Content uploaded by Robert Roczniok
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Robert Roczniok
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY 3.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Human Kinetics volume 36/2013, 107-117 DOI:10.2478/hukin-2013-0011 107
Section III – Sports Training
1 - Academy of Physical Education, Department of Tourism and Sport Management, Katowice, Poland.
2 - Academy of Physical Education, Department of Sports Theory, Katowice, Poland.
3 - Department of Physiotherapy, University of Technology, Opole, Poland.
.
Authors submitted their contribution of the article to the editorial board.
Accepted for printing in Journal of Human Kinetics vol. 35/2013 on March 2013.
The Structure of Performance of a Sport Rock Climber
by
Artur Magiera1, Robert Roczniok2, Adam Maszczyk2, Miłosz Czuba2,
Joanna Kantyka1, Piotr Kurek3
This study is a contribution to the discussion about the structure of performance of sport rock climbers. Because
of the complex and multifaceted nature of this sport, multivariate statistics were applied in the study. The subjects
included thirty experienced sport climbers. Forty three variables were scrutinised, namely somatic characteristics,
specific physical fitness, coordination abilities, aerobic and anaerobic power, technical and tactical skills, mental
characteristics, as well as 2 variables describing the climber’s performance in the OS (Max OS) and RP style (Max RP).
The results show that for training effectiveness of advanced climbers to be thoroughly analysed and examined, tests
assessing their physical, technical and mental characteristics are necessary. The three sets of variables used in this study
explained the structure of performance similarly, but not identically (in 38, 33 and 25%, respectively). They were also
complementary to around 30% of the variance. The overall performance capacity of a sport rock climber (Max OS and
Max RP) was also evaluated in the study. The canonical weights of the dominant first canonical root were 0.554 and
0.512 for Max OS and Max RP, respectively. Despite the differences between the two styles of climbing, seven variables
– the maximal relative strength of the fingers (canonical weight = 0.490), mental endurance (one of scales : The Formal
Characteristics of Behaviour–Temperament Inventory (FCB–TI; Strelau and Zawadzki, 1995)) (-0.410), climbing
technique (0.370), isometric endurance of the fingers (0.340), the number of errors in the complex reaction time test (-
0.319), the ape index (-0.319) and oxygen uptake during arm work at the anaerobic threshold (0.254) were found to
explain 77% of performance capacity common to the two styles.
Key words: sport climbing, canonical analysis, structure of performance.
Introduction
Researchers have been attracted to rock
climbing since late 1970s, partly because of its
increasing popularity and also due to the rising
interest in making it one of the Olympic sport
disciplines. Recently, research has concentrated
on sport climbing where climbers are protected
against falling from a height by permanent
protection points installed along climbing routes.
At present, these precautions are typical of events
involving artificial climbing walls, as well as
being frequently used during outdoor climbing
events, mostly on rocks rising several tens of
meters high.
The performance of sport rock climbers is
judged by their ability to complete a route
presenting a certain level (grade) of technical
difficulty in one of three climbing styles. The most
popular styles are defined based on whether
climbers set out to complete a route without any
previous knowledge of it (on sight – OS), or
whether they successfully reach the endpoint
without falling off after gaining some experience
of the route during earlier trials (red point – RP).
108 The Structure of Performance of a Sport Rock Climber
Journal of Human Kinetics volume 36/2013 http://www.johk.pl
Although the number of studies dealing
with this sport has grown, the results are
conflicting (Espana-Romero, 2009; Giles et al.,
2006; Watts, 2004), probably because of the
complex and multifaceted nature of climbing.
These circumstances provided grounds for
attempting to identify the structure of climber’s
performance by means of canonical analysis, a
tool of multivariate statistics.
Previous studies on sport climbing
(Mermier et al., 2000; Giles et al., 2006) used
regression analysis to find correlations between
one dependent variable Y and a set of
independent variables {X1,…Xn}. This approach
has been found insufficient, though, when the
object of analysis is a set of dependent variables
{Y1,…Yn}. The canonical analysis is used in such
cases and it seeks correlations between two sets
(vectors) of variables. Basically, canonical analysis
aims:
to find uncorrelated canonical variables that
explain an increasingly large amount of
variance in two sets,
to calculate canonical weights describing each
variable’s „pure” contribution to the canonical
variable,
to calculate factor loadings that determine each
variable’s correlation with the canonical
variable,
to calculate the extracted variance and then
redundancy showing the average amount of
variance in one data set that the canonical
variable explains through the variables of the
second set.
Although used as a means of studying
other sport disciplines (Babić et al., 2007; Blažević,
2009; Malacko, 2010), canonical analysis has never
been applied to explore the structure of
performance in sport rock climbing. In this study,
it was chosen to answer the following research
questions:
which variables explain the climber’s
performance in sport rock climbing to the
highest degree, regardless of the climbing
style?
how do the sets of various mental, technical
and physical characteristics affect two
dependent variables: best performance in the
OS style and best performance in the RP style?
how are the vectors of the three sets of
characteristics correlated?
Material and Methods
Thirty Polish advanced male climbers
(average performance in the OS style: 7b+ (7a -
8a); average performance in the RP style: 8a (7b+ -
8b+/8c) volunteered to participate in this study.
This group was analysed previously in research of
Magiera and Rygula (2007). Their age was 27 ±
5.45 years, the climbing experience 8.4 ± 3.46 years
and the weekly training time 10 ± 3.59 hours. The
methods for data collection were direct
observation. Physiological, motor and
psychological tests were carried out under
standard conditions. Most of the tests were
dedicated to sport climbing, climber’s experience
and age.
The variables included 45 somatic and
mental characteristics, specific physical fitness,
coordination abilities, aerobic and anaerobic
power, technical and tactical skills. Self-reported
onsight (Max OS) and redpiont (Max RP) climbing
performance were determined as the most
difficult. To ensure that the route grading systems
were comparable and to make them useful for
mathematical analyses, a decimal scale
(Köstermeyer, 2000) and a conversion table were
used. The description of measuring instruments
has been omitted. Their detailed description can
be found in the study of Magiera (2006).
The first step in the subsequent statistical
analysis was the calculation of basic statistical
measures, such as an arithmetic average (X),
standard deviation (S), coefficient of variation (V),
coefficient of asymmetry (As), and coefficient of
kurtosis (Ku-3) (Table 1). Further mathematical
and statistical analysis utilised a multivariate
exploration technique – canonical analysis. The
statistically significant correlations between two
different sets of variables were sought using: λ –
significance of the square of canonical correlation,
Rc – the canonical correlation value, Rc2 – the
values of the squares of canonical correlations, χ2-
chi-square values of Bartlett’s test, and p –
statistical significance at < 0.05 (Malacko, 2010).
Results
To be able to answer the question „Which
characteristics explain the climber’s performance
in sport rock climbing to the highest degree,
regardless of the climbing style?” two sets of
variables were compared:
by Magiera A. et al. 109
© Editorial Committee of Journal of Human Kinetics
dependent variables – Max OS and Max RP
independent variables – common
characteristics obtained from two regression
equations Max OS and Max RP.
The findings from the analysis of the two sets of
variables are shown in Table 2.
The next step of the research involved the
calculation of the values of the variables and their
canonical correlations and testing them for
significance. Two canonical variables were
calculated, whose correlations (Rc) for the first
and second variable were 0.94 and 0.54,
respectively. Both correlations were statistically
significant (p<0.05), thus showing that the model
described both data sets well. With the calculation
of the variance and redundancy values it was
possible to identify the amounts of variance
explained by particular canonical variables. The
first root extracted from the performance
indicators (Max OS and Max RP) around 88% of
the variance, while the second one only 12%. The
redundancy value for the first root indicated that
the independent variables (set II) explained 77%
of the variance in climbing performance (p<0.05).
Because the first canonical variable explained a
much larger amount of the variance (81%) than
the total redundancy value, it was concluded that
it described the analysed phenomenon well.
Hence further analysis concentrated on this
variable.
By looking at the factor structure of the
above sets of variables the correlations between
the canonical roots and the variables in the set
could be identified. The factor loadings of the first
root were very similar (Max OS: -0.94; Max RP: -
0.93), showing that both the results were
equivalent and that neither of the climbing styles
tended to dominate. The factor loadings of the
first root for the independent variables were the
following: Ape index: 0.303, CTR-errors: 0.445,
Finger strength: -0.554, E70%z10/10: -0.035,
VO2ATArm: -0.558, TEMP-ME: 0.256, Technique: -
0,622.
Therefore, the first canonical variable was
represented by two equations:
U1 = 0.554Max OS + 0.512Max RP
V1 = - 0.319Ape index – 0.319CTR-errors +
0.490Finger strength + 0.340E70%z10/10 +
0.254 VO2ATArm - 0.410TEMP-ME + 0.370
Technique
The canonical analysis was also useful in
determining how a set of different characteristics
(technical, physical and mental) affected two
dependent variables Max OS and Max RP used in
the study, thus giving the answer to the second
research question.
To make comparisons more efficient,
eight characteristics were selected from each of
the three sets of climbers’ mental, technical and
physical attributes (Table 3). The first and most
significant canonical correlations in the new sets
of mental characteristics (personality traits,
temperament, locus of control and tactics),
technical characteristics (coordination and
technique) and physical characteristics (somatic,
flexibility, physical fitness and efficiency) were
high, the canonical R being 0.82, 0.81 and 0.79,
respectively. All correlations were statistically
significant (p<0.001). The total redundancy values
for the three sets interpreted as average
percentages of the variance in one set of variables
that all canonical variables explained based on
another set were differentiated. This means that in
analysing climber’s performance (the Max OS and
Max RP set) eight mental characteristics explained
41% of the variance, eight technical characteristics
– 53%, and eight physical characteristics – 62%.
The canonical analysis helped answer the
third question too. The first to be analysed were
the sets of somatic and physical fitness
characteristics and that of coordination and
technique (Table 4, columns 2 and 3). The total
canonical R was high (0.82) and statistically
significant (p<0.001). The canonical roots in the
right set (the vectors of physical characteristics)
explained almost 32% of the variance in the left
set of variables (technical characteristics).
Reversely, the first set explained 29% of the
variance. The results obtained from comparing
the characteristics of personality, temperament,
locus of control and tactics with the somatic and
physical fitness characteristics (Table 4, columns 4
and 5) showed that the right set (mental
characteristics) explained almost 30% of the
variance in the left set (physical characteristics). In
the reverse situation, the rate of the explained
variance declined to 25%. The total canonical R
was both high (0.83) and statistically very
significant (p<0.001). The sets of mental and
technical characteristics were compared last
(Tables 4, columns 6 and 7). The total canonical R
was similar to its values determined from the
110 The Structure of Performance of a Sport Rock Climber
Journal of Human Kinetics volume 36/2013 http://www.johk.pl
previous analyses (0.82) and also statistically very
significant (p<0.001). The canonical roots of both
the right set and the left set explained a similar
amount of the variance – 38%.
Table 1
Descriptive statistics
N Variables X S V AS K
u-3
1. Max OS Best performance in OS style n 8,68 0,53 6,08 -0,05 -1,39
2. Max RP Best performance in RP style n 9,55 0,55 5,80 0,22 -1,12
3. Mass Body mass kg 68,85 5,02 7,30 -0,73 1,22
4. Height Height cm
177,90 5,59 3,14 0,04 -0,94
5. Arm span Arm span cm 180,09 7,02 3,90 -0,10 -1,15
6. Ape index Ape index: arm span/height cm/cm 1,01 0,02 2,33 0,63 0,38
7. FM% % of fat tissue % 10,42 3,28 31,47 0,27 -0,50
8. MM% % of muscle tissue % 63,77 8,30 13,01 0,31 0,40
9. BMI Body Mass Index kg/m2 21,82 1,70 7,78 -0,03 -0,30
10. BCMI Body Cell Mass Index kg/m2 11,35 2,03 17,86 0,19 -0,24
11. Hip flexion Range of motion of hip flexion st. 118,67 9,95 8,38 0,09 -1,42
12. Hip abduct Range of motion of hip abduction st. 51,30 6,95 13,55 -0,19 0,29
13. Froggies Flexibility of hips in “froggies” cm 6,11 5,10 83,41 0,23 -0,24
14. CRT- errors Complex reaction time – number of errors n 5,87 2,79 47,54 -0,11 -0,78
15. Stereometry Stereometry mm
14,33 10,09 70,36 1,05 0,08
16. Balance-inst State of balance – instability st./s 260,98 54,45 20,86 -1,64 2,95
17. Balance-lc State of balance – locus of control n 81,80 8,80 10,76 0,13 -0,84
18. Adapt-error Motor adaptation – error S*T 168,13 55,77 33,17 0,83 -0,14
19. Adapt-rate Motor adaptation – adaptation rate s 0,84 0,25 30,09 1,53 2,74
20. Different Differentiation %
87,50 11,53 13,18 -1,08 0,93
21. Finger strength Maximal finger strength kg/kg 0,55 0,06 11,39 -0,33 -0,37
22. E70%z10/10 Finger endurance 10/10s 70%Fmax s 358,80 198,67 55,37 1,57 2,02
23. Arm strength Arm strength kg/kg 1,64 0,12 7,44 0,16 -0,63
24. Arm endurance Arm endurance s 67,43 13,68 20,28 0,03 -0,97
25. W30s-Wtotal Total work of the upper body - W30s J/kg 157,37 11,50 7,31 -0,93 1,16
26. W30s-Pmax Maximal power of the upper body - W30s W/kg 6,43 0,38 5,92 -0,46 0,41
27. W30s-Fatigue Fatigue index - W30s % 17,90 3,10 17,29 -0,11 -0,56
28. W30s-T attain Time of maximum power attainment - W30s s 7,46 0,91 12,24 0,94 0,83
29. W30s-T maint Time of maximum power maintenance - W30s s 4,48 0,92 20,47 -0,15 -0,50
30. VO2maxArm Maximal oxygen uptake –arm work ml/kg/min 36,32 6,64 18,29 -0,32 -0,16
31. VO2ATArm Oxygen uptake at anaerobic threshold – arm work ml/kg/min 24,37 5,52 22,66 -0,26 -0,69
32. SI Spatial intelligence n 36,17 9,48 26,22 -1,18 0,50
33. LC Locus of control n 10,53 4,32 40,97 0,35 0,16
34. OSB-N Neuroticism – raw values n 6,13 3,90 63,64 0,45 -0,43
35. OSB-E Extroversion – raw values n 14,60 5,03 34,47 -0,46 -0,44
36. OSB-P Psychotism – raw values n 10,70 4,18 39,09 -0,28 -0,15
37. OSB-L Lying – raw values n 8,87 3,31 37,35 0,65 0,40
38. TEMP-BR Briskness – raw values n 16,43 2,76 16,82 -0,50 -0,44
39. TEMP-PE Perseverance – raw values n 10,33 4,40 42,56 -0,09 -0,46
40. TEMP-SS Sensory sensitivity – raw values n 13,27 4,39 33,07 -0,61 -0,06
41. TEMP-ER Emotional reactivity – raw values n 6,93 4,37 63,06 0,20 -1,01
42. TEMP-ME Mental endurance – raw values n 12,57 4,99 39,68 -0,83 -0,39
43. TEMP-AC Activity – raw values n 11,83 3,85 32,49 -0,21 -0,95
44. Tactics Climbing tactics % 88,37 7,47 8,45 -0,31 -0,54
45. Technique Climbing technique n 51,07 3,01 5,90 0,22 -0,12
by Magiera A. et al. 111
© Editorial Committee of Journal of Human Kinetics
Table 2
The results of canonical analysis and the chi-square test (30n)
Canonical R: 0.93546 χ2 (14)=131.19 p=0.0000
Table 3
The results of canonical analysis for selected mental, technical and physical
characteristics with respect to the dependent variables Max OS and Max RP
Left Right
Number of variables 2 7
Extracted variance 100.00% 32.03%
Total redundancy 80,.57% 20.76%
Variables: 1 Max OS Ape index
2 Max RP CRT - errors
3 Finger strength
4 E70%z10/10
5 VO2ATArm
6 TEMP-ME
7 Technique
Rc Rc2 χ2 df p λ
0 0.935 0.875 131.186 14 0.000 0.088
1 0.542 0.294 18.863 6 0.004 0.705
Mental characteristics Technical characteristics Physical characteristics
Canonical R: 0.815
Chi2(16)=73.130
p=0.000
Canonical R: 0.812
Chi2(16)=82.033 p=0.000
Canonical R: 0.815
Chi2(16)=73.130 p=0.000
Left Right Left Right Left Right
Variance 100.00% 27.84% 100.00% 26.15% 100.00% 37.55%
C. redund. 40.77% 10.85% 52.89% 11.98% 61.81% 20.37%
1 Max OS LC Max OS CRT-errors Max OS Mass
2 Max RP OSB-N Max RP Stereometry Max RP Ape index
3 OSB-P Balance-inst FM%
4 TEMP-BR Balance-lc Hip flexion
5 TEMP-PE Adapt-error Finger strength
6 TEMP-SS Adapt-rate E70%z10/10
7 TEMP-ME Different Arm strength
8 Tactics Technique VO2ATArm
112 The Structure of Performance of a Sport Rock Climber
Journal of Human Kinetics volume 36/2013 http://www.johk.pl
Table 4
The results of canonical analysis showing correlations between the vectors
of the sets of mental, technical and physical characteristics.
Discussion
The available studies determine climber’s
performance from questionnaire surveys (where
the respondents are asked to state the most
difficult route they have completed in the OS or
RP style) (Booth et al., 1999; Espana-Romero et al.,
2009; Ferguson and Brown, 1997; Grant et al.,
2003; Müller and Held, 1992; Sheel et al., 2003),
based on the score in a climbing test carried out in
a setting made to resemble a lead climbing event
(Mermier et al., 2000), or by calculating an Athlete
Development Indicator (ADI) by means of the
Hellwig’s algorithm (Magiera and Ryguła, 2007).
Whatever the approach, the test batteries
invariably address one, special type of
performance achievable in different climbing
styles or in different climbing settings (indoor or
outdoor).
The approach taken in this study allowed
to look at climbing performance from a somewhat
broader perspective. Canonical analysis provided
Max OS and Max RP performances which were
taken to represent the overall performance
capacity of a sport rock climber. The analysis
found the following variables to be significant in
the equation of the dominant first root: maximal
relative strength of the fingers (Finger strength:
0.490), mental endurance (TEMP-ME: -0.410) and
technique (Technique: 0.370), followed by isometric
endurance of the fingers (E70%z10/10: 0,340), the
number of errors in the complex reaction time test
(CRT-errors: -0,319), ape index (-0,319) and oxygen
uptake during arm work at the anaerobic
threshold (VO2ATArm: 0,254). These seven
characteristics described the climber’s overall
performance capacity well, explaining 77% of its
variance. This may mean that despite their
distinctive requirements, climbing styles are of
little effect on performance unlike climber’s
general abilities. Other available studies only deal
with some of the model variables.
Notwithstanding the aforementioned
disagreement over what determines sport
climber’s performance, many studies treat finger
strength as a prerequisite for its high level
(Espana-Romero et al., 2009; Giles et al., 2006;
MacLeod et al., 2006; Quaine and Vigouroux,
2004; Watts, 2004). This study confirmed this
view. According to the canonical values, this
variable (Finger strength) was the most significant.
The greater maximal strength of the four fingers
(without the thumb), particularly in relation to
Technical and physical
characteristics
Mental and physical
characteristics
Mental and technical
characteristics
Canonical R: 0.815
Chi2(64)=170.42
p=0.000
Canonical R: 0.829
Chi2(64)=146.44
p=0.000
Canonical R: 0.815
Chi2(64)=193.27 p=0.000
Left Right Left Right Left Right
Variance 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
C. redund. 31.80% 29.18% 30.33% 25.28% 37.80% 38,18%
1 CRT-errors Mass LC Mass LC CRT-errors
2 Stereometry Ape index OSB-N Ape index OSB-N Stereometry
3 Balance-inst FM% OSB-P FM% OSB-P Balance-inst
4 Balance-lc Hip flexion TEMP-BR Hip flexion TEMP-BR Balance-lc
5 Adapt-error Finger strength TEMP-PE Finger strength TEMP-PE Adapt-error
6 Adapt-rate E70%z10/10 TEMP-SS E70%z10/10 TEMP-SS Adapt-rate
7 Different Arm strength TEMP-ME Arm strength TEMP-ME Different
8 Technique VO2ATArm Tactics VO2ATArm Tactics Technique
by Magiera A. et al. 113
© Editorial Committee of Journal of Human Kinetics
climber’s body mass, the better performance in
climbing.
Earlier studies tended to give more
attention to climber’s endurance. This ability has
been assessed with many different tools, but
recently tests evaluating the isometric endurance
of the finger flexors have come to the fore
(Ferguson and Brown, 1997; MacLeod et al., 2006;
Quaine et al., 2003), as well as tests utilising
climbing ergometers (Espana-Romero et al., 2009;
Köstermeyer, 2000). The results of the first type of
tests have showed that better forearm vascular
capacity increases climber’s performance during
the workload-relaxation sequence by allowing
more blood to be supplied to muscles between
contractions. In the second case, the climbing time
(Espana-Romero et al., 2009) or the distance
completed in a test with a climbing ergometer
(Köstermeyer, 2000) have been strongly correlated
with performance, particularly in experienced
climbers. Maximal oxygen uptake in the
incremental test to exhaustion did not
differentiate the subjects (Espana-Romero et al.,
2009), but the distance completed in a state of
functional equilibrium has been found to
significantly affect the endurance test results
(Köstermeyer, 2000). These findings are confirmed
by variables E70%z10/10 and VO2ATArm used in
this study.
The role that the ‘ape index’ variable (the
arm span to height ratio) plays in the model has
not been fully explained. Inversely proportional
effect of this variable on performance may be
controversial. The authors assume that the arm
span which does not differentiate most climbers
in most cases (Espana-Romero et al., 2009) is less
important than having a slimmer body (i.e. a
smaller shoulder width). This opinion requires
further investigations.
Canonical analysis was used in this study
also to identify the structure of performance of
sport rock climbers with respect to their various
technical, physical and mental characteristics.
Previous studies sought relationships between
performance and particular somatic, physical
fitness, physiological or mental characteristics.
Interdisciplinary papers analysing climbers from
many angles are not available. An exception is the
studies carried out by Mermier et al. (2000) and
Magiera and Ryguła (2007).
In the Mermier et al.’s study (2000) the
principal component analysis (PCA) allowed
extracting three components which were called „a
training component” (the strength of the arms and
legs and of the full-hand grip, the anaerobic
power of the upper and lower body, arm
endurance, % fat, climbing performance), „an
anthropometric component” (body mass and
height, the length of the lower extremities, arm
span, ape index), and „a flexibility component”
(the hip-joint range of motion). The authors have
proven that being successful in climbing depends
on the interaction of many factors rather than on a
single factor, as suggested before. Multiple
regression of the relationships between the three
components and the subjects’ overall scores in
two climbing trials showed that the components
explained 58.9% (training), 0.3% (anthropometric)
and 1.8% (flexibility) of the total variance in
performance. The authors themselves suggested
that more in-depth studies allowing also for
mental and technical characteristics and technical
and tactical skills were necessary to explain the
remaining 34% of the variance in climbing
performance.
The primary research purpose of the
Magiera and Ryguła study (2007) was to build a
biometric model describing the best performance
of male climbers in the OS style based on an
Athlete Development Indicator (ADI). It was
almost completely (R2=0.93) explained by 9
variables providing the best description of this
phenomenon: technical skills, oxygen uptake
during arm work at the anaerobic threshold,
maximal relative strength of the fingers, locus of
control, psychotism, strength endurance, ape
index, the number of errors in the complex
reaction time test and the range of motion during
hip flexion.
Scientists studying this sport discipline
have also made attempts to assess how particular
attributes of climbers contribute to their
performance. Hörst (2003), who is an author of
many popular climbing handbooks, views rock
climbing as a unique sport where the athlete is
required to demonstrate almost a complete
balance of mental characteristics, technical skills
and physical abilities. He contrasts it with sports
where performance is mainly determined by
physical characteristics (100m sprint) or technical
skills (golf) (Figure 1). Unfortunately, it is only a
subjective opinion of the author, without any
114 The Structure of Performance of a Sport Rock Climber
Journal of Human Kinetics volume 36/2013 http://www.johk.pl
scientific background.
Guidi has a different opinion in regard to
this topic. In his report published on the official
website of the FFME (Fédération Française de la
Montagne et de l'Escalade) Guidi presented the
findings of an expert commission consisting of the
FFME coaches (Guidi, 2002). Among other things,
he analysed the structure of climbers’
performance in the lead and bouldering events
(Figure 2). According to Guidi, the key factors
determining performance in the first event were
mental characteristics (50%), then physical (27%),
tactical (15%) and technical (8%) ones.
Figure 1
The relative requirements of different sports (Hörst, 2003)
Figure 2
The structure of sport climber’s performance in the lead
and bouldering events (Guidi, 2002)
by Magiera A. et al. 115
© Editorial Committee of Journal of Human Kinetics
Figure 3
Percentage contributions and the complementarity of different sets
of characteristics explaining climber’s
overall performance capacity (Max OS and Max RP)
The findings of this study where the issue
of climber’s performance has been given
comprehensive treatment allowed empirical
verification of the above opinions. According to
the results of the canonical analysis (Table 3) and
their totals (Figure 3), three sets of characteristics,
each having 8 selected variables, explained
climbers’ overall performance capacity in 96%
(Max OS and Max RP). The chart below tends to
support the Hörst’s opinion (2003) that rock
climbing requires harmoniously developed
physical fitness, technical and tactical skills, as
well as mental preparation. The percentage
contributions of particular sets of variables to
explaining performance were similar, but not
equal. The characteristics of physical fitness
(Finger strength, E70%z10/10, Arm strenght), body
efficiency (VO2ATArm) and anthropometric (Body
mass, Ape index, FM%, Hip flexion) explained the
most – 38%, while mental characteristics were
found to be the least significant in this respect
(25%). The present-day sport climbing is safer for
contestants (owing to permanent protection
points, strong ropes, etc.). Climbers are viewed
today as gymnasts exercising on the rock rather
than people risking their lives en route to the top.
This safety and the outstanding experience of the
examined climbers not only seem to explain the
relatively low share of mental attributes in the
structure of their performance, but also highlight
the prominence of the physical aspects of their
training.
This study has shown that sport climbing
performance is determined by different sets of
morphofunctional characteristics. Keeping the sets
apart has only a theoretical advantage, because
they are in fact complementary and overlap
(Figure 3). Climbers, particularly the less trained
ones, frequently utilise this interaction to
compensate for their deficiencies with better
developed skills and abilities. The canonical
analysis may be a measure to find out whether
variables in one set may serve as predictors of the
values of the variables in another. All three sets of
characteristics (physical, mental and technical)
used in this study explained the variance similarly
(in around 30%), but the strongest relationship
was found between the set containing selected
116 The Structure of Performance of a Sport Rock Climber
Journal of Human Kinetics volume 36/2013 http://www.johk.pl
characteristics of personality, temperament, locus
of control and tactics, and the set with
coordination abilities and technique (38 %). This
seems to explain why the two groups of
characteristics have a similar informative value.
The climbers’ physical characteristics were
explained least effectively by their mental
attributes (25%), which reveals a relatively weaker
relationship between the results of selected
mental tests and the somatic, physical fitness,
aerobic and anaerobic power of the climbers
This study focused on advanced male
climbers taking part in rock climbing events. For
different sex and experience of the subjects, type
and setting of the events (indoor or outdoor), the
results may be different.
Conclusions
A thorough study of training efficiency of
advanced sport climbers involves testing of their
physical, technical and mental characteristics. The
three sets of characteristics used in this study
explained the structure of climbing performance
to a similar, but unequal degree, i.e. in 38, 33 and
25%, respectively. The sets were also found to be
complementary to around 30% of the variance.
The study determined also the overall
performance capacity of outdoor climbers.
Although the OS and RP climbing styles pose
different requirements, seven variables explained
77% of climber’s overall performance capacity
common to the two styles. An insight into its
structure was enabled by the canonical analysis, a
tool of multivariate statistics.
References
Babić V, Harasin D, Dizdar D. Relation of the variables of power and morphological characteristic to the
kinematic indicators of maximal speed running. Kinesiology, 2007; 39 (1): 28-39
Blažević S. Some relations between boxer`s cognitive abilities and morphological characteristics. Acta
Kinesiologica, 2009; 3 (1): 7-11
Booth J, Marino F, Hill Ch, Gwinn T. Energy cost of sport climbing in elite performers. Br J Sports Med, 1999;
33: 14 – 18
España-Romero V, Artero EG, Ortega FB, Jiménez-Pavón D, Gutiérrez A, Castilllo MJ, Ruiz JR. Physiology of
sport climbing. Available. Revista Internacional de Medicina y Ciencias de la Actividad Física y el
Deporte, 2009; 9(35): 264 – 298 http://cdeporte.rediris.es/revista/revista35/artescalada129.htm.
España-Romero V, Ortega Porcel FB, Artero EG, Jiménez-Pavón D, Gutiérrez Sainz A, Castillo Garzón MJ,
Ruiz JR. Climbing time to exhaustion is a determinant of climbing performance in high-level sport
climbers. Eur J Appl Physiol, 2009; 107 (5): 517-25
Ferguson RA, Brown MD. Arterial blood pressure and forearm vascular conductance responses to sustained
and rhythmic isometric exercise and arterial occlusion in trained rock climbers and untrained
sedentary subjects. Eur J Appl Physiol, 1997; 76: 174-180
Giles LV, Rhodes EC, Taunton JE. The physiology of rock climbing. Sports Med 2006; 36 (6): 529-545
Grant S, Shields C, Fitzpatrick V, Ming Loh W, Whitaker A, Watt I, Kay JW. Climbing-specific finger
endurance: a comparative study of intermediate rock climbers, rowers and aerobically trained
individuals. J of Sports Science, 2003; 21: 621-630
Guidi O. Coaching and structure of sport preparation. Available: www.ffme.fr/France.escalade, accessed in
06.2002
Hörst EJ. Training for climbing: the definitive guide to improving your climbing performance. A Falcon guide.
Guilford; 2003
Köstermeyer G. Determination, importance and practise the local muscular endurance of the finger flexors in
sport climbing. Ars Ulna. Neuried, 2000
MacLeod D, Sutherland DL, Buntin L, Whitaker A, Aitchison T, Watt I, Bradley J, Grant S. Physiological
by Magiera A. et al. 117
© Editorial Committee of Journal of Human Kinetics
determinants of climbing-specific finger endurance and sport rock climbing performance. J Sports
Sciences, 2007; 25(12): 1433 – 144
Magiera A, Ryguła I. Biometric Model and Classification Functions in Sport Climbing. J of Human Kinetics,
2007; 18: 87-98
Malacko J. The canonical relations between the systems of variables of basic motor and cognitive abilities of
top footballers. Kinesiologia Slovenica, 2010; 16 (1-2): 61–67
Mermier Ch, Janot J, Parker D, Swan J. Physiological and anthropometric determinants of sport climbing
performance. Br J Sports Med, 2000; 34: 359-366
Müller E, Held Ch. Training the strength endurance of the finger flexors in sport climbing. Leistungssport
1992; 5: 45- 49
Quaine F, Vigouroux L, Martin L. Finger flexors fatigue in trained rock climbers and untrained sedentary
subjects. Int J Sports Med, 2003; 24: 424–7
Quaine F, Vigouroux L. Maximal resultant four fingertip force and fatigue of the extrinsic muscles of the
hand in different sport climbing finger grips. Int J Sports Med, 2004; 25: 634–37
Sheel WA, Seddon N, Knight A, Mckenzie DC, Warburton DE. Physiological responses to indoor rock-
climbing and their relationship to maximal cycle ergometry. Med. Sciences Sports Exerc, 2003; 35:
1225-1231
Watts P. Physiology of difficult rock climbing. Eur J Appl Physiol, 2004; 91: 361 – 372
Corresponding author:
Artur Magiera
Academy of Physical Education, 40-065 Katowice, Mikołowska 72A, Poland
Phone: 32 207-51-56,
E-mail: a.magiera@awf.katowice.pl