Reboot

I need to back up a bit and get out a few things that I should have said from the start. This blog will primarily be focused on how to improve your climbing, with an emphasis on strength, a critical component of climbing. (Non-climbers that are interested in training will hopefully find some value here as well.) Along the way, I'm going to try and get out most of my theories on the non-training aspects of climbing as well. Questions (email) are greatly appreciated and will be answered as quickly as possible. I must also begin by disspelling some of the greatest myths in climbing. This is important because these myths are significant driving forces that hold climbers back.

Myth #1: Height is an advantage.
No, it's not. I know, you've read it in Climbing and Rock & Ice for the last 20 years. (Climbing tip: I recommend not reading climbing magazines at all.) A basic working knowledge of physics should make one wonder about the idea that height would help one's climbing.

I'll start with the empirical evidence: how tall are most good climbers? Consider the tallest 5% and shortest 5% of the population. For males this is (about) 6'3" and 5'6" and for females this is 5'9" and 5'1". Now ask yourself, how many climbers do you know of within these height ranges climb 5.14. For men, I can name Jebe Tribout, Scott Franklin, Jean-Paul Finne, and Tony Yaniro, all of whom are under 5'6"; I cannot name any men over 6'3" that climb 5.14. I'm less familiar with the women, but I know Lynn Hill is 5'1". Also, look at the rankings at 8a; you'll see that of the top ten men, 3 are 5'10", one 5'9", one 5'8", 2 5'7", one 5'4", and one 5'2". I couldn't find a man on this list over 5'10". Most top climbers I talk to have said that they consider 5'7" to 5'9" the optimal height for climbing.

What are the physics?
First of all, a smaller animal will always have a strength-to-weight ratio advantage over a larger animal. (Ants can carry up to 20 times their weight.) Look at a list of average human heights and weights. Notice the "Discount" column at the right, this is the advantage that shorter climbers get in terms of height-to-weight ratio, because remember, height (reach) grows linearly, but weight grows cubically (because it increases in 3 dimensions.)

Second of all, the hands and feet apply force through a very complicated series of levers. If you know much about levers (and fulcrums) then you know that the shorter the distance from load to fulcrum (read: fingertip to joint or wrist to elbow) the less force required to move the load (Picture: notice the weights).

Finally, the limiting factor in climbing is finger strength and endurance, not the distance between holds; and smaller climbers have an advantage in both finger strength and endurance. I've met hundreds of "short" climbers, and almost every one will agree that there is no such thing as a reach problem, only a strength problem. So, I urge you to take matters into your own hands and solve the problem that can be solved, because your height probably isn't going to change.


Myth #2: Don't worry about strength, that will come later
Well, this might be true, but what's the fun in that? Climbing magazines constantly discount the physical aspects of climbing. The fact of the matter is that to learn and grow as a climber and to get everything possible out of all aspects of climbing requires being in top physical condition. Most of the people writing these articles don't climb. Climbers that actually go climbing know that training is essential to success. I've met a lot of top climbers in the last 23 years and almost all of them are very interested in training and see it as fundamental to improving their climbing.


There are probably some more myths I should address, but these two came to mind because I see their influence on the climbing world and you must get past them in order to maximize your training and climbing.

Theories & Rules

I like to start solving (or describing) a problem at the highest level of abstraction. Training for climbing is like chess: you can't predict all possible outcomes of a move, it's a matter of feeling what works and what doesn't, of reviewing your training history, reapplying what's worked well in the past, and testing new theories. It's a blend of science and art. Also like chess, there are some highly abstracted principles that should be understood and followed before they are broken.

For chess, my rules are below; play by these rules and you'll beat 75% of the people out there.

1. Play with the pieces, i.e., never push a pawn if you don't know what to do
2. No early queen sorties
3. Castle, remember you are the king, defend yourself
4. Develop pieces with an attack, this keeps your opponent on the run
5. Don't have "grand schemes" for what's going to happen 4 moves from now, it never works.
6. When your opponent has made a move with an "obvious" response, avoid playing it. If you can find an equally good, or better move this can throw them off.

For training, my rules are (not priority ranked)...

1. The Basics
1. Listen to your body
2. Don't injure yourself
3. Start slow, then add workload
4. Train smart, not hard

2. Strength Principles
1. Strength comes from stress
2. Variety
3. Periodization
4. Don't train fine muscle movements tired

3. Force Multipliers
1. Objective landmarks
2. Set goals
3. Learn what is possible
4. If you don't have it, don't hit it

My next several blogs will go into what these mean.

Start

My birthday challenge prompted many training questions from my friends. This blog will serve as the best advice I can offer. I'll probably invite a few other authors to help me out. Don't expect frequent updates, but I'll try to get something out weekly.