making campus-training more incremental
|
I think an important factor in avoiding injury is to progressively increase my difficulty or resistance in small amounts. In my campus-board training, I like to do very short sequences or sometimes just single moves, so it gets a bit tricky to avoid big "jumps" in difficulty. |
|
One thing that I have been wanting to do when I get around to building my own campus board is to see if I can mount the rungs on sliding rails so that I can have an infinitely adjustable set rather having to deal with the large gaps in difficultly. It allows you to stretch for just an extra half inch and see how that works. |
|
Yes that sounds like great idea for a home campus board. But I don't have one yet.
? or perhaps even "inter-leave" holds at different distance: Like say a 5-inch-wide hold which is 7 inches above the rung below, to its right a 5-inch-wide hold which is 8 inches above, next to the right a 5-inch-wide hold which is 7 inches above, and finally a 5-inch-wide hold which is again 8 inches above. . (the public climbing gym at the Salewa equipment co. headquarters has implemented inter-leaving in their campus board, but it's with rungs of different depths, smaller versus bigger, but not different reach ranges).
. (Now if only I could talk my local climbing gym into this second approach) Ken |
|
Not sure that adding weight is a good idea... Maybe others can weigh in on that. |
|
I've seen a campus board with rungs on a sliding rail system, it was pretty cool. I enjoy having "half-rungs" so I can work up in smaller increments. |
|
My progression on my home campus board started with the big rungs and looked like this: |
|
Adam Leedy wrote:I place my medium rungs between the large ones, so now I can use the big rungs as sort of half rungs to practice bigger moves on the mediums as I build up to 1-5 on the mediums.Yes vertical inter-leaving is another good trick for getting more funtionality without more board real estate. I've seen two gyms who do that. Only problem is that if the holds are too close, the bigger ones get in the way of easily latching the smaller ones -- especially on down-climbing. Requires more precision "targeting" of the arm motion, less focus on training contact strength of fingers. Sometimes I've tried campusing from a wooden rung below a fingerboard. Really hard for me to target up to latch an inset pocket in the fingerboard. I'm so accustomed to deadpointing to just a little above an outward-lying horizontal edge, then coming down onto it just a little for the latch. So with a pocket I keep hitting the fingerboard surface just above the pocket. And that incremental progession of extending range-of-motion with clever choices of "half-moves" makes a lot of sense. Ken |
|
kenr wrote: Yes vertical inter-leaving is another good trick for getting more funtionality without more board real estate. I've seen two gyms who do that. Only problem is that if the holds are too close, the bigger ones get in the way of easily latching the smaller ones -- especially on down-climbing. Requires more precision "targeting" of the arm motion, less focus on training contact strength of fingers. Sometimes I've tried campusing from a wooden rung below a fingerboard. Really hard for me to target up to latch an inset pocket in the fingerboard. I'm so accustomed to deadpointing to just a little above an outward-lying horizontal edge, then coming down onto it just a little for the latch. So with a pocket I keep hitting the fingerboard surface just above the pocket. And that incremental progession of extending range-of-motion with clever choices of "half-moves" makes a lot of sense. KenWith the rungs at the standard 22cm apart and the smaller ones directly in the middle I've never noticed any interference at all. I wouldn't try to squeeze in all three sixes, that would probable be an issue. Campusing to a pocket on a fingerboard sounds like begging for injury. I don't think I'll ever try that. |
|
Adam Leedy wrote: With the rungs at the standard 22cm apart and the smaller ones directly in the middle I've never noticed any interference at all.Well there's several "standards" . . . my experience visiting many gyms with campus boards around USA and west Europe. (Different campus boards vary in every possible way.) The one at the gym closest to me just now has 20cm spacing -- just measured it yesterda - (except for the Super-big wood rungs which have 40cm spacing : obvious candidates for some vertical inter-weaving). My favorite gym for incremental-friendly campusing in USA has around 18cm. At home I don't have a full board, but I tried packing them in closer. One gym I know uses different spacing for different size rungs - (so the small Metolius rungs get the tightest spacing). Even at 18cm it's only a slight drawback to inter-leave a big Metolius into the midst of a ladder of medium-width Metolius rungs -- mainly on down-climbing. At home it was more of an issue, since I was squeezing them in under a doorway - (why I don't have a home board). Just a warning for those who might want to take vertical inter-weaving farther. . (I do think horizontal inter-leaving is worth considering, for allowing fine-tuning of reach-range options.) Ken |
|
I like adding weight sometimes, other times I like to one arm campus on "sloper jugs" helps with 1-5-9+++++ |
|
I'm nowhere near 1-5-9 or any sort of "one arm" campus moves. But just yesterday I found I benefited from playing with big moves on super-big holds -- so it was all about arms and confidence, freed from the constraints of my finger strength. |
|
That's what we have (pvc with sandpaper) and they're great for working really big moves like 1-5-8. If I don't feel like I can 1 arm campus "up" the board, I 1 arm campus down the board, as I would for negatives. |
|
Trycycle wrote:I've seen a campus board with rungs on a sliding rail system, it was pretty cool. I enjoy having "half-rungs" so I can work up in smaller increments.How would this "sliding rail system" look like? I have a hard time imagining how that would look like. I'm building a freestanding campus board at home. |
|
Basically there are 2 vertically oriented channels on which the rungs are able to slide up and down. The rungs are attached to the channels via a mechanism similar to quick release on a bike wheel. this way the rungs can be affixed at any point along the rail system. |
|
Trycycle wrote:Basically there are 2 vertically oriented channels on which the rungs are able to slide up and down. The rungs are attached to the channels via a mechanism similar to quick release on a bike wheel. this way the rungs can be affixed at any point along the rail system.So basically no screws required then? Any schematics/picture for that? |
|
Trycycle wrote:Basically there are 2 vertically oriented channels on which the rungs are able to slide up and down. The rungs are attached to the channels via a mechanism similar to quick release on a bike wheel. this way the rungs can be affixed at any point along the rail system.A somewhat off-the-shelf way to implement that might be to purchase big pipe clamps. A variation on it would be to use vertical rods with notches in them -- like adjustable-height headrests in cars. You'd have to live with fixed increments of range adjustment, but if the increments are small enough. There's also variable-height metal shelving, often done with 1-inch increments. Ken |