Technical climbing: slabs vs. overhangs

How often can we see a top climber explaining a route they are working on with something that goes along this line: "the headwall is not that hard, but it's technical climbing". They spent several sessions polishing the heel hooks, the toe hooks, the timing of dynamic moves, the nuances of generating momentum on the meat of this overhanging beast. They did the final slab second go. It had three bad footholds and a weird crossover move on sharp crimps, but this is the technical climbing, not the overhanging part. I just don't get the logic here.

 

A sketchy slab and a straightforward overhang. Or the other way around? Photos by Sophie Grieve-Williams and Hu Chen on Unsplash.

 

To be honest, sometimes I'm not sure what people mean by technical climbing. There are so many different techniques, is it like anything but ladder climbing? It's even used in contradictory contexts, some people say "it's technical" when it's easy climbing, others when it's hard. It might be standing on small footholds or doing complex movements. It could be also a coordination jump or hand jamming. It's like with the word fascism, which already Gorge Orwell couldn't understand, as he wrote in his essay, because he had heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, fox-hunting, Gandhi, homosexuality, and even dogs (the whole text is quite entertaining). Although there is no consensus, people usually say technical climbing when they mean some variation of slab (or vertical) climbing. And I just think it's wrong.

 

Sure, there is technique in slab climbing, as in any physical activity or movement pattern. Even in the barbell squat, maybe even in the biceps curl there are details of body positioning and muscle tension to be learned. Nevertheless, the most technically demanding sports tend to be very dynamic and equilibrium-based. Some of the hardest, in my opinion, are figure skating and skateboarding. Finding balance while moving at speed and at the same time being precise with your limbs is very unnatural at first and requires a lot of practice. Much more practice than holding an uncomfortable but static position. Just look at the gumbies, they always try to lock off as high as possible and if it doesn't get them to the next hold they bail (unless they come from a parkour background, then everything is run and jump). Because it feels unnatural to lose a static balance when being at height and requires more precision to get the next hold when moving, hence it's harder to learn.

 

"But you can just campus it"

Occasionally it might look like overhanging routes don't require technical ability - it's eye-catching when a technically not very proficient climber fights his way up an overhang with a terrible beta. Yes, you can get up some overhanging climbs with poor technique and overkill strength. But many slabs are no different, there are many crimp ladders which are climbable with no thought about the method. A bit of hip flexibility and a good finger strength will do, just crimp hard, bring your feet up, and repeat.

A friend of the author enjoying the shade of a steep cave.

 

I would agree that overhanging routes of lower grades can be more often powered through than slabs, probably because more people have good pull strength than crimp strength. However, it doesn't mean that steep terrain is technically easier. In other words, the technique required to climb it as efficiently as possible is not easier to learn than the technique required to climb a slab. It just means you can "cheat" your way around it, if you are absurdly strong for the grade. Giving an oversimplified example, getting over a pull up bar is not that hard if you do it with a proper technique, called kip in gymnastics (funnily enough, such technique would be called cheating in calisthenics). But if you're strong enough, you can get over the bar with a completely straight body, just pulling your weight up using your power in a strict muscle up. Does this mean there is no technique to be learned in the kip? No, of course not. Now, imagine the virabhadrasana III pose in yoga (just kidding, I also had to google it, another name is warrior pose number 3). It requires some flexibility and a bit of balance, and no strength is going to help you do it if you don't have those two. Is it harder to learn this pose than a kip, because you can use your strength and do a muscle up instead of the kip? No, I would even say that the kip is technically much harder.

 

Different angle, different movement

So, what are the techniques, the volumes from the movement library, that apply to climbing at different angles? For slabs and vertical walls it's standing on small footholds, be it edging or smearing, rocking-over on one foot, perhaps pushing down with a palm, a deadpoint, sometimes an inside flag and that's more or less it. Sure, you need a good hip flexibility and to be able to crimp hard, but those are physical adaptations, not technique (ok, there's some technique in crimping but not more than in a bench press). On the other hand, we have heel hooks, toe hooks, all types of flagging, drop knees, kneebars, deadpoints, and dynos being bread-and-butter techniques in an overhanging terrain. And you also must know how to use small feet, they are just used in a different way. Additionally, climbing is more three-dimensional on overhangs - you look for features all around you, not only below you. Sometimes the best solution is putting your feet above your head. Finally, when onsighting on a steep terrain you have to think much faster, since you don't get a minute or two to think about each move, the pump clock is ticking from the moment you leave the ground.

 

The author finishing a slabby entry to a slightly overhanging route. Photo by Amanda Kowalski.

There are pitches like Changing Corners 8b+/c (5.14-) on El Capitan in Yosemite, USA or infamous slabs of La Pedriza in Spain, where no amount of finger strength will get you to the top. And of course they are technically challenging. It's about body positioning, using friction almost to the point of slipping, and standing on tiny granite crystals and smears. Not easy by any means. However, the fact that finger strength is not a must to climb these pitches doesn't make them technically more difficult than routes which additionally require a lot of strength (and in truth, the ability to crimp hard on tiny edges often helps on slabs to position yourself in a more controlled manner). Have a look at Action Directe, the first 9a sport route. The hard part starts with a huge jump to a two-finger pocket, it requires both - high precision and (at least two) fingers of steel. Higher up most climbers use a tricky heel hook or toe hook, you have to learn how to stick it equally as with smears on Changing Corners. You have to be precise with your feet when getting them back on the wall after dynoing. And don't say that Action Directe could be hypothetically, theoretically, somewhere in the future campused by some freakishly strong guy. Yeah, and changing corners could be theoretically climbed using only feet. Anyway, there's technique to campusing as well.

Another example, two routes opened by the best rock climber in the history of the sport, Adam Ondra. The first one is the hardest vertical pitch in the world, Disbelief 9b. The second one is the hardest route in the world (together with DNA and B.I.G.), very overhanging Silence 9c. Both have cruxes that look heinous and not straightforward at all. Is one technically harder than the other? Could someone send Silence by brute force? Is finger strength not relevant on Disbelief? Yes (Silence), no, no. Silence requires much wider movement library, mastery at knee bars, foot jamming, dynamic climbing etc. Disbelief, you guessed it, standing on tiny footholds and using weird crimps. Both are some of the hardest routes out there, both require excellent ability in appropriate skills, but the variety of the required skills is bigger on Silence.

Don't get me wrong, slab climbing is technically demanding, as any form of climbing. But I say, reaching the mastery of movement requires more work in overhanging terrain than on slabs.