|
|
|
|
kaizen
Jan 15, 2012, 9:02 PM
Post #76 of 151
(15150 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 17, 2009
Posts: 154
|
JoeNYC wrote: mr.tastycakes wrote: JoeNYC wrote: Likewise, reading a calculus book is useless compared to actually doing calculus on your own, which is why the books are filled with problems, and why the SCC cant do the same work. Be honest, have you even read the SCC? The book is filled with exercises and drills that you're supposed to do on your own. The book encourages climbing with others and discussing beta and the nuances of your movement. You don't get better from just reading the goddamn words on the page; you need to get on the wall and work out the concepts you've read about, and no one said you didn't. How about a rule: you can't criticize or downplay the usefulness of the Self-Coached Climber unless you've read the book and made an effort to do the exercises and follow the program. Really, give it a try. See what all the fuss is about. Numbnuts, how about you consider three things I already said, and then decide if you even have any beef with my argument again: The first point you probably missed me saying is that the book doesn't actually do the work; it is not the end-all-be-all discussion of climbing movement which takes you on a guaranteed journey to 5.14 enlightenment. There is nothing special about a book that provides a bunch of activities for finding your balance, or experimenting with your technique with your friends....et cetera. Second, it might be nice to hear someone say it, and use some scientifico-physiologico jargon along the way, but I seriously believe serious people already do this on their own. Who doesn't experiment with beta on a boulder problem or watch other people climb? The book doesn't make you "feel" what works, it merely "tells" you to work on some concepts...great. In fact, perhaps the ONLY way to get better, is by actually putting in the work. (This is an exegesis of the claim i said where Jay or anyone makes the fallacy of denying the antecedent. An argument which the form: If P (You don't read the SCC) then Q (You will not get better), not P, therefore not Q is not logically founded.) Third, I wouldn't be making all this fuss without having read it, still I should've known that the consensus on an internet forum about climbing would say "read a book to get better" or "hire a coach." I am only highlighting all this to point out the missing emphasis lost in the first few statements given to the the Original Poster between reading, coaching, and being better. The book isn't necessary or the best way to get better, do i seriously need to reiterate that? Hold on, ready? People learn differently....Holy Shit! I'm done defending "getting better at climbing by climbing," whereby in "climbing" i understand trying with other people. Clearly, I'm preaching to the wrong choir on this website, mine must be at the crag by now. Finally, I was mainly cross with the guy who must've read "Either/Or" a bit to literally. I regret even saying anything, but at least it killed 10 minutes on a rest day.
you're obnoxious
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Jan 16, 2012, 12:36 AM
Post #77 of 151
(15132 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
Joe, don't worry. You have done a commendable job wading through the morass of strawmen.
It cracks me up when people climbing 3 whole number grades below the current world standard think the best advice is found in a book which helped them advance from 5.10a to 5.12 (new-school).
I doubt the real, world class .14d+ and up climbers don't read or train according to SCC guidelines.
In short, It's a fine book. But the BEST climbers don't use it.
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Jan 16, 2012, 1:03 AM
Post #78 of 151
(15126 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
onceahardman wrote: In short, It's a fine book. But the BEST climbers don't use it.
Too bad the BEST climbers are not the target audience of the book.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Jan 16, 2012, 6:03 PM
Post #79 of 151
(15071 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
onceahardman wrote: Joe, don't worry. You have done a commendable job wading through the morass of strawmen. It cracks me up when people climbing 3 whole number grades below the current world standard think the best advice is found in a book which helped them advance from 5.10a to 5.12 (new-school). I doubt the real, world class .14d+ and up climbers don't read or train according to SCC guidelines. In short, It's a fine book. But the BEST climbers don't use it.
That's an assumption that may or may not be true. And even if it is, the contention that appears to be at issue now is that the SCC and a personal coach are the two best ways to get good.
I'll argue that many of the top climbers in the world right now have had such coaches at some point or another in their careers. And of those coaches, I'm betting the majority have used SCC at least in part to formulate their curricula.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jan 16, 2012, 6:50 PM
Post #80 of 151
(15064 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
jt512 wrote: cracklover wrote: I did gymnastics when I was a kid. Apples and oranges. Things happen much too fast to analyze what exactly went wrong in the middle of a routine, or even in a specific move. You absolutely *need* a coach, or a video of yourself, or something equivalent to know how to correct it. Not so in climbing. lena_chita wrote: Of course you need to figure out how the moves "feel" and learn a lot of things on your own, including how to trouble-shoot and change when the things you are doing aren't working. Yes, that's part of it. And there's more than that. If you are creative and really paying attention, you can discover every single technique simply by feeling out the body position that works with the combination of holds and the position you need to move into next. Some of which you can apply next time on another route. That's the definition of learned technique. But JT seems unwilling to admit that even your simple trial and error method (if learned from each time) allows you to build a significant body of techniques. In reply to: BUT... Coaching is effective precisely BECAUSE your own "feedpack" from body to brain is not necessarily perfect or accurate when learning new skills that your body has no framework of reference for. I've no doubt that really good coaching could accelerate one's learning curve. But it's by no means necessary. In reply to: cracklover wrote: I'm reminded of how when I was a total n00b climbing with other n00bs, everyone around me wanted beta to figure out how to do a climb, and I wanted to figure it out for myself. Not because I was stubborn (although that may be) but because I was learning skills that I did not want to short-circuit; the skills around listening to the interplay between body and rock, and learning how to adjust to find the balance required in the moment. Speaking from personal experience, you just don't necessarily "feel" that one shoulder is slightly higher, and the back is arched a bit too much when you are in the middle of learning a complex movement skill. Your mind is trying to keep track of so many things at once, and it is very hard to analyze all components of that complex move when you are in the middle of it. You just feel that something was "off", and as a result of it you failed, but not quite sure why, or what to change next time. But if someone points out to you that there is a specific thing that you need to pay attention to, next time you are more likely consciously focus on that, and try to change that specific thing. Far from giving you a micro-beta, a good coach would let you figure out a lot of things on your own, IMO, and step in only when you have tried a few things. But even then, he would point things out, and then it is up to you to figure out how to physicly move your body in that way, and how that move feels like. So the coach in no way implies that you can turn off your brain and not pay attention to your balance, and how the right move feels, etc. etc. You are still storing information on how the move felt when it was "wrong", and how the move felt when it was "right", and building a "library" of moves in your brain that would form the basis of further improvement. Then I guess I've never seen a "good" climbing coach. Nor, when I played soccer, did I ever have a "good" coach. The best climbing coaches I've seen basically give good beta - beta the climber hadn't thought of, or maybe even didn't know how to do. I guess that helps the climber learn the appropriate movement for the situation. But it's a far cry from the super-coach you describe above, who can apparently tell from 50 feet away if your back is arching 1/2 second before it should be. In reply to: I don't think there is an argument that you CAN, and many climbers DO, figure these things out on their own. But the process is more efficient with a coach. And that is how I took the meaning of jt512's post. Well 1 - that's not what he said, and 2 - if 90% of your learning really comes from intense personal focus on how your body and the rock are interacting, then why all the focus in this thread on external learning? I would posit that if people paid more attention to simple things like understanding *exactly* what happened just before they fell, and understanding how to do transitions efficiency, they would learn everything a coach could teach them. Sure, it might take longer, but IMO, it would be learned more fully, since it came from your own experience. GO Spoken like a true trad climber. We're talking about movement quality, the essence of good climbing. You talk of "techniques," discreet units that you can list, and you think movement is so unimportant that you relegate it to "transitions," as if what really matters is getting stable in the next hand jam. You are precisely the kind of climber who would benefit the most from the Self-Coached Climber. I predict that it would completely change the way you think about climbing. Jay
Well, I am interested in trad climbing, but you've created a false dichotomy. This idea that trad climbers don't care about efficient movement, while sport climbers do, is laughable. Anyway, it's a meaningless distinction, since I personally climb more in the gym and on sport routes than I do trad, especially in the winter. And I don't personally know any other strong trad climbers who aren't also into sport climbing - as training if nothing else.
Anyway, yes, technique is indeed all about movement, balance, and to a lesser extent, how you use different kinds of holds. I'm not sure where you get the idea that I think movement is unimportant.
As for what I mean by a "transition" - it is not how to get from one hand jam to the next. It is how to efficiently move from one distinct set of motions that has a natural flow (a sequence) into another. This is often where I see a lot of decent climbers (myself included) use up a ton of energy needlessly. On routes that are hard for me, it takes a lot of thought, and sometimes a clever solution, to set myself up to transition into the next sequence quickly and gracefully, and it often makes the difference between whether I have the energy left to successfully execute the next sequence or not.
I think that you and I probably have very similar ideas about technique, actually. Where we diverge is in our idea of how to get it. I maintain that more attention to internal processes - such as refinement of your own feedback loops, development of better body awareness, and better problem-solving and creativity in dealing with new and unknown situations will pay huge dividends for the average climber. Whereas you seem to be suggesting that such internal processes will never allow a climber to develop decent technique, and it is only through external processes that good movement skills can be taught.
As for SCC being of great benefit to me - sadly, I have not found it so. I will admit that the fault may be mine, as I only made it about halfway through the book. I found most of the expository stuff to be obvious, while some was misleading, and the exercises (again, only at the beginning of the book) to be of little benefit. Perhaps if I could have slogged through to the end, I would've found something of more benefit. I've heard that the training techniques around pyramids and such are great - and I may incorporate them into my own workouts someday.
Don't take this the wrong way - I am not a detractor of the book. I've no doubt that for many people it has been an eye-opener, and a huge benefit. I just don't think it's the only way to develop technique.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
younggun
Jan 16, 2012, 8:06 PM
Post #81 of 151
(15049 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 8, 2005
Posts: 31
|
The best way to learn technique and movement is to climb a lot. In every move, there are numerous contractions and balances of different muscles, that can only be learned by feel which results in proper body positions and good technique over time. What we are really talking about is being efficient. Reading a book and having a coach can help but neither will teach you movement skills that you can only get from climbing by feel.
The SCS is a decent book but by no means the end all be all of climbing books. I disagree with plenty of information and advise in that book as well as other books. There is no gold standard or accepted validated way of training in climbing, because the sport is still new.
Many super high end climbers in the USA do not have coaches and have only had coaches when they were in their youth competing. If you saw the top 5 youth coaching programs in the USA, 30% of what they all do would be the same, 70% would be different. In gymnastics, basketball and other main stream sports, 80% of those programs would be identical.
The bottom line is that other sports have it figured out and have good coaching, climbing does not. Nobody has found the holly grail. That is why you should really just climb more to get better, read the books later and get a coach to help you for that last 5% improvement.
|
|
|
|
|
bearbreeder
Jan 16, 2012, 8:45 PM
Post #82 of 151
(15041 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2009
Posts: 1960
|
odd that all those strong foreign climbers who speak and read minimal engrish can climb better than many here
maybe they used google translator on the SCC ...
or maybe they all have coaches... that must be it
im still wondering if mr honnold or croft have coaches or read the SCC ... i dont know about you but when you solo astroman and the rostrum in a day, half dome, and moonlight buttress ... plus can send cobra crack and ambrosia ... id think that yr climbing is pretty efficient
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Jan 16, 2012, 10:08 PM
Post #83 of 151
(15025 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
j_ung wrote: onceahardman wrote: Joe, don't worry. You have done a commendable job wading through the morass of strawmen. It cracks me up when people climbing 3 whole number grades below the current world standard think the best advice is found in a book which helped them advance from 5.10a to 5.12 (new-school). I doubt the real, world class .14d+ and up climbers don't read or train according to SCC guidelines. In short, It's a fine book. But the BEST climbers don't use it. That's an assumption that may or may not be true. And even if it is, the contention that appears to be at issue now is that the SCC and a personal coach are the two best ways to get good. I'll argue that many of the top climbers in the world right now have had such coaches at some point or another in their careers. And of those coaches, I'm betting the majority have used SCC at least in part to formulate their curricula.
That's true. I certainly have no data supporting the idea of truly top-tier climbers not using SCC. As for what "you'll argue", I doubt you do either, but I'm willing to be corrected.
Let me tell you how I arrived at my opinion.
How many American climbers have climbed a consensus 5.15 (9a+)? Five? Ten?
How many French? Spanish? German? Italian?
Dozens? A hundred? Two hundred?
I have my doubts that Paxti Usobiaga has read SCC, or that he has a coach who follows that book. Yet he has onsighted at least two routes harder than 5.14c, and has climbed 9a+ second try.
Like I said, I have no problems with SCC, it is fine, and I know it has helped many to improve. But the popularity of that book seems to have spawned a generation of True Believers, who believe that only in The Book is found The Path to Real Enlightenment. Without The Book, improvement is not possible.
My opinion is, that position is easily falsified.
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Jan 16, 2012, 10:25 PM
Post #84 of 151
(15021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
bearbreeder wrote: odd that all those strong foreign climbers who speak and read minimal engrish can climb better than many here maybe they used google translator on the SCC ... or maybe they all have coaches... that must be it im still wondering if mr honnold or croft have coaches or read the SCC ... i dont know about you but when you solo astroman and the rostrum in a day, half dome, and moonlight buttress ... plus can send cobra crack and ambrosia ... id think that yr climbing is pretty efficient
Uhhh... since most of your examples are citing Honnold, not Croft, I'm going to call you out here. Honnold is very much a product of gym/coached/comp climbing culture. The reason that he is so good is that he's one of the fairly common-nowdays v-dubbledigits gym cockroaches who was steered ("coached?") toward more traditional disciplines, and thus applied his mutant plastic skills to real rock and real headgames.
I don't know by whom, or how structured it was, but trust me, Alex was "coached" just the same way that any other exceptional youth climber in the gyms these days has been.
|
|
|
|
|
bearbreeder
Jan 16, 2012, 10:34 PM
Post #85 of 151
(15018 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2009
Posts: 1960
|
camhead wrote: Uhhh... since most of your examples are citing Honnold, not Croft, I'm going to call you out here. Honnold is very much a product of gym/coached/comp climbing culture. The reason that he is so good is that he's one of the fairly common-nowdays v-dubbledigits gym cockroaches who was steered ("coached?") toward more traditional disciplines, and thus applied his mutant plastic skills to real rock and real headgames. I don't know by whom, or how structured it was, but trust me, Alex was "coached" just the same way that any other exceptional youth climber in the gyms these days has been.
going to the climbing gym means one is coached????
guess that every gym gumbie is coached then ... and has read the SCC 
name me one single "coached" or SCC climber (whatever that is) who can solo moolight buttress or half dome ... or even a single other "coached in gym" climber ... i bet he didnt get his "efficiency" from those "gym" sources, if it was then we should see a whole whack of gym gumbies soloing el cap
mr croft was one of the best climbers of his generation and likely still pulls harder trad than anyone here ... guess he aint that efficient or skilled ...
was alexander huber coached ... he climbs harder than anyone else here ...
i dont believe dean potter was ever coached .... maybe he has reads the SCC religiously? ... perhaps RC "experts" will tell us hes not a good climber ... despite climbing harder and bolder than most people here ...
there is nothing wrong with coaches or particular books .. but to say they are the only way, or perhaps even the best way to progress belies the fact that alot of the top climbers of their generation likely have never used them
they do however have on thing in common ... they climb ... alot ... a f-ckag lot ..and they climb hard ... effing hard
(This post was edited by bearbreeder on Jan 16, 2012, 10:45 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Jan 16, 2012, 11:12 PM
Post #86 of 151
(15003 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
bearbreeder wrote: going to the climbing gym means one is coached????
I never said that. You are pulling names out of your ass, to somehow support your claim that coaching is not necessary. Croft, Potter, blablabla.
Here are some names for you: Matt Segal, Tommy Caldwell, Beth Rodden, Chris Lindner. All of them are products of heavily coached, structured training. And that's just the trad climbers, I'm not going to list all the sportos or boulderers.
You mentioned Euros climbing so much better than Americans; a lot of that is because they have much more structured coaching and training regimes in their climbing culture.
Furthermore, since climbing, even comp climbing, is nowhere near as structured or organized as any other sport, you need to realize that when someone says "it is important to be coached/have a coach," it does not mean "have a coach the same way a baseball player or gymnast does."
Finally, don't get me wrong. I don't agree with jt512 that the golden combo of a Coach and the SCC is the only way to hone your technique. If JT really knew what he was talking about in terms of training and conditioning, he would not be hanging out in this small pool; he'd be getting his ass handed to him in training threads on mountainproject or 8a.nu. I just have a problem with people citing the names of exceptional people as evidence that everyday climbers should simply "climb more" and somehow they'll get better.
|
|
|
|
|
bearbreeder
Jan 16, 2012, 11:43 PM
Post #87 of 151
(14994 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2009
Posts: 1960
|
camhead wrote: everyday climbers should simply "climb more" and somehow they'll get better.
they should get out and climb more and harder...
one of my partners has been climbing for ~3 years, rarely goes into the gym, doesnt have a coach, and doesnt have SCC ... and hes done up to 5.12+ last year ... he just climbs as often and hard as he can everytime he goes out
climbing is what you make out of it ... but the basic fact is that if you dont go and climb often and hard, it is quite difficult to "get better"
the above examples were given to show that you dont NEED to have a coach or SCC to progress
but you DO need to go out and climb ... preferably the old fashion way, with someone better than you ... at least you KNOW they can do the climb
(This post was edited by bearbreeder on Jan 16, 2012, 11:51 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Jan 16, 2012, 11:59 PM
Post #88 of 151
(14982 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
bearbreeder wrote: they should get out and climb more and harder... one of my partners has been climbing for ~3 years, rarely goes into the gym, doesnt have a coach, and doesnt have SCC ... and hes done up to 5.12+ last year ... he just climbs as often and hard as he can everytime he goes out climbing is what you make out of it ... but the basic fact is that if you dont go and climb often and hard, it is quite difficult to "get better" the above examples were given to show that you dont NEED to have a coach or SCC to progress but you DO need to go out and climb ... preferably the old fashion way, with someone better than you ... at least you KNOW they can do the climb
Again, you are using anecdotes ("I have a friend who climbs 12+"...) to support your point. This is useless. For every person who excels naturally, there are a dozen who could do better with structured training.
And why are you diametrically opposing coaching/structured training with climbing outside more? Someone has only 28 hours (four climbing days) a month to climb outside. Who's going to do better, someone who "just climbs" or someone who is training regularly, sets goals, and gets coached so that those 28 hours really count?
|
|
|
|
|
bearbreeder
Jan 17, 2012, 12:07 AM
Post #89 of 151
(14978 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2009
Posts: 1960
|
camhead wrote: [ Again, you are using anecdotes ("I have a friend who climbs 12+"...) to support your point. This is useless. For every person who excels naturally, there are a dozen who could do better with structured training. And why are you diametrically opposing coaching/structured training with climbing outside more? Someone has only 28 hours (four climbing days) a month to climb outside. Who's going to do better, someone who "just climbs" or someone who is training regularly, sets goals, and gets coached so that those 28 hours really count?
im not opposed to it at all ... im opposed to anyone saying coaching or the SCC is the ONLY way ... there is enough evidence to show that it is not ...
a person does not need a coach or the SCC to get goals, or "train" himself, etc ... many do that on their own ... what they DO need IMO is to climb inside or outside ... and good partners, preferably better ones, to hep them with their mistakes ...
the best "coach" who aint a coach that you can get is a partner to climb with that climbs better than you and has done the style of climbing and routes you want to do ... that IMO will help you more than any coaching lesson or book
and yes i do own a copy of the SCC
|
|
|
|
|
drivel
Jan 17, 2012, 12:13 AM
Post #90 of 151
(14973 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2010
Posts: 2459
|
sandeld wrote: Just interested in other people's experiences. I don't think one way is better than another as long as it works for you in reaching your goals in the most timely way possible. Some people can learn by reading. Others just need to watch others. Most people probably need a mix of visual plus explanation. And of course, there's the less athletically inclined that need one-on-one, hands-on instruction. Personally, I've always been very good at mimicking. I've been climbing less than a year and I have gotten very very little instruction. Mostly all of my movement/technique has been learned by watching dvd's and other climbers in the gym. Lucky me, eh? What's your story?
Joined a climbing gym as a teenager over a decade ago, was coached mostly by being one of the only teenagers at a gym full of college kids and weekend warriors. My Sr. year, was coached somewhat more formally by one of the middle-aged climbers who was willing to call himself "coach" and escort me to competitions, since my parents would not go.
Spent nearly every weekend in college driving to climb outside, and was mentored by a series of more experienced sport climbers. Redpointed my first 5.12's. Hooked up with a trad climber who taught me the basics of gear and multipitch. Terrible lover, but fairly good climbing partner.
Eventually hooked up with my life partner, who is a stronger climber than me. He's been a steadfast and supportive climbing partner, and we've built a circle of friends (both at our local bouldering co-op and imaginary internet g3rks) who are all both strong and motivated.
I have also cross-trained, on and off, with solo and partnered jazz dance, which I actually think helps quite a lot.
But if I were to distill it down to one thing, I'd say friends who are near your level who are strongly motivated. Like coaches, but less transactional.
None of that means shit without personal motivation to improve, though. If you don't care about getting better, if you only care about "having fun," then you won't get better, because you won't do what needs to be done, whether it's training more often, or in a highly specific way, or whatever. I don't climb as hard as a lot of my friends, because I'm not motivated to train as meticulously. I think it's boring and I get ADD. So I train by "just climbing," and I don't send as hard.
|
|
|
|
|
olderic
Jan 17, 2012, 2:43 AM
Post #91 of 151
(14954 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2003
Posts: 1539
|
camhead wrote: Here are some names for you: Matt Segal, Tommy Caldwell, Beth Rodden, Chris Lindner. All of them are products of heavily coached, structured training. And that's just the trad climbers, I'm not going to list all the sportos or boulderers. .
I think you are off base with 2 out of your 4 examples. The primary influence of Tommy and Chris was their fathers. I don't think there was much formal coaching but there was a hell of a lot of climbing. Another example that has been mentioned as Alex H. He certainly went through all the JCCA (now USAClimbing) stuff although I don't know much formal coaching was involved. I do know that my son - who never had a second of formal coaching - consistently beat him at nationals.
Nothing wrong with coaching - the Euros who are more advanced then us - in just about types of climbing (except maybe ethics) embrace coaching more then we do, If that is what it takes to motivate someone = great. But climbing isn't that complicated - any reasonably intelligent person should be able to figure out how if they are motivated.
as far as the SCC I think it's pretty lightweight - basically recycled a lot of stuff from other sports and sexed it up with all that Warrior's Way crap. But if that is what motivates you so be it.
|
|
|
|
|
drivel
Jan 17, 2012, 2:54 AM
Post #92 of 151
(14940 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2010
Posts: 2459
|
olderic wrote: camhead wrote: Here are some names for you: Matt Segal, Tommy Caldwell, Beth Rodden, Chris Lindner. All of them are products of heavily coached, structured training. And that's just the trad climbers, I'm not going to list all the sportos or boulderers. . I think you are off base with 2 out of your 4 examples. The primary influence of Tommy and Chris was their fathers. I don't think there was much formal coaching but there was a hell of a lot of climbing. ...snip...
if having a father that takes you climbing every weekend doesn't count as coaching, I dunno what does.
|
|
|
|
|
drivel
Jan 17, 2012, 2:56 AM
Post #93 of 151
(14938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2010
Posts: 2459
|
drivel wrote: olderic wrote: camhead wrote: Here are some names for you: Matt Segal, Tommy Caldwell, Beth Rodden, Chris Lindner. All of them are products of heavily coached, structured training. And that's just the trad climbers, I'm not going to list all the sportos or boulderers. . I think you are off base with 2 out of your 4 examples. The primary influence of Tommy and Chris was their fathers. I don't think there was much formal coaching but there was a hell of a lot of climbing. ...snip... if having a father that takes you climbing every weekend doesn't count as coaching, I dunno what does.
i mean really. lol.
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Jan 17, 2012, 2:59 AM
Post #94 of 151
(14934 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
olderic wrote: camhead wrote: Here are some names for you: Matt Segal, Tommy Caldwell, Beth Rodden, Chris Lindner. All of them are products of heavily coached, structured training. And that's just the trad climbers, I'm not going to list all the sportos or boulderers. . I think you are off base with 2 out of your 4 examples. The primary influence of Tommy and Chris was their fathers. I don't think there was much formal coaching but there was a hell of a lot of climbing. Another example that has been mentioned as Alex H. He certainly went through all the JCCA (now USAClimbing) stuff although I don't know much formal coaching was involved. I do know that my son - who never had a second of formal coaching - consistently beat him at nationals. Nothing wrong with coaching - the Euros who are more advanced then us - in just about types of climbing (except maybe ethics) embrace coaching more then we do, If that is what it takes to motivate someone = great. But climbing isn't that complicated - any reasonably intelligent person should be able to figure out how if they are motivated. as far as the SCC I think it's pretty lightweight - basically recycled a lot of stuff from other sports and sexed it up with all that Warrior's Way crap. But if that is what motivates you so be it.
Uhhh... are you serious? if you don't think that TC and CL were coached by their fathers, then I have nothing else to say to you.
I agree with you on the SCC, though.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jan 17, 2012, 3:05 AM
Post #95 of 151
(14928 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
olderic wrote: Nothing wrong with coaching - the Euros who are more advanced then us - in just about types of climbing (except maybe ethics) embrace coaching more then we do, If that is what it takes to motivate someone = great. But climbing isn't that complicated - any reasonably intelligent person should be able to figure out how if they are motivated.
Reminds me of that quote by Richard Feynman about quantum mechanics: "Anyone who says that they understand quantum mechanics does not understand quantum mechanics."
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
olderic
Jan 17, 2012, 3:15 AM
Post #96 of 151
(14923 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2003
Posts: 1539
|
camhead wrote: [ Uhhh... are you serious? if you don't think that TC and CL were coached by their fathers, then I have nothing else to say to you.
Define coaching.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jan 17, 2012, 3:33 AM
Post #97 of 151
(14919 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
olderic wrote: camhead wrote: Uhhh... are you serious? if you don't think that TC and CL were coached by their fathers, then I have nothing else to say to you. Define coaching.
Well, anybody who was actually around and saw the two interact would know that Tom drove Chris pretty hard--maybe too hard, except that in retrospect he seems to have benefitted from the "coaching." I think it takes fairly intense coaching, by the way, to get a 4 year-old to lead a 5.10 trad climb on gear.
I have no personal knowledge of TC, but to imply that CL was not coached intensely by his father is completely wacko.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
JoeNYC
Jan 17, 2012, 7:25 AM
Post #98 of 151
(14895 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2011
Posts: 26
|
jt512 wrote: olderic wrote: Nothing wrong with coaching - the Euros who are more advanced then us - in just about types of climbing (except maybe ethics) embrace coaching more then we do, If that is what it takes to motivate someone = great. But climbing isn't that complicated - any reasonably intelligent person should be able to figure out how if they are motivated.Reminds me of that quote by Richard Feynman about quantum mechanics: "Anyone who says that they understand quantum mechanics does not understand quantum mechanics." Jay
Of all things, THIS reminds you of quantum mechanics? Although, the way people are talking about it...i kinda get it.
To be fair however, and to resist the proliferation of anecdotal statements being made, Feynman wrote:
"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."
Neils Bohr wrote:
"Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory does not understand it."
Ice Cube wrote:
"Check yo self before you wreck yo self."
In any event, because i cant help it, I don't think anything is going to get proven here except that movement and technique in climbing are complicated and learned on the rock. Reading about it helps some people, and getting coached helps others, but EVERYBODY figures it out when they are physically climbing, by putting in the hours trying to get better. Claiming that there is a best or better way to get good clearly is impossible right now because we have no evidence.
I think that the people who have the most refined technique are mostly the ones that care about it the most. People who say shit like "micro-beta" and can't stop yammering about how much better a move felt with the "blah,blah, blah", clearly want to improve, and likely will improve, whether or not the did the drills their coaches prescribed or followed a chart from a book. If you REALLY want to get better technique, but can't figure out when to flag or post-up or whatever, try reading a book, but i still doubt that it will help. (A coach might help, i'll agree with that, but so might any good climber).
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jan 17, 2012, 7:48 AM
Post #99 of 151
(14892 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
JoeNYC wrote: Claiming that there is a best or better way to get good clearly is impossible right now because we have no evidence. I think that the people who have the most refined technique are mostly the ones that care about it the most.
That's mostly one of the most ironic juxtapositions I've mostly ever seen.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
JoeNYC
Jan 17, 2012, 2:07 PM
Post #100 of 151
(14859 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2011
Posts: 26
|
jt512 wrote: JoeNYC wrote: Claiming that there is a best or better way to get good clearly is impossible right now because we have no evidence. I think that the people who have the most refined technique are mostly the ones that care about it the most. That's mostly one of the most ironic juxtapositions I've mostly ever seen. Jay
I said "I think", was that too difficult to understand? Should I have said "I believe" instead? You certainty should've...
This claim, "If you really want to learn to climb well, you've got two choices: a personal climbing coach or The Self-Coached Climber" has a very different form than one that begins with "I think". You lost this "argument" a long time ago, It's kinda sad that you are still trying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
