Adam Ondra: "Any climber with mediocre stregnth can climb at least V8 given perfect technique" Thoughts?

Erik Keever wrote: I've concluded: Finger strength is everything, and technique is a reasonably close second. Technique makes most problems easier, strength makes *all* problems easier. Technique tells you what to do, but at some point you're not going to be able to invent a way to finesse something away. You just need to glue your hand to that despicable sloper, or pinch that hateful crimp into dust, and there's no getting around it. We can argue the exact details forever, but Ondra obviouscomes from ly conceptually right: Who here DOESN'T know at least one guy who uses huge strength to muscle his way through problems while we sit and think, "damn, if he'd learn some technique he'd go up a grade overnight"? As far as the details [because who can resist a subjective argument]... I usually have a fair shot at V6es in the gym; I can no more imagine any amount of technique bringing a V8 within reach than I can imagine technique helping me pick up a V8 engine, and for the same reason.

If you've ever projected something you'll find that holds that you previously had to go all out on with steam coming out of your ears can feel routine in the redpoint stage. Part of this has to do with the strength gains from working the moves, but I think more of it comes down to refining body positions and movement. Being stronger always helps, but conserving strength and using only what's necessary on route comes from a focus on technique.

Erik Keever wrote: I've concluded: Finger strength is everything, and technique is a reasonably close second.

No finger strength is nothing without good technique. You can't have one without the other. You can have the strongest fingers in the world but without at least decent technique you aren't going to muscle your way through all problems.

I say that coming from the V5 and V6 I have projected that felt impossible without being able to do any move until figuring out that perfect flagging and movement between moves. Once you figuring out the movement it becomes much easier.

I also think it is cool that some of these problems me and my friend climb them completely different but similar in the way we move through the problem because we both have different climbing style / strengths / reach. Not sure I can even really describe it (wish I had videos of some of the problems) because we climb it completely different and at the same time the same.

i don't really agree. i routinely watch fairly new guys paddle their feet up the wall on boulder problems at the gym, with nothing but strength yanking them up the wall. then, i will watch folks who are a lot better climbiner, that are using a lot better technique be completely unable to do the problem.

on a lot of problems, if you aren't strong enough to hold the holds, you aren't really going to be able to apply technique. i often think of the famous yaniro quote 'without power there is nothing to endure'. you could probably also say 'without power, there is no technique you could apply to make up for it'.

one thing that i have observed from hearing the 'technique trumps all' quotes is that it almost always comes from one of several groups;
1) climbers that are so strong that they can't relate to folks of average strength
2) beginners who have heard this and are just regurgitating it
3) old 5.9 chuffers who want to convince themselves (and others) that they are better climbers than the young folks who are climbing infinitely harder

slim wrote:i don't really agree. i routinely watch fairly new guys paddle their feet up the wall on boulder problems at the gym, with nothing but strength yanking them up the wall. then, i will watch folks who are a lot better climbiner, that are using a lot better technique be completely unable to do the problem. on a lot of problems, if you aren't strong enough to hold the holds, you aren't really going to be able to apply technique. i often think of the famous yaniro quote 'without power there is nothing to endure'. you could probably also say 'without power, there is no technique you could apply to make up for it'. one thing that i have observed from hearing the 'technique trumps all' quotes is that it almost always comes from one of several groups; 1) climbers that are so strong that they can't relate to folks of average strength 2) beginners who have heard this and are just regurgitating it 3) old 5.9 chuffers who want to convince themselves (and others) that they are better climbers than the young folks who are climbing infinitely harder

Gym and outdoor are 2 different things I don't think you can even compare them. I have also on sighted plenty of V5 problems in gyms and I have to project V5 outdoors.

Slim great stuff. Viper, if you've tried 5 V5s outside and 50 inside, you're bound to come out like this

Isn't it obvious you need both in varying proportions depending on the climb?

Real life example from my local boulders:

Suspended in Silence (probably ~V7/V8 after breaks): There was a "technique" start to this problem but it broke so now your only option is a big dyno from the start holds to a good jug. If you don't have the power to make that throw you will never, ever send no matter how good your technique is.

Leary Bard Arête (or really any of the other "old school" techy problems at the milks) (V5): you might be able to "paddle" your feet up the crimpy bottom section but the top half (crux for me) is insecure slab climbing up slopers and smears. If your footwork isn't on point you have a long fall in your future no matter how hard you can pull.

slim wrote:i routinely watch fairly new guys paddle their feet up the wall on boulder problems at the gym, with nothing but strength yanking them up the wall. then, i will watch folks who are a lot better climbiner, that are using a lot better technique be completely unable to do the problem. on a lot of problems, if you aren't strong enough to hold the holds, you aren't really going to be able to apply technique.

You know I'm gonna (at least partially) disagree w/ you here :) A big difference between (especially indoor) bouldering and route climbing is it typically emphasizes making the move vs being able to hold on. There are a lot of route climbing techniques that simply aren't all that important in (indoor) bouldering, like stances, static balance on 1 hand, resting, death crimp, etc, etc. On the other hand, there are a lot of general athletic skills (like someone that can dance, knows how to move, generate power, etc) that translates into bouldering movement. The types of people I've seen in your example, the novice climbers are usually athletic in some ways (not just purely bicep-curl strong) while the more seasoned climbers pretty much suck in every non-endurance based sport, or have performed static movements for so long that they've become bonded by that style (one literally have to unlearn things to get to the same starting point. I know you think I'm strong, but even I had to unlearn quite a bit when I started to boulder for real).

reboot wrote: A big difference between (especially indoor) bouldering and route climbing is it typically emphasizes making the move vs being able to hold on.

Hmmm.. whereas I've experienced situations and read studies on this question which indicate that pure contact strength is more a factor in bouldering than in any other aspect of our sport. This would suggest that "holding on" is more important.
As well, I've always been a clumsy but very powerful climber. Likewise, my bouldering ability always far exceeded what I could to on routes, by correlation or comparisons. Yeah 12's are hard, but flashing V5/V6 was common place when I tried. I was the guy who used to campus holds other people couldn't hold onto for long. I credit that. Too bad I never liked bouldering.

Of course, now I'm just the guy who can't straighten all of his fingers. But that's another story. Crimp hard, pay later.

Tony B wrote: Hmmm.. whereas I've experienced situations and read studies on this question which indicate that pure contact strength is more a factor in bouldering than in any other aspect of our sport. This would suggest that "holding on" is more important.

I've read that too...but I've found those studies lacking as they don't necessarily measure the actual "contact" strength. In my experience, quality dynamic movement greatly reduces the contact strength required (minimize residual momentum, and in the direction where the hold can best be utilized (i.e., fall into, not away from the hold you are trying to grab), and after you've made contact with the hold, body control that let's you gradually absorb the residual momentum). A lot of time, the finger/hand strength of the lower hand (that' in contact with a hold the whole time) can be even more important.

reboot wrote: I've read that too...but I've found those studies lacking as they don't necessarily measure the actual "contact" strength.

What about the ones that have shown actual measurements of grip strength to climbing style, or the flattening of the finger bones? Do I incorrectly recall that those showed changes specific to bouldering?

Tony B wrote: What about the ones that have shown actual measurements of grip strength to climbing style, or the flattening of the finger bones? Do I incorrectly recall that those showed changes specific to bouldering?

Do you have the link? I've always heard "contact strength" described as some dynamic finger strength that's different from static (i.e. hangboard) strength. No doubt bouldering requires more max finger strength than route climbing, I'm just not convinced it's primarily "contact strength".

If you watched the IFSC bouldering finals in Vail this year, you may recall a problem where Ondra used all sorts of body positioning to try the final move statically but failed to send, where as another competitor flashed the problem effortlessly with a dyno. You can really see that Ondra is very technical in his approach to every problem, but that didn’t help him win the title.

You need both strength and technique in climbing. Like some already mentioned, you can’t pull your way up a pure friction slab no matter how strong you are, and you can’t “technique” your way out of a dyno when there’s no other option. Which one is more important depends entirely on your weakness as a climber. Someone who is strong but with bad technique should naturally focus more on technique development, while someone who is overly technical but fairly weak in comparison can probably benefit more from strength improvement.

reboot wrote: Do you have the link? I've always heard "contact strength" described as some dynamic finger strength that's different from static (i.e. hangboard) strength. No doubt bouldering requires more max finger strength than route climbing, I'm just not convinced it's primarily "contact strength".

Printed in the mags some years back... sorry, no link right now to that.
I only found this primary study on finger bones with respect to sport climbers:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/224…
And a few (IE's here) on Grip:
pelagiaresearchlibrary.com/…

But none of them for boulderers. That could mean I miss-recall, as I would likely write off bouldering and sport climbing both as things I don't really do and move on with that notion. It could also mean that I am not finding the right link, thus why I asked.
You do find frequent reference to 'contact strength' in bouldering articles, whereas I generally find my failings on sport climbs to be endurance-oriented.
That said, bear in mind I tend to be naturally strong but don't train (IE go to a gym), or for that matter even climb very often. I may not be the 'average' climber at my level.

I just found the turn in the direction of this discussion kind of interesting as it was not consistent with my impressions.

Jon Frisby wrote:Slim great stuff. Viper, if you've tried 5 V5s outside and 50 inside, you're bound to come out like this

I climb outside alot more than I do in gyms. I also find alot of gym routes are impossible to climb for me because I have a negative 4 ape index which can cause major problems on routes set indoor. Outdoor you can normally find a way around it. However I still find indoor routes to be much easier than outdoor because you normally can look at the route and know exactly what is intended. Outdoor you may be missing that hidden hold or some strange beta that can't be created in a gym.

The way I think about it is not that technique is unimportant, but that it takes relatively little effort to sufficiently train technique as a by-product of more physical training (whether strength, power, PE, etc.).

Specifically, I think once you get past a point (what that point actually is -- 5.11, 5.12, 5.13 -- is unimportant and probably varies by individual), there's very limited benefits to be made in training technique. At that point, you probably are pretty competent at heel hooking, backstepping, flagging, etc.

The challenge becomes applying that technique extremely efficiently and precisely on climbs of increasing difficulty. And the best way to work on technique in this sense is by giving burns on routes that are too hard and making links. And the only way you can really give worthwhile burns on too-hard routes is if you're strong and powerful enough to thug your way through the route while you figure out how to optimize your technique. Obviously this isn't true in 100% of cases, but I think a lot of the times, technique is playing catch up with strength/power, and to improve the former you have to start with improving the latter.

Many people say that 13b/c is about the point where it's just about getting stronger and getting technique that is idiosyncratic to the route. Dave Graham implies the same thing re: bouldering in this: vimeo.com/6048642

..when he talks about all the people climbing V11 and wondering why they can't do V14 because at that point the difference is mostly about technique

climbing friend,

This is about those peoples feeling better of themselves wanting to say to you in nice way while pretending not to - ho ho ho, ha ha ha, I climb the v13 and you cannot. You are weak and pathetic and have little to no worth as human being, ho ho ho!!!

That's very true.  I'm also curious as to whether anyone actually found the interview where Ondra said this; I was looking for it recently and could never find the reference.

I think that it's hard to focus on technique when you're struggling because you're not strong enough. Keeping your feet from cutting is also very heavily dependent on core strength.  Heck, being able to stand on tiny edges is dependent on foot strength.  Conversely, strength and power come from being able to utilize your entire body and to use body positioning in order to maximize how much you can crank down on shitty holds.

One of the most frustrating phenomena in climbing is what I call "pumped stupid."  Whenever I start getting tired, I always mistakenly believe I can make up for my waning strength through technique; instead, I end up climbing WORSE as I get more pumped.

Love Adam. However his idea of mediocre strength is very different from most. I was struck when I started climbing by how some moves were just impossible due to deficient finger strength 

This is true. I've seen these people around the gym. They have years of climbing experience and without climbing for months can still be an off the couch V8 climber.