engage you in a discussion, you totally ignore those that might prove you wrong and instead just focus on stuff that might help you make your points. Want examples? Jake Jones asked you more about your hangboard training in this very thread, and you ignored that. In another thread, more than one people pointed out that your implication that system board training is all dynamic is incorrect, and you ignored that (twice) and went on the imply that system board training is all about launching and latching. I've been reading the training forum for a few years now. In the beginning, I quickly realized that you really don't know what you're talking, so I tend to just ignore you. Maybe I should take a lesson from Mark Dixon and be interested in what you have to say, but I'm not as nice or wise as Mark. By the way, Mark climbs much harder than you, yet compare to your posts, his are always made with an openness to a discussion rather than just to lecture people.

Maybe others don't care what grades you climb, but I do. In the context of training, that's all I care about. The sole purpose of my training is to climb better, to climb harder, to chase the numbers to the fullest extent possible. "The best climbers are the ones having the most fun" is not my mantra. To me the best climbers are the ones who can tap their full potential and climb their hardest. So when talking about training, I want to know what others climb so I can weigh their opinions. I will totally judge a book by its cover. So I asked you very directly what grades you climb, but you beat around the bush and never directly answered my question. Why is that? I know what you might say, maybe you don't want your climbing grade detract the fact that you're very good at mechanical engineering or physics. But more likely than not, you know that the grades you climb is an indication how well you can translate theories and ideas of training into real practices with tangible results. Maybe like you said your goal is to free solo 5.10s and not die on 5.7s. That's totally fine, but be upfront about it so people can decide for themselves whether their training goal aligns with yours or not. I had to act like a jackass and kept calling you out to squeeze that little bit of information out of you. And there is nothing wrong with being a 5.10 climber. I was struggling on 5.10s three years ago, and I still fall off 5.10s even now. Everyone works through that grade as they learn and improve. If you had answered my question about the grade you climb honestly when I first asked you, then I wouldn't have made such a big deal about it.

I will agree with you on one point. This forum is a community, and everyone is free to express their opinions. Most people who post in the training forum are willing to engage in discussions, and they don't hide their climbing abilities. When we have a 5.10 climber lecturing 5.12s climbers on the best way to train finger strength, that drown out the voices of the people who actually know how to train to climb hard. That's a big loss for people whose goal is to climb hard.

it seems a silly question to say "is hangboarding important"

of course it's important... the question is.. WHEN you do it..

hangboarding is a great warmup/cooldown ... and also tendon/muscle maintenance during extended downtime

ondra is wrong. chris web parson says he dedicates his training to fingerboard. sean mccoll has frequent videos of it. dave macleod has multiple training videos on it. i don't know why everyone is so hung up on the opinion of 1 climber. unless all the other pro climbers have somehow offended you or you think they're all summarily dishonest. 

Aweffwef Fewfae wrote:

ondra is wrong. 

I think that's a bit unfair to Ondra. He said fingerboard isn't efficient for him, but he was speaking just for himself. He never said whether other climbers should use the fingerboard or not. Here's the whole quote from his TrainingBeta interview:

"Neely Quinn: Okay. Do you do any fingerboarding?

Adam Ondra: I’ve never found fingerboarding very efficient. Maybe it’s because I have been training for a long time just by climbing itself outdoors, a lot of times on limestone which was pretty fingery so my fingers are, I think, my strength. I have never really had any problems on pulling onto the small holds. I’ve always had a problem to make the move in between them which are very powerful or too far."

Note that he said "efficient", not "effective". Since he thinks finger strength is one of his strengths, it makes sense that he doesn't need to train it. A more efficient use of his time would be to train his weakness (power). Ondra never said that the average climber shouldn't train with the fingerboard, or fingerboard training isn't effective. It's just not for him. I don't see anything wrong with his statement.

Aweffwef Fewfae wrote:

ondra is wrong. chris web parson says he dedicates his training to fingerboard. sean mccoll has frequent videos of it. dave macleod has multiple training videos on it. i don't know why everyone is so hung up on the opinion of 1 climber. unless all the other pro climbers have somehow offended you or you think they're all summarily dishonest. 

Probably because that one climber is the strongest climber in the world.

The best climbers aren't always the best trainers and the best trainers aren't always the best climbers.  Also, different people respond to different training stimulus.  For example, I have done competitive bench pressing (yes I know it probably hurts my climbing) and at one time was in the top 20 in the nation in my weight category among all federations, and number 5 in drug tested feds.  Yet, my training partner at the time tried my training protocol and got weaker.  He then tried a different program and got stronger, and I tried that program and got weaker.  Why?  I don't know.  There are certain basics to training like maximum effort, TUT and things like that that hangboarding can add, but everyone is different.  Adam Ondra is a freak and his opinion shouldn't necessarily be the final answer in training (unless you are Adam Ondra).  Genetics do matter.  I have great genetics for bench press --- I can do practically nothing and still do a double body weight bench, yet I have to train like crazy to do V8 bouldering.  There is no true right answer but the general consensus is that hangboarding is an efficient way to get stronger fingers for most people.