The sport of climbing has grown in popularity over the years, evolving from a niche adventure hobby to an Olympic discipline with approximately 10 million participants in the U.S. alone.
Professionalized coaching is still a newer concept compared to other sports. Coaching practices have evolved from simply climbing to get better to highly analytical, science-based frameworks.
Daniel Beall has navigated the shifting landscape of professional climbing for more than two decades. With a degree in physics and applied mathematics, he brings a uniquely investigative lens to the sport.
By leveraging tools such as Onform, Beall has tailored his coaching methodology toward a dynamic, video-centric model that prioritizes movement over simple physical output.
“The sort of standard climbing coach provides a 12-week static program as a spreadsheet, and then the athlete is sort of on their own,” Beall explained. “That’s unacceptably rigid for what I’m trying to do.”
Implementing a Decision Flow Model into Climbing Coaching
Beall has incorporated a decision flow approach to his coaching. It starts with identifying objectives, and then based on how climbers are performing relative to those objectives, he will create tailored paths for them to progress.
“The idea of progress then becomes much more of a decision flow, as opposed to a rigid track,” he says. “Every climber is different. They have different goals, different strengths and tendencies.”
Beall’s typical decision flow looks like this:
- Identify Objectives: Determine the specific goals of each athlete.
- Assess Performance: Compare real-time performance against the initial targets.
- Dynamic Adjustment: Using both live and asynchronous communication, Beall adjusts progressions based on how the athlete is responding to their training.
This methodology is particularly effective for remote coaching, a practice Beall expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic, allowing him to provide feedback on the “crux” moves regardless of whether the athlete is in a local climbing gym or a remote boulder field.
Characteristics of the ‘Decision Flow’ Model
There are three distinct characteristics to Beall’s decision flow model:
- Performance-Based Pivoting: Instead of following a pre-written track regardless of outcome, the training branches based on real-time results. Specific objectives are identified for each session. If the objective is met, the athlete moves to a more difficult progression. If it’s missed, Beall adjusts the difficulty or focuses on a different technical bottleneck.
- Quick-Turnaround, Async Feedback: Static programs leave climbers on their own for weeks or months. Beall views his role as sort of a concierge, providing feedback within 24 hours of a workout. This allows him to alter the plan for the very next session based on the video evidence he analyzes. He provides voiceover coaching and on-video markup through the Onform app.
- Subjective vs. Objective Alignment: Climbers often think they are doing one thing, but slowed-down, zoomed-in video playback shows something different. Beall uses Onform to call out technical errors such as hand-timing and hip position. He sees a video of a failed attempt and realizes that it’s a movement issue, and pivots the training away from “stretch” toward “technical precision” immediately.
It ultimately comes down to clear and direct communication with the athlete. Beall can see what’s actually happening in an attempt, not just how the athlete describes it or the session as a whole.
“If we’re really focusing on climbing movement, there’s no way to communicate what is happening without video,” Daniel Beall.
Side-by-Side Comparisons Prove Extremely Valuable for Climbers
The core of Beall’s technical coaching is video analysis. While climbing terminology is evolving, it often fails to capture the subtle nuances of body position and timing.
Beall leverages Onform’s side-by-side comparison and synchronization tools as indispensable resources for bridging the gap between what an athlete thinks is happening and what is actually occurring.
“An athlete’s internal perception of a movement often does not align with reality, and side-by-side comparisons provide an objective, and a shared reference point,” he said.
By synchronizing multiple attempts at the same sequence on a climb, coaches and athletes can identify exactly why a move was successful in one instance but failed in another. Beall notes that even without deep technical knowledge, simply providing that visual contrast reveals differences in knee positioning, hand timing, or hip movement that would otherwise go unnoticed.
Best Practices for Capture and Analysis for Climbing Coaches
To maximize the utility of video analysis, Beall recommends several technical protocols for both coaches and athletes:
- Camera Placement: Filming should be done directly from behind rather than from a “quarter view.” Straight-on shots minimize visual distortion and provide the clearest view of joint angles.
- Framing and Resolution: Keep the entire body in the frame while maintaining the highest possible resolution. Beall cautions against using built-in laptop webcams due to downsampling issues.
- Target Specificity: Rather than filming a long route, focus on specific, challenging sequences or “crux” moves. This makes troubleshooting uncontrolled movements or points of confusion far more efficient.
- Reference Footage: Use the comparison tool in Onform to contrast a client’s movement with reference videos of professional climbers or their own previously successful attempts.
“It just provides that visual contrast, so that even if I’m not giving a deep technical analysis, that client can just see their own movement and understand where they are making mistakes,” Beall said of Onform’s comparison tool. “It’s one of those things where if you didn’t have it, you couldn’t really communicate the technical nuances nearly as well.”