## 4 Discussion
### Climbing-Specific Strength vs. General Dynamometry  
Climbing performance relies on the ability to generate force through specialized grips [1], yet methodological inconsistencies (e.g., grip depth, testing duration, body positioning) impede cross-study comparisons [12, 22]. For instance, differences in elbow flexion angles (90\({}^{\circ}\) vs. 180\({}^{\circ}\)) alter force production [34], highlighting the need for standardized protocols. Indeed, our data confirm that climbers exhibit superior isometric strength in the half-crimp and three-finger drag positions, whereas non-climbers showed no significant differences between these grip types. These differences, consistent with previous studies [20, 22, 35], can be attributed to sport-specific adaptations, such as structural changes (e.g., tendon stiffness) in the flexor digitorum profundus, or neural adaptations, such as enhanced neural drive [36, 37]. Moreover, recent findings have demonstrated that grip force, especially in the half-crimp position, is significantly influenced by experience, sex, and training frequency, supporting our stratified analysis of these variables [16]. Notably, \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Outcome** & **Mean** & **SD** & **ICC (95\% CI)** & **CV (\%)** & **SEM** & **SEM (\%)** & **MCD** & **MCD (\%)** \\ \hline Three-finger drag (N) & 295.25 & \(\pm\) & 15.2 & \begin{tabular}{c} 0.969 \\ (0.953–0.981) \\ \end{tabular} & 5.35 & 17.52 & 5.93 & 48.55 & 16.42 \\ Half-crimp (N) & 333.10 & \(\pm\) & 19.1 & \
\begin{tabular}{c} 0.962 \\ (0.942–0.976) \\ \end{tabular} & 5.81 & 22.65 & 6.79 & 62.79 & 18.82 \\ Handgrip (N) & 406.24 & \(\pm\) & 22.3 &
\begin{tabular}{c} 0.936 \\ (0.895–0.961) \\ \end{tabular} & 5.67 & 30.23 & 7.44 & 83.79 & 20.63 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} ICC (95% CI): intraclass correlation coefficient (95% confidence interval); CV (%): coefficient of variation (percentage of variability relative to the mean); SEM: standard error of measurement (estimate of error in repeated measurements); SEM \(\%\): standard error of measurement as a percentage of the mean; MCD: minimal detectable change (smallest change beyond measurement error); MCD \(\%\): minimal detectable change as a percentage of the mean.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Repeatability, standard error of measurement, and minimal detectable change. these grip techniques account for a substantial portion of climbing performance variance, with specific grip demonstrating distinct biomechanical demands. The half-crimp and three-drag grip collectively explain 66% of bouldering performance variance [14], with climbers generating significantly higher force in the half-crimp grip compared to non-climbers [20]. These differences arise from the distinct biomechanical demands of each grip: the half-crimp grip primarily isolates the flexor digitorum profundus, whereas the three-drag engages both the flexor digitorum superficialis and profundus through force applied at the distal phalanges [11; 17]. Handgrip dynamometry, commonly used to differentiate climbers [2; 6; 38], failed to distinguish climbers from non-climbers in our study. Moreover, this discrepancy likely stems from its reliance on thenar muscles and thumb opposition, which diverge from climbing-specific mechanics where force is applied via the last phalanx during suspension [33]. These findings reinforce the need for standardized climbing-specific protocols to improve measurement sensitivity and reproducibility [34; 39]. Some previous studies have reported no significant differences in grip strength between recreational climbers and non-climbers when using general handgrip tests in non-specific positions [3], although significant differences were observed in elite climbers. The use of such protocols may partly explain the absence of group differences, as they are likely less sensitive to climbing-related adaptations.