Jump to content

Tns Vs No-set Vs Set


Recommended Posts

Thought this would make an interesting thread. If we get enough good solid feedback from enough different people. Come on Guys, what do you think are the advantages/disadvantages and why? Explain yourselves. Lets make it an excellent reference for someone new who wants the lowdown on Set, No-set, Table No-Set.

How deep should a set be? Why TNS and not No-set? Why setting? Ok GO!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 94
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Gluteus Maximus

    12

  • Wannagrip

    8

  • pdoire

    7

  • LAHotSauce

    6

Gluteus Maximus

I feel no setting on anything.

I think of the grippers as a tool for something else. You can't set in the real world, and if I need some more strength somewhere I want to know.

I don't care if I can squeeze something once I had a head start- I'll be patient and get strong enough to do the thing straight up.

.02 :mellow

Link to post
Share on other sites

But what if your hands are 6 7/8" vs the guy with the 9" hands? Suppose the gripper has a 3" spread? Is it fair to ask the same of the smaller handed person?? No-setting and TNS'ing definitely favors bigger handed people. That is partly why "setting" was created....as an attempt to level the playing field for all.

Of course you can "set" in the real world...we are talking grippers here and it is done every single day. Some certs are based on it!!

Edited by pdoire
Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe in using as much set as necessary to get all the fingers you wish to get stronger on the gripper. If your hands are 7" and the gripper has a 2.75 - 3" spread your pinkie is not gonna be on the gripper, where as the guy with 9" hands has all fingers on the gripper. For me having 7.75" hands the credit card set seems ideal for the average spread gripper, say 2.5" - 2.75". Another concideration is that many folks, myself included have been injured working no-set. In a competition a parallel set seems the most fair for everyone involved, in my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gluteus Maximus

Understood.

I think it would be a good idea to take it out to the whole ROM- that's what I'm getting at.

I just never want to be somewhere, confident in my awesome grip, and do something stupid or half-assed because I wasn't fully developed. I mean, you've got your hands forever. Take the time to really perfect the things. I feel safer when I know I'm strong with total ROM. :unsure

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, one very important observation, by the way, this wasn't meant as a thread to denigrate one form over the other, but to discuss the advantages/disadvantages of one vs the other.

When setting the gripper, we get to choose "the sweet spot" or that place in the palm of your hand that allows maximum leverage to be applied for the crushdown, with the others this isn't as easy to achieve.

Edited by pdoire
Link to post
Share on other sites
TrooperVinny

I don't see a problem with setting, Like Paul said it's more about finding that spot in your hand that feels good. As for the actual squeeze, the first inch or so is a given...you know you can close that part without a set so what's the difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, lets talk about the spread of a gripper. How will that affect TNS-No-Setters-Setters?

One more!! 2 gripsters who are "setters" are doing a parallel set (the exact same set) of two different spread grippers. Lets say one is a 3 with 2 3/4 spread and one is a 3 with a 3 1/8 spread ( all other factors being equal) Does the fact that the set is the same really equal the playing field? Or will one be harder than the other, even with the set? Why?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the TNS and a no-set were basically the same thing? Whats the difference between them?

I would agree setting improves strength in your hands, thats a given. But I think a no-set provides a higher and harder to achieve level of grip. I would say that no-setting a gripper would directly relate to more widely applied "functional" hand strength.

I'd compare it to doing bench press on a Smith machine (Set gripper) and dumbells (no-set). While both are difficult the presses on the Smith machine would be much easier because the ROM of the press is constantly in the "sweet spot". The dumbells require more stabilizer muscles throughout the upper body to execute so less weight is able to be pushed.

Although I don't perform them right now because I want to close the #3 I'd say that the no-set would be better for all around grip. In the real world, like Glute said, you need that extra awkward strength because lets face it, you often cant set comfortably every object you grab.

I've always felt like the no-set shifts more of the close to a slight bit of pinch grip whereas the set puts it in the wheelhouse of crush grip. Just my opinionz... :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
showlarson

Simply put I set because it makes the gripper I am trying to shut easier. I do train the set because it is allowed in the certs I am pursuing (COC and MM) and would be a moron if I didn't do what was allowed and help me compete with others.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought the TNS and a no-set were basically the same thing? Whats the difference between them?

I've always felt like the no-set shifts more of the close to a slight bit of pinch grip whereas the set puts it in the wheelhouse of crush grip. Just my opinionz... :D

With a no-set you are allowed to "place" the gripper in the gripping hand and then close it. With TNS you are not. The difference is primarily that TNS removes any chance that you may have "set" the gripper with the placing hand, and is also harder to position the gripper in your hand with absolutely no help from the other hand.

The no-sets and TNS's definitely shift the sweet spot making them more difficult.

The sweep advantage of no-setting vs setting can be compensated for by letting your negs all the way out slowly and using the ISG.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer setting. Why? I think it provides a more ideal strength curve for the hands and a better workout.

When you set you're still working the full ROM, IMO. When you set, you can move the palm handle closer to the fingers. So you're still working the outer part of the ROM because there's only so much force you can provide by "pinching" it together with your free hand. Then the close gets harder at about the same rate as your hand is able to provide more force. You have more optimal leverage to work the entire range of the close more intensely.

Here's my experience with no/minimal setting: (note: my hands are 7.5")

It's nearly impossible to get it started cause your fingertips are barely on the handle. If you do manage to (slowly!) get it started, it just flies through the middle range with almost no effort. However, the palm handle is, by necessity, farther back in the palm from the fingers; leverage is poor and the gripper completely stalls before the handles touch.

In other words, due to the strength curve and poor leverage, no setting is very difficult at the start and finish, but completely misses the middle (or MOST of the ROM!) since you have to use a much easier gripper.

My 2 (hundred!) cents. Hope that was clear enough. Oh, and I think doing some minimal-set work has value also.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ryaneverk2

I think it's good to start on a gripper with setting, and once you master it that way, start setting it less deep, and work out to no setting the gripper. That way you build your strength from the start, and eventually are able to do it from all the way out, no assistance.

Setting is great for being able to apply the most strength to it, and get it shut, but no-setting is good for making your hands more practically/functionally strong.

What I'm goign to try to do is master a particular gripper w/ sets, and then work on mastering it no-set, as well. :phone

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bob Lipinski

Both are fun.

Assuming of course, you can get your hand around the gripper. For me, really anything much over a 2.5" spread gets kinda unwieldy, and anything approaching 3" or more is a juggling act more than a gripper close.

There definitely is nothing more "functional" about no set training. Training with a set transfers very well to no set training.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Topic

I would be interested in the views of Dave Morton,John Wood,Steve Weiner,Heath Sextons and Bill Piches(Wannagrip)views on this.

Big Daves because he just dominates the grippers but also because he has/does use alot of choked gripper work.

John Wood because he/or people that know him say he uses mostly noset closes on his gripper work(i think he uses nosets more than most).

Bill and Steve because they both in my mind are perfectionists when it comes to gripper work they will both use perfect technique along with the right amount of strength,but wont be afraid to experiment.

Lastly Heath because he is Hydrolic and has more knowledge than most when it comes to grippers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wannagrip

IMO, there are 3 categories I can think of:

1. Set.

2. No set without wriggling

3. No set with wriggling (this actually could be called semi-set for some).

Hand size then enters into the picture on how effective you can do 1-3. Also, how the gripper gets into the hand is meaningless IMO. Either you wriggle or you don't in performing a no-set.

I also don't think a gripper should be specifically altered to allow one to perform any of the 3 above better either.

Either you can close a gripper or you can't.

Either you can dunk a basketball or you can't.

You get the gist... :cool

P.S. I used to study Joe Kinney's #4 close over and over to learn how he set the gripper.

Link to post
Share on other sites
IMO, there are 3 categories I can think of:

1. Set.

2. No set without wriggling

3. No set with wriggling (this actually could be called semi-set for some).

Hand size then enters into the picture on how effective you can do 1-3.  Also, how the gripper gets into the hand is meaningless IMO.  Either you wriggle or you don't in performing a no-set.

I also don't think a gripper should be specifically altered to allow one to perform any of the 3 above better either.

Either you can close a gripper or you can't.

Either you can dunk a basketball or you can't.

You get the gist... :cool

P.S. I used to study Joe Kinney's #4 close over and over to learn how he set the gripper.

Being the eternal purist, I vote the table no-set. The people with smaller hands will just have to make the related fingers stronger and adjust. My hands are 7.75 so I am in that bunch. Don't sweat the small stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites
LAHotSauce

My hands are rather small (7 1/8) and a credit card set is basically a no set for me.

I have the 2005 Trainer, 1, and 2 and when I open up to cc width, its basically a no set.

Having small hands just barely above 7" sucks!!!!

I train with both a set and no set. I can get my #2 down to about 2 pennies width with a set, with no set not even parallel. My fingers simply dont wrap around the handles.

The only difference I can see with a no set vs TNS is that with a no set you can actually place the gripper in the crushing hand with the non crushing hand. With a TNS you are just limited to the gripper placement with the crushing hand ONLY.

Like I said, 7 1/8 hands don't really favor no-set/TNS work. IT SUCKS!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
LAHotSauce
There definitely is nothing more "functional" about no set training. Training with a set transfers very well to no set training.

I agree.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Styles

I would be reluctant to show a gripper to someone outside of the grip arena and tell them I can close it, if I can only do it with a deep set. A small set to get my fingers around it maybe, but definitely not a set to parallel.

With that said, I think a no-set can be fun, but most of the benefit we get is from learning how to do the no set well. Wiggling the gripper.

I personally prefer to train primarly with a set, then screw around a little at the end with no-sets. No sets rub the skin on my hands raw too quickly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
LAHotSauce
I would be reluctant to show a gripper to someone outside of the grip arena and tell them I can close it, if I can only do it with a deep set.  A small set to get my fingers around it maybe, but definitely not a set to parallel.

With that said, I think a no-set can be fun, but most of the benefit we get is from learning how to do the no set well.  Wiggling the gripper.

I personally prefer to train primarly with a set, then screw around  a little at the end with no-sets.  No sets rub the skin on my hands raw too quickly.

My pinky always gets the raw end of the deal. Literally.

It looked like hamburger meat the other day after an intense gripper w/o. Hurt so bad the afterwards I could barely close my 1 with all the pain involved.

Edited by LAHotSauce
Link to post
Share on other sites
Mikael Siversson

A strong no set close is truly a display of functional grip strength. Most people with small hands have limited functional grip strength in a strict sence, as they are restricted to smaller diameter objects in order to display good strength. You simply can't substitute size in grip.

Edited by Mikael Siversson
Link to post
Share on other sites
I would be reluctant to show a gripper to someone outside of the grip arena and tell them I can close it, if I can only do it with a deep set.  A small set to get my fingers around it maybe, but definitely not a set to parallel.

With that said, I think a no-set can be fun, but most of the benefit we get is from learning how to do the no set well.  Wiggling the gripper.

I personally prefer to train primarly with a set, then screw around  a little at the end with no-sets.  No sets rub the skin on my hands raw too quickly.

Raw is good, Mr. Callus is your friend.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never found no-set (or even semi-set) to be of much value for training. However, for cementing the strength gained from sets (or with collars) it is quite good. Once I can set a gripper, I can usually get the level below gripper with a no-set. (talking #1, #2, #3 here, approx.) If not, I get it with some training focusing on the no-set.

I've tried training only no-set, negatives and all... was pretty much useless for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ryaneverk2

Here's a good way to look at it, I think:

Say you can close the #2 with a set, but can't do it no-set. Then, after working the no-set for a few weeks/months, you can close it no-set. Wouldn't you have to say that your hands are indeed stronger now than they were w/ the set, or at least for that wide range of motion? That's how I look at it... I can build the strength to close a gripper w/ a set, and then work on closing it without a set, as well, in order to have the strength throughout the range of motion of my hand, and not just when it's clenched down tight, as in a deep set.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy policies.