Coaches’ Attitudes Toward Campus Board Training in Adolescent Climbers

Coaches’ Attitudes Toward Campus Board Training in Adolescent Climbers

Why This Study Matters

The campus board is one of climbing’s most iconic training tools. For adults, it has been suggested to develop explosive pulling power and finger contact strength. For adolescents, however, the picture is less clear. The concern is that high loads placed through immature finger joints, particularly the proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint, can result in epiphyseal stress overload. These growth plate injuries are unique to youth climbers and can carry long-term consequences. Despite this, many youth teams in the U.S. still prescribe campus board training.

This paper set out to answer a simple but important question: What do U.S. climbing coaches actually think about youth campusing?

Study Design

The researchers distributed a national survey to youth team coaches, identifying gyms through a state-by-state search. They gathered 73 responses (63% response rate), representing more than 3,000 adolescent climbers across 31 states. The survey asked about training loads, use of campus boards, injury monitoring, and the criteria coaches use when deciding who is “ready” to campus.

Training Volume in Youth Climbers

Reported Load and Schedule

  • Median training load: 12 hours/week (ranging up to 25)

  • Year-round training: 45% of coaches reported no off-season

  • Sport specialization: Most climbers were not playing other sports

Why It Matters

This is notable because orthopedic societies recommend no more than 8 months/year in a single sport. Ninety percent of athletes in this sample exceeded that threshold. The implications are overuse, burnout, and growth plate vulnerability. These findings mirror trends seen in other early-specialization sports.

Campus Board Use

Despite the risks, 63% of coaches allowed some form of campusing for their athletes. Usage ranged from just 2 weeks per year to nearly the entire year (50 weeks).

Most Common Movements:

  • Laddering (98%)

  • Skip laddering (80%)

  • Double dynos (41%)

The double-dyno finding is particularly concerning. This movement requires both hands to leave the board and re-catch under full bodyweight, one of the highest peak force exposures for the immature finger joint.

Of the 37% of coaches who avoided the campus board, 70% cited fear of injury as the main reason.

How Coaches Decide

Coaches reported a mix of objective and subjective criteria:

  • Age cut-offs: Anywhere between 14–17 years old

  • Physical maturity: Some used vague assessments like “post-puberty,” while one reported using x-rays to confirm growth plate closure

  • Climbing form: Shoulder control and scapular engagement were cited as prerequisites

  • Strength benchmarks: A few required 5 pull-ups or a minimum climbing grade of V5

  • Hold type modification: Some restricted young athletes to larger slopers or jugs

  • Intuition: Nearly all admitted that gut feeling influenced their decision

The Bigger Picture

What’s striking is the lack of consensus. Coaches clearly recognize the risk, but apply different thresholds for when that risk becomes acceptable.

Injury Monitoring

  • 60% of coaches said they keep records of injuries

  • 88% were open to contributing to a centralized injury database if one were created

That willingness suggests an opportunity for better surveillance and eventual evidence-based guidelines.

Interpreting the Findings

The data highlight a major gap between evidence and practice.

Two Key Problems:

  1. Injury risk is real but poorly quantified.
    Fewer than 100 cases of finger epiphyseal injury have been reported in the literature, but these are likely underestimates.

  2. There are no standard guidelines.
    Without sport-wide consensus, each coach makes decisions based on personal experience, observation, or intuition.

This creates inconsistency across programs, with some 12-year-olds allowed to campus, and others being restricted until skeletal maturity.

Limitations of the Study

  • The study is descriptive and does not measure injury incidence or link campus use directly to outcomes

  • Data relies on coach recall, which may underestimate or misrepresent actual training volume

  • “Campus board training” may mean different things to different coaches

Despite these issues, the study is valuable: it provides the first systematic snapshot of how coaches think about campus training for adolescents.

Takeaways for Climbers and Coaches

  • Youth climbers are training a lot—likely too much. The lack of an off-season and high specialization increases the risk of overuse.

  • Campusing is common despite known risks. Many coaches still prescribe it, often with modifications, but without evidence-based cutoffs.

  • There is no consensus. Age limits, strength benchmarks, and readiness criteria vary widely.

  • Guidelines are urgently needed. The sport should develop standards similar to pitch counts in baseball—structured around skeletal maturity and load tolerance.

Final Thoughts

This paper underscores the tension between performance culture and youth health in climbing. Coaches recognize the risks of campus training, but without guidance, decisions are inconsistent and often based on intuition.

Until prospective research clarifies safe thresholds, the safest position remains caution. Adolescents should likely avoid full-body weight campus training until growth plates have closed, and training volume should respect the same limits that other youth sports have been forced to adopt.

Citation:

McMullen CW, Mugleston BJ, Booker LN. Coaches' Attitudes Toward Campus Board Training in Adolescent Climbers in the United States. Wilderness Environ Med. 2021 Jun;32(2):168-175. doi: 10.1016/j.wem.2021.02.003. Epub 2021 May 8. PMID: 33972161.

Climbing Research Podcast
Tyler Nelson