Great to hear your thoughts on the subject Dave, and hear you comparing it to learning language. I've been using the term 'movement literacy' for a few years with exactly this in mind. I sometimes find that when climbers ask themselves 'does it feel easier?' as a way of refining their movement, they inadvertently answer a different question - 'does this feel more familiar?' instead. So they confuse cognitive ease (performing well-practiced movements requiring little conscious attention or control) with physical ease (moving efficiently) and shy away from unfamiliar movements, that are actually more efficient, and they would benefit from practicing. This can limit the growth of their movement repertoire in the long term.
I love your videos, and appreciate all the educational insights that you provide. I did want to share one small bit of feedback I noticed while watching this video. It's impossible for me to both listen to you talk and read multiple sentences of text on the screen at the same time. I have to either ignore the text, or pause the video so I can read the text, or read the text but lose the train of your monologue. In short, the text is distracting! I'd prefer if it was replaced with voiceovers explaining the clips, or else rework the video clips with text to appear during breaks in the monologue (which might help break it up anyway?). Anyway, again thank you for all the educational content on a variety of climbing / nutrition related topics. I really enjoy the videos!
Agree with @mikelehen but I do think that stopping the video to read the text is not much of an issue (at least for me). Still thanks for the super-quality content: climbing specific + scientific approach oriented content is really helpful!
Agreed as well. And I'm not a native English speaker so it's even harder for me. But even if Scottish needs a bit of adaptation I must say your diction is prefect and the slow pace is really appreciated!
I've thought it would be really interesting to add load guages to climbing holds to be able to see how much load a climber puts on their handholds vs their footholds. A simple measure of good technique could be total force (impulse) applied to handholds for a given climb divided by the climber's weight.
100 percent. I think it would be expensive but I believe that technology is there. I had this idea for a while now and it would be crazy cool tool for coaches. I teach climbing with most of emphasis on techniques and gathering this kind of data how forces spread and move would back my techniques explanation greatly. Who knows perhaps someone is developing it? I like your way of thinking 👍
the only downside is that depending on the hold, it can be more or less easy to apply force. So it can be better to apply more force on a good part of a hold than less force on a bad part. For instance, if you have a positive sidepull on vertical terrain, you could pull vertically on the sidepull, wich is hard, but you don't need that much force on the hold. If you lean into the sidepull, it will be much more easy, but there is probably more force applied on the hold.
@@miguelgazquez5717 this is an interesting point. If you use a hold incorrectly it will limit the maximum force you can apply to it. Or it will require more from your smaller muscles than your larger muscles (it's easier to do a pull up on a jug than a crimp because our larger muscles are doing most of the work). There are probably better metrics you could come up with than simply force multiplied by time. We may even discover new ideas just by testing a bunch of climbers and comparing their data.
I believe Martin Mobråten and Stian Christophersen (authors of The Climbing Bible) have already explored the idea. I think they've mentioned it in a video or podcast, but I don't have more info...
Excellent analysis and insights, Dave. I'm a professional orchestral musician (French horn) who also climbs and the crossover between the two disciplines continually blows my mind. As a brass player, ease of production and efficiency of how I practice is the ultimate goal as I have finite energy to practice on any given day. Technique is king for both and I love the game of perpetually defining and refining how I execute in order to achieve ease.
You can also "look smooth and in control" by simple virtue of using too much extra strength and making some sequences more static than they need to be. That would also fall under: strong but underachieving (if they can't ever get away from that sole style)
Yeah I hate dynamic moves, I’ll do then when necessary but if I can lock off and grab the next hold I almost always will. I’m sure that’s horrible for my overall endurance though as I am not able to climb as far without getting pumped.
Great analogy, that of spoken/written language and climbing technique. I've thought endlessly about how to define my own technical proficiency vs. raw power/strength relationship. It's interesting to think of having a huge vocabulary yet remaining inarticulate, or of being a master orator with only the most basic of vocabularies. I think the context you've laid out here will really help me dial in on the nuance of climbing ability in general, like you said, to hopefully get more out of my time on the rock/board.
A lot of channels, I rush to go see the videos. This one, as soon as I saw the title, I knew I would have to wait until I had a solid hour to watch, take notes, and really absorb the information, so I had to wait two days before I could watch it. I'm looking forward to hearing your further thoughts. Technique feels intuitively like it's a weakness of mine, but I've always dove deep into strength training because I know how to do it, so I don't really feel like I've made a ton of progress on technique beyond what's gained naturally through experience.
I consider myself to be in the “technical” category rather than “strong”. One of the things I fell in love with when I started climbing was the variety of movements I saw when watching the pros. Like you said, it’s a little abstract. But there’s real benefit to watching other climbers, visualizing yourself doing the move, and making micro adjustments until you learn what feels the best for you.
I like the video, and your book about injuries/form has changed my view on technique. I think at 3:03 and 3:04, I think since you fall to the left upon just catching the hold with the right, you lose tension just a few milliseconds before in your right foot and left side of your body. I think it looks like you are then falling away from the wall as you just are about to latch. So I would say timing, and maybe a slightly higher left foot to give just a few more milliseconds. (very general answer!) Additional things: I’m definitely in the camp of limited techniques due to spending the majority of my time on terrain that does not transfer well to anything else. I think developing the technique to move on different angle is more with recognizing the fundamental characteristics of the rock, the angle, and various methods.
I love that feeling of mastery on the very edge of failure that on sighting the right climb can offer. I wonder if I could review video footage of myself on those climbs what I might discover about my own technical strengths and weaknesses. I've often been able to improve my technique on a second ascent, although there have been climbs I've so narrowly pulled off that I failed on a second go. I like the direction you took with this conversation. Fun thoughts to explore!
I like the language analogy and have used it in coaching before. I refer to climbing moves and movement as bits of climbing vocabulary, the more you acquire the more literate you become in your technique.
I wanted to hit the like button multiple times ! Thanks for the insights on climbing technique. Now I want to systematically assess my skill on each type of move to see where I'm lacking.
Brilliant analysis. I too have often considered climbing as a language where different types of rock are like different dialects with their own subsets of technique. The more exposure one gets ESPECIALLY ON ROCK the more over-all proficient one becomes.
I wonder if someone could rig up a system board with force measurement devices on each hold. Then you could put different climbers on the same climb and get some data on how they are managing their distribution of force while climbing.
Yes you can quantify it, look into multidimensional IRT. It’s just requires a LOT of recourses. It was an interesting video with a lot of surprisingly deep thoughts from a non-professional
Thanks for the video ! The analogy with vocabulary is very helpful thanks! A kind of "lexicon" of moves - how to think about them & improve - would be priceless ! It seems that in climbing you also have an active & a passive vocabulary. - Types of moves that you naturally use - and types of moves that you can do but wouldn't think of… Often leaving you in front of the crux thinking : I don't understand how I can ever climb these few meters. Reminds me of Udo Neumann talking about affordances.
To sort of answer your title question: I've been dreaming about a digital board for that purpuse. Not unlike the digital testing rungs which now exist (just with a 3 axis sensor), BUT on every hold on the wall. If I'm not completely wrong, one could measure how much different climbers rely on their fingers while climbing a certain problem or how much they are using their feet to take weight off their fingers etc. In my opinion this would be a way to quantify some technical aspects of climbing and it would be interesting to see if there are significant differences between more expreieced climbers and those climbing lower grades, or how one could use this for technique training.
3:03 you haven't got any tension on your feet, you see clearly how they slip off first. i think, you could step against the blank wall with your left foot very consciously or you could put more tension on the right foot while doing the dynamic move (but then you would still have some momentum to struggle with, i guess). your video just reminded me of how i learned climbing from a 9a-ish old-school-climber who made huge effort in systematizing climbing technique; however, i came to a point where breaking with his rules made me a better climber. today, i learn most of watching the next generation and i am quite surprised of their different approaches in so many respects. (without climbing, i think i wouldn't have finished my phd in philology, so i really appreciate your analogy to languages!)
Believe me I'm trying very hard to get tension in my feet. I think you nailed it with your observation about the left foot. It only gets you a tiny bit more tension, but enough to buy you a millisecond or two to latch the next hold before my ass heads earthward.
@@mfeneley on the work of an austrian avantgarde writer, marianne fritz. the poetic structure of a text mirrors the infelicities of communication, that's where i find this bridge to climbing most interesting (with all those misfires that i experience in my climbing life), and although it has also its limits, i think i did learn a lot from confronting those aspects.
This is great, even though it’s conceptual, I got a lot out of discussing perception of climbing. Thinking of it as a language in this way helps my general approach to training, especially when considering the diversity of styles and nuances of training. Great vid, looking forward to next one
Anyone can say climbing is complex. Dave MacLeod drives his point with not only "The more you know, the less you do know" dialogue, but also with how he communicates the skill to build is the ability to welcome and relate your climbing with everyone elses. I'd definitely enjoy climbing until old age with that mindset.
after years of climbing and always trying to push the personal limits as far as personally possible I would say technique is perfected in a personal way, it comes down to get more power... just power!!! venga friends
Don’t mind a conceptual video at all! Really enjoy listening to you riff about these things and develop your ideas :) Love the format as well with the text overlays, as I like pausing and rewinding to try and answer your questions. As to @3:03 - I saw a couple of re grips so maybe could have saved a bit of hand energy there. Hips could probably have sucked in closer to the wall as well, especially when you push off the right foot, as everything sags out a bit when you do the move? Not sure but it looks like you’re a bit pumped/tired maybe?
I am sure we can think of ways to measure technique. For example...how efficient a foot swap is by measuring the weight transferred and if we had to crimp harder while swaping. Or foot to eye coordination, how precise we can be when trying to hit small foot holds fast. Or we can count the seconds spent clipping on a rout or time/clip average.
Hi David. Thanks for this (and the rest of your) videos. An observation.. I am a jazz musician.. The concept of language and combining words to make phrases is used there for learning to improvise. The best improvisers (whatever that means!) have two things: a lot of different ways of saying something.. (ie a big repetoire of vocabulary and phrases) AND they know which ones fit together best and when to use them. I think (for me) it is this second aspect that is my problem with climbing technique. I am quite strong. I have practiced using more fluid/momentum based etc techniques.. But they don't come to mind when it counts.... So it seems to me that another measure is around onsighting (even at an indoor bouldering gym) : how often do you use the 'best' solution on your first try..... Greg
What you are describing sounds more like strategy, decision making and problem solving rather than technique. Do we include those terms in a wider term "technique"? Or technique is just the mechanics? For example how well you execute a certain move or sequence.
I think repeats of climbs that you have already done are often also a good way to refine and master technique. Sometimes send goes might be more like stumbling to victory. On top of this it's a good opportunity to find alternative beta that you might have avoided as the moves may be weaknesses of yours.
Very interesting. I'm thinking that new technologies like AI pose estimation might help with identifying optimal body positions and movement for specific boulders. Especially, if you can link movement with effort perhaps some other sensors (e.g. heart rate). If you track a large amount of climbers like this, it would allow you to see which climbers spent the least amount of effort and what movement & body positions did they use for a certain climb / boulder. You could use that to identify outliers and find the movements / body positions that resulted in the least amount of effort spent on that particular boulder / climb.
This has ben a massively conceptual episode, but a great one. It raises a lot of good questions. Dave, I know you don't like to oversimplify, but this vid misses a few of rules that could be easy take-aways. The golden rule is "think about the way you climb", but it could be split between : 1/ Be aware of what you are actually doing when you climb people with poor technique lack the awareness ( proprioception), but also the ability to execute a sequence they have thought about( mental projection ?) 2/ Spend time watching and analysing how other people climb. why do they fail or succeed. And if they use a different method than yours, try to understand why it is actually easier for them.
assuming the limiting factor in most cases will be finger strength, ie when some technique is not adequate it will feel too hard to hold on so you let go. perhaps a measure of force on the fingers could be used (not sure how in practice). the less force on the fingers = the better the movement/technique.
I also think small stabilizing muscles and things like flexibility can contribute to "technique" rather than "strength" as they don't contribute to popular and easily comparable "benchmark" moves like pull ups or finger boarding. Taking some time to increase range of motion, or develop strength across the entire RoM, or other things like prehab (e.g. rotator cuff or something) can sometimes allow new movement patterns which unlock new approaches to a problem. Though this is sort of tangentially related to the points made in this video and probably applies to more beginner/intermediate climbers. But something I think about along side things that are more obviously classified as technical skills, such as execution (pushing to limit of friction or being fast in moves for example) and general 'creativity'. I think a way to summarize my general point is you are only as good as your weakest link, so a single weakness or inflexibility can prevent an otherwise strong climber from doing a certain move. Though same goes for mental aspects, so not trying to downplay thay aspect either!
And to go on a complete rant: at some level climbing is using the machine that is the human body to counteract gravity through contact with a rock's surface, and is basically viewable as a mechanical system. Obviously this is just one way of looking at it, with it's own positives and negatives. But for me, it's something that can offer insight in certain situations. I'm sure a general intuition that this the case is common among anyone who has spent time climbing, but framing it this way can be a bit more specific as it is essentially an attempt to be physically accurate. Of course this just creates a (potentially distracting) rabbit hole of human biomechanics, properties of friction between shoe rubber, skin, rock surfaces and differing ambient conditions. And a way to view efficiency of moves (though good luck actually measuring this, as alluded to in the video). Still again for basic moves, it can help arrive at 'common sense' principals in climbing (e.g. importance of footwork, body positioning's role in where weight is distributed and how force is able to be generated, the massive impact small changes in core strength or grip positioning can have on apparent grip strength or active muscle engagement vs 'passive' positions, etc etc.. ) and maybe give hints to more advanced techniques.
About technical coaches: I've seen some very good ones online (e.g Coach Be) but it's probably close to impossible to find one in your local area. Most coaches I see in gyms give only simplistic advices such as "if it doesn't work with your left hand, try with the other", "just apply more brute force", "extend yourself" and perhaps focus too much on the one and only golden beta they have in mind and may not work for some of their students. They can't articulate anything and don't make their student think about what went wrong, what they could improve. They're like blunt cheerleaders. I was always underwhelmed.
The classic logical fallacy I often seeon this topic is a physically strong climber sees a weaker climber climb something more easily than they did, and says, wow they have much better technique than me. But in reality what happened was the weaker climber had way better flexibility, which allowed their body to be closer to the wall, which allowed their fingers and muscles to work less. Flexibility/mobility is a trait that needs to be accounted for, just like strength. Technique means how much can you accomplish with the body you have.
Technique means how much i can accomplish with the body i have. So if i campus V10 and cant climb V3 slab my technique is great because my body accomplished it.
@@cafeclimb3274 that conclusion doesn't follow whatsoever. If you can campus V10, it's very likely your body easily has the physical capability to climb a V3 slab (unless you have no legs for example), which would mean your technique is poor.
Hey Dave, big fan, but quite as disservice to cycling assuming it's less technical than climbing. I would even go so far as to say, that cycling as a sport is more technical than climbing (which does not per se equate it being more technical to ride a bike, than it is to climb a boulder). However, I can think of bike technique I can probably never learn, but almost no climbing technique that I can not (apart from speed climbing, perhaps). I would be surprised if others with a lot of experience across the two sports would disagree.
One thing that gets me is that many conceive of technique as the antipodes of strength. Yet one doesn't go without the other, i-e you still need some strength to be able to do a technical move efficiently, toe-hook or mantle or even body tension. So my question would be (if it could be answered, which I doubt), when does one need to focus on strength when he/she feels technique is not helping enough? There comes a point where strength can become the limiting factor.
This is maybe where climbing and surfing come closest - all the variables of your physical ability, repertoire of moves, experience and ability to read a wave - in both activities a high level of skill is required to move your body in an environment to achieve an objective, but that added extra - what some might call style - is so hard to quantify. Maybe we secretly like it this way - that something we will perhaps always struggle to define
This 'mistake' seems to actually be WAY more common in hard climbing than we might make out 1 particular technique to ever be in climbing (I'm working on this same type of move on the Tension board). That said, what are you thoughts about the balance between improving things that are measurable and things that aren't? For example, I'm an experienced climber who knows all of the 'basic' techniques and feel as though I can execute them decently well, so improving technique just by a little bit is both difficult and time-consuming. In the meantime though, I know I can improve, say, my 1-arm strength, while I keep practicing technique. So that's to say that I'm essentially making up for imperfect technique which is hard to improve by improving measurable areas I know relate to climbing ability. There's also the point of sometimes you need to get stronger to learn more technique (similar to the boulder @8:52).
@@OliveTheGolden Dave Graham is one shining example. Of course he is objectively very strong, but compared to other climbers at his elite level he has never been as strong. Also when he climbs, he may not even look as “smooth” as those same climbers, so it seems nonsensical that he climbs as hard, or even harder, than those elite level climbers. But this is the issue with identifying “cleanliness” or “smoothness” in climbing with “good technique”, as Macleod highlights in his video. Ultimately it’s because Graham is an absolute master at finding beta that suits him, and he understands tactics extremely well. This is one reason why he’s called “The Wizard”.
I think it makes it even more difficult trying to quantify technique when everyone differs so much in technique. Even when I find a climber of similar build and height to me (rare for everyone) they generally will still approach tough problems completely different to me
Hey Dave, recently broke both ankles outdoors. Any plans on future videos for recovering? I know you made one in the past in regards to your elbow. Any tips for something that fully takes you out, mental and physical challenges?
I discussed this extensively in Make or Break. With ankles, the physical rehab all depends on the exact injury. It is on my list to make a video about my own ankle saga though.
I long ago identified myself as "strong for the my grade", i.e. i have bad technique. what to do people use to get better at technique? i copy other people's movements and do a few technique-drills but im curious to hear what other people do to consciously improve technique
Hi Dave, do you think that despite having such great achievements you could still benefit from coaching? Or, do you meet sometimes other coaches to compare and discuss your views and observations in terms of climbing techniques? Thanks and regards.
In my view after over 10 years of coaching climbing and putting emphasis mostly on techniques I would say that that most If not all techniques work this way: In the moment of latching next hold we want to have hips close to the wall as much as required to do move easier and more efficient. Now having footholds available we choose technique wether it is front on, frog like position, outside edge, drop knee, lay back, rear flag, inside flag, heel hook, toe hook, rock over. Perhaps there are some exceptions but very few if any. Having hips close to the wall allow us to put more weight on to feet. We also need to be in correct ballance. Shifting centre of gravity often over one dominant foothold appears to be often crucial. To me Dave didn't rock over enough with his right foot, right hip and knee wasn't sufficiently open and perhaps didn't work hard enough with his right hand and let go right hand too early. Working consciously with lower hand ( but not in case of using intermediate hold) is crucial for gaining momentum and shifting centre of gravity over footholds. I assume that right foothold i's possible to weigh it from top straight down otherwise different technique would be chosen not front on one. Dave is already falling whilst trying to latch the hold, his movement it's too much of going straight up with hips too far away from the wall. I think it would be better if he opened his right hip and knee more, work harder with right hand in order to move center of gravity over the foothold, bring hips closer to the wall and gain momentum for the move and trying to make more semi circular move. It would result in having more time to latch the hold in the moment of ,,dead point'' or near enough of ,,dead point'' which would make all the difference. I have learned to analyse climbing movement because I wanted to explain my clients how techniques work and why , it took me some time and hard work by me and my clients though. A lot of demonstrating by me and trying by them. I hope this will be helpful to someone and I wish everyone to fully understand how technique works because it is possible and once it's understood, the principle of it will never be forgotten.
I think the problem is in the left foot. The right foothold is too sloping and too far off to the right to rock over onto it properly, even though I'm certainly trying! You're right though, if I could get any more out of that foothold I'd be way more rocked onto it.
@@climbermacleod is it not like position of your leg/foot is determined by position of your right foot and hips? Could you work harder with your left foot to get more support from your core? Did you work hard enough with your right hand and arm and not letting it go to early? It's very hard to say from video when we don't see the shape and orientation of footholds and holds not to mention having a chance to try. This is the main reason why I like coaching on the wall/rock so me and clients have chance to try and find best solution. I find online advice or writing about it confusing and hard to understand especially by the beginners. But in this case probably I wouldn't be able to do this move anyways 😉. Only wanted to explain principle of techniques and only attempted to work out what you could do better. I am sure that you will do it next time. It's interesting that sometimes we need to get little bit stronger to be able to use the technique fuller. All the best.
What do you think about so called "intuition" climbers who end up having decent if not very good technique but can't explain anything? Did they succeed *despite* that?
@@climbermacleod Arguing that the unengaged shoulder was caused by lack of movement to the right and missing the push of the right foot rightwards would make more sense I suppose
@@climbermacleod Had a look at the video that had the clip for the other attempts. Almost looks like the instinct to flag in the other position is caused by lack of control on the left hand , which then compromised the upward movement on the next move. solid reminder on how hard it is to tell causality and options from just looking at a few videos though
From that angle, it looks like you didn’t sag far enough before attempting the move, like taking the swing out of the pendulum before releasing it, causing you to cut and swing farther than you’re capable of holding. Currently trying to find the same spot on my gym project… I swing too far and can’t hold the cut.
