In reply to Pete:
Ok, I do take your point now you have taken the time to explain it a little. I suppose indoors is always going to lack the subtlety of real rock, but I am a firm believer that indoor climbing is what you make of it.
> As I said, on indoor walls, I often see bridging techniques totally neglected for the sake of doing a set of dynos up an overhanging wall with no subtlety whatsoever.
Hmm, well I would agree that bridging opportunities are often neglected by those who are into steep climbing (guilty as charged) though I don't agree that there is a clear division between subtle 'clever' techniques which basically consist of static techniques, and your characterisation of dynamic climbing as 'doing a set of dynos up an overhanging wall with no subtlety whatsoever'. Also I hate to point it out, but being able to
see the move and being able to
execute it are not the same thing, and if the former is easy it doesn't necessarily make it an easy but pointless move. With respect, I think you might be limiting your horizons by negatively characterising a style for tackling overhanging routes. Though climbing is a broad church and you are clearly entitled to do this, particularly if your style of climbing indoors matches what you do outdoors.
in my experience (and apologies if this is not what you mean) any sort of move which uses dynamic movement (ie. intelligent use of momentum to move from position to position) gets referred to as a 'dyno' by people who mostly only climb statically. You quite often see people who mostly climb vertical technical walls failing on these, because they are not used to co-ordinating the movement, and are unwilling to 'bounce' a little to unweight a limb in order to advance it. They also usually focus with 'pulling' with their arms rather than 'pushing' with their feet. Proper 'dynos' are an actual jump which result in lower limbs losing contact with the rock and (again, IME) really don't get used that much for routes (boulder problems tend to be different) unless you are/think you are chris sharma, as it almost always isn't an efficient way to climb.
Static climbing has its place, it is controlled and defensive and more useful for uk trad climbing as you usually retain the option of reversing the moves, and it gives you more time to latch small holds properly. Dynamic climbing is more committing and aggressive but it really is the most efficient way to move on steep rock in many cases, as you bypass the often strenuous static positions between holds, and catch each new hold at the 'deadpoint' where your body is momentarily motionless at the top of each dynamic movement. When you watch monkeys or apes climbing, they all make intelligent use of momentum because it is the most efficient way to move, and I don't think you could realistically say that there is 'no subtlety whatsoever' in the way they climb.
I can't see your logbook so can't see which crags you went to on the CB, but did you try anything at Gandia or the Wild Side at Sella? Mallorca and Chorro I can't comment. Kalymnos is the prime example of what I mean, where holds can often be huge given the grade, because the climbing is ludicrously steep. They can be very technical, with success/failure being determined by spotting creative rests and bridging/drop knee opportunities, but much of the 'bread and butter' of the climbing is short dynamic boulder problem style climbing between creatively contorted rests, or sprinting through long sections of relatively straightforward climbing before your arms pump out. Interestingly, part of Kaly's reputation for soft grades comes from people who train indoors getting out there and finding it easy, as the styles of climbing translate quite well.
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree to an extent. You clearly like styles of climbing which emphasise static movement, ie. technical walls and slabs, bridging and jamming opportunities, probably mostly trad. Whereas personally I like steep dynamic climbing, usually sport, because I am weak and climbing dynamically is a way to move through ground that you would have to be a lot stronger than I am to tackle statically.
In terms of how walls cater for each style, it will clearly depend on your wall and route setters. Personally I think the walls I go to regularly cater well to most styles, with technical wall routes and overhanging routes on good holds (I would say 'jug fests' though to be honest as o/h routes get harder the holds get smaller as they do on vertical walls, and you need to be just as technical to advance your grade) and hybrid routes thereof. I agree there is often a tendency (more on the boulder walls) for things to be steeper and holds to be bigger than is useful for training for outdoor routes. But if you aren't happy with what gets set, why not make up routes or circuits using your own choice of holds? You can adjust the difficulty and style to whatever you want.