Jump to content

How High Is An "official Lift" Of The Inch


pdoire

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Roark

    14

  • kimwood

    10

  • pdoire

    10

  • mobsterone

    9

Sean Dockery

Pick your favorite Pro wrestling "world's strongest" thing. Ultimate Warrior doing pushups with "Earthquake". Or his Bench Press battles with Dino Bravo. Kim's examples above with Kaz and Arcidi. Etc, Etc, Etc...

Were those frauds? Or were they just showbiz?

Perhaps we have the Inch by Inch clip out of context. Maybe it was just a piece of showbiz and not outright fraud.....or maybe there's no difference and all showbiz is fraud....

Edited by Sean Dockery
Link to post
Share on other sites
Pick your favorite Pro wrestling "world's strongest" thing.  Ultimate Warrior doing pushups with "Earthquake".  Or his Bench Press battles with Dino Bravo.  Kim's examples above with Kaz and Arcidi.  Etc, Etc, Etc...

Were those frauds?  Or were they just showbiz? 

Perhaps we have the Inch by Inch clip out of context.  Maybe it was just a piece of showbiz and not outright fraud.....or maybe there's no difference and all showbiz is fraud....

The first line of your signature speaks to this issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Pick your favorite Pro wrestling "world's strongest" thing.  Ultimate Warrior doing pushups with "Earthquake".  Or his Bench Press battles with Dino Bravo.  Kim's examples above with Kaz and Arcidi.  Etc, Etc, Etc...

Were those frauds?  Or were they just showbiz? 

Perhaps we have the Inch by Inch clip out of context.  Maybe it was just a piece of showbiz and not outright fraud.....or maybe there's no difference and all showbiz is fraud....

Here is my 2cents not that its that important. I believe Sean brings up a good point everything we are discussing is showbiz in some form and isn't show biz about entrertaining. I personaly don't believe all showbiz is fraud because I think we all know some people involved in showbiz who I would say are definitely not frauds.

But( theres always a but) some are frauds and there always will be this mix. So I think we should decide for ourselves, set back be entertained and have fun because for me that is what alot of this is supposed to be about. Let the dead be dead and live your lives and hopefully someday I'll be strong enough to lift it so you can debate my lift :D .

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wannagrip

Last time I checked, I thought the GripBoard was about real strength. Not show biz. :whistel

No, not all show biz is fraud.

Anyone ever see the Circ du Soliel? (sp?).

Awesome stuff. And, certainly not faked.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A magician acknowledges that he is tricking you, so he is entertaining you and is not a fraud.

If he claimed there were no illusions involved, but that he really had 'magic' without trickery, he would be a fraud.

Same with lifting. Deal with reality whether the lifter is dead or alive; the facts of performances or claims do not change upon the lifter's death. He either lifted it or he did not (while living). If he chooses not to relay the truth of the matter while he has the opportunity, such avoidance does not negate the truth when it is uncovered.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Last time I checked, I thought the GripBoard was about real strength. Not show biz.  :whistel

No, not all show biz is fraud.

Anyone ever see the Circ du Soliel? (sp?).

Awesome stuff. And, certainly not faked.

I wasn't trying to imply the GB was about fake strength. Only that the topic of thomas inch is and let it go. I believe in our standards used here towards the inch I mean the last I checked a full lift in any form is when your in lockout, but I also believe the statement that Inch was a fraud is a little strong thats all.Lets move on and figure out the perfect workout to obtain the goal of lifting it now that is what the grip board is about I think.

I don't know how to spell it either but have watched it on tv and it is an awesome show of true strength. I would like to see it in person J.Scribb told me he saw it and could not believe the feats they do amazing stuff.

p.s. we do do alot of filming though here like showbiz :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right on, Stew. Who cares if Thomas Inch did or didn't in the video clip? What's really important is whether you, or I, or Doc, or anybody else on this board gets the danged thing off the ground. I WILL be the happiest old Geezer in the world the day I get it 2" off the ground. You WILL have already beat me there, by virtue of age, genetics, and just plain hardheaded determination, and then I'll be challenged to raise the bar. Maybe I'll do it, and maybe I'll blow a gasket trying. That's what this board is all about. If a man isn't here to defend himself, I'm not gonna call him a fraud... T. Inch was certainly stronger than I am, and that gets my attention and respect. I personally think there's a bit of showman in every strength athelete. The people on this board, at least the ones I have met, not only talk-the-talk, they walk-the-walk. They've just raised the bar on Thomas Inch. If he was here, he'd probably appreciate that.

BTW, good workout today.... and, yes, to any strength athlete, the "Cirque" will totally blow you away, and is worth every penny. Your wife, or girlfriend, will enjoy it, too.

John Scribner

Link to post
Share on other sites

there's the weight(it's one of Inch's "Challenge Dumbells")...there's Inch(he may not fit our aesthetic ideal of what

a strongman should be...but there he is)...Inch lifts the weight!

Exactly where does Inch trick us? Where's the fraud?

What we see may not fit our expectations...and maybe there is "tricky" stuff

going on...but who can "prove" it from this clip?(it is obvious from the begining

of the clip that the dumbell

we see is not the one WE refer to as THE "Inch Challenge Dumbell"(we know this from clippings out of old muscle magazines)...yet we also

know that Inch has many "Challenge Dumbells"...)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Inch distinguished his challenge bells by calling them different names, so when he told the film clip audience that the bell being used was the famous Challenge bell (not the Middleweight Challenge bell), then those who know the history will glean the distinction.

Of course, the deception was in claiming that one bell was the other. His word was not his bond.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dave Lemanczyk

It makes perfect sense to me that Thomas Inch owned SEVERAL challenge bells. That basically settles it for me. Who's to say which challenge bell it is but him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sean Dockery

Please don't misunderstand. I think that it's good to know who lifted the thing, and it's good to know that the dumbbell lifted in the "Inch by Inch" newsreel is not the 172lbs "Inch Challenge dumbbell". I just think that we can often get carried away and use too strong of language for the offense involved.

Joe, I'm not sure I understand how "Patient consistency..." speaks to the issue of showbiz exaggerations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Please don't misunderstand.  I think that it's good to know who lifted the thing, and it's good to know that the dumbbell lifted in the "Inch by Inch" newsreel is not the 172lbs "Inch Challenge dumbbell".  I just think that we can often get carried away and use too strong of language for the offense involved. 

Joe, I'm not sure I understand how "Patient consistency..." speaks to the issue of showbiz exaggerations.

Sean,

I meant Inch was inconsistent regarding which bell he identified as the FAMOUS challenge bell, which was literally seen by thousands of people, and which would not have been mistaken for the bell in the film clip.

Dave,

Inch in this case, as he did with his other bells, misrepresents which bell is being lifted- which was easier to pull off in regard to the other bells as they truly appeared to be identical (though lighter than the 172). For one thing the 172 was not a nutted bell, but a solid sphere.

This discussion amazes me. There is no doubt that the film clip bell is not the 172- I think we can agree on that. And certainly the film clip bell is not the bell which Inch presented in London in 1907 and which was shown in H&S and which was left for Padoubny to attempt- does ANYONE really think that Padoubny would have failed with the film clip bell considering how effortlessly Inch cleaned it?

Inch was a genuine strongman in some contexts and in some contests, but by his own admission around 1911, he was able to only one arm clean about 172 on a standard bar- as his max- so how could he then have been able to clean the thick handled 172? Twenty years later he could not either, so we see the introduction of another bell announced as the FAMOUS Challenge bell. Readers of H&S must have smiled at that clip.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe Roark you are amazing! You can get so much more out of an old

film clip than seems to be there! (now it's not just Inch and the dumbell

but you are bringing old Padoubny into the mix from years earlier...and you can

tell from the clip that Padoubny would have no trouble doing what Inch is doing based on what

he is reported to have accomplished years earlier! Awesome!)

Frankly, we can't tell too much from the Pathe News clip on Inch...and frankly

words like "fraud" are thrown out in an irresponsible fashion. Our sources and our methods

for finding the "truth" in strength feats of the past limit us greatly...

so maybe it's good there are those we can turn to when phenomenoloy.

logic and meaningful methods of historical investigation let us down.

(I've never seen many "talking" films of Inch doing his thing...maybe

Joe is correct in accusing Inch of a "verbal deception"...the key here might

be found in all those films...maybe, Joe has seen them...)(I'm still

confused on who was "deceived" by Inch's Pathe News clip.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Joe Roark you are amazing!  You can  get so much more out of an old

film clip than seems to be there! (now it's not just Inch and the dumbell

but you are bringing old Padoubny into the mix from years earlier...and you can

tell from the clip that Padoubny would have no trouble doing what Inch is doing based on what

he is reported to have accomplished years earlier! Awesome!)

Frankly, we can't tell too much from the Pathe News clip on Inch...and frankly

words like "fraud" are thrown out in an irresponsible fashion. Our sources and our methods

for finding the "truth" in strength feats of the past limit us greatly...

so maybe it's good there are those we can turn to when phenomenoloy.

logic and meaningful methods of historical investigation let us down.

(I've never seen many "talking" films of Inch doing his thing...maybe

Joe is correct in accusing Inch of a "verbal deception"...the key here might

be found in all those films...maybe, Joe has seen them...)(I'm still

confused on who was "deceived" by Inch's Pathe News clip.)

I have no idea who was deceived. But I know who was not deceived, at least I know one person. But I do know a deception was offered in that film clip.

We disgaree perhaps. I can live with that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Roark,

Help me out on this. I read this account somewhere and maybe you can help me as to where I read it.

It was about Inch and Arthur Saxon (his best friend in the strongman biz). They were performing for Ringling Brothers circus, and the Inch 'bell happened to be there (the 172# version).

Some of the guys were around and each one tried to lift the 'bell and couldn't. They asked Inch if he could lift it and he replied of course he could. At the time, he was wearing his street clothes and heavy coat and his hat - formal attire for the turn of the century.

Well, they doubted that he could lift it. He then reached down, picked it up, walked outside with it and got into a taxi and drove away - everyone was astounded by this feat of strength. Like I said, Arthur Saxon was there and witnessed the whole thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Roark,

Help me out on this.  I read this account somewhere and maybe you can help me as to where I read it.

It was about Inch and Arthur Saxon (his best friend in the strongman biz).  They were performing for Ringling Brothers circus, and the Inch 'bell happened to be there (the 172# version).

Some of the guys were around and each one tried to lift the 'bell and couldn't.  They asked Inch if he could lift it and he replied of course he could.  At the time, he was wearing his street clothes and heavy coat and his hat - formal attire for the turn of the century.

Well, they doubted that he could lift it.  He then reached down, picked it up, walked outside with it and got into a taxi and drove away - everyone was astounded by this feat of strength.  Like I said, Arthur Saxon was there and witnessed the whole thing.

I am not aware of that story, though there is a story with similar elements which is this:

"The bell was once left at Hengler's circus when they

had a troupe of continental wrestlers there. The troupe

included Padoubny, the giant Russian wrestler who con-

tinually challenged Hackenschmidt. They were such a large

body of men that the one known as 'baby' being the

lightest performing, weighed over 2 cwt. (224 lbs).

"I did not go near the place for two weeks when I

visited again with my friend Arthur Saxon, whose idea

it was, and we asked who wanted the L200.

cf: HS Feb 10, 1908

"With one accord they said no one could lift the d--d

thing and invited me to try, which I did, carrying

the bell out of the arena to a waiting hansom cab

outside."

There is yet another version- where the bell was left at Hengler's for one day- which I believe to be the case. The INCH 101 series I wrote for the Cyberpump paysite covers all this in detail. I believe, though I cannot prove, that the event happened on Feb 13, 1908 when Padoubny and Apollon were wrestling each other(or had been, but Apollon withdrew citing an unfair judgment) and Inch left the bell during Apollon's absence.

My opinion is that Apollon would have toyed with the Inch had he tried since he lifted a similar solid bell of equal handle size which weighed more than 50 lbs more than the Inch.

Lots of details which would encumber this thread :D

By the way, Sir Snott, I posted the photo you sent to me at my site.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sean Dockery
Sean,

I meant Inch was inconsistent regarding which bell he identified as the FAMOUS challenge bell, which was literally seen by thousands of people, and which would not have been mistaken for the bell in the film clip.

I see the pun was a little too obscure for me. Your sense of humor strikes again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who care about history, this may prove helpful. The photo shown with the article is the 172, not the nutted version from the 1931 film clip.

The article is from Health & Strength Feb 22, 1913 and illustrates how the 172 had by that time become known as Inch's famous challenge bell. No reader of H&S at that time suffered from any of the now current confusion among those uncertain in regard to which bell was famous as Inch's challenge bell, because Inch was years away from presenting such confusion by introducing the nutted bell and misrepresenting its identity as THE challenge 172.

Keep in mind that the bell had been presented to the public since 1907, so had gained its fame in six years.

It is my view, based on other passages and considerable comparisons and study, that the 172 was cast circa 1906, and not years before as so many think. But that's a debate for another day.

HS Feb 22, 1913 THE INCH CHALLENGE DUMB-BELL: author?

"This dumb-bell has become famous as the dumb-bell which no

man can lift (except, of course, its owner, Thomas Inch). It

has been referred to as the 'lucky' dumb-bell. The M.C. at a

recent display was asked to explain how it came to be called

'lucky,' and he promptly replied, 'Well. you'll be lucky if

you lift it'.

"We hear that it will be in evidence at the weight-lifting

meeting at the London Weightlifting Club on Friday, Feb. 28.

It is just possible that this will be its last appearance in

public and the last occasion on which Mr. Inch will make his

different offers to the man who should be fortunate enough to

lift it.

"We have therefore obtained a photographic illustration, as we

are sure our readers would like to see what the dumb-bell is

like that has defied so many champions. Even world's champions

have failed at it, both lifters and wrestlers, and up to date

we are assured by Mr. Inch that over 2,000 different people

have tried and failed, including among the better known- i.e.,

the ones with titles- Edward Aston, Maurice Deriaz, W. Harwood,

Strongfort (from Denmark, not America), W. Caswell, S. Croft,

etc., etc."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps this should be added.

If 2,000 people had tried to lift the bell, those 2,000 could instantly distinguish it from the nutted bell, as could whoever happened to witness those 2,000 attempts. How many of those people happened to see the 1931 film clip and to hear Inch speak the claim that the nutted bell was the famous challenge bell is of course something we will never know. But however many did see the clip would have known the difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for me it is clear in this thread who bases his reasoning on hard facts and not just general semantics considerations - and who does not (or at least seem not)... :rolleyes

Joe's patience is really timeproof (as we already knew from the Anderson's backlift controversy).

Link to post
Share on other sites

let's put it this way... if Joe Roark is correct and Thomas Inch is pulling

a "bait and switch" deception it is one of the worst deceptions in History...

(sort of like when Vince McMahon had that little guy running around

calling himself "Gillberg"...to spoof Ted Turner's guy, Goldberg...)(and Vince was

kidding!).

Joe, it doesn't add up. You seem to have insight as to Inch's motive...

I'm not sure you can draw any conclusions here based on the evidence.

Inch might have been a silly old guy...but calling him a "fraud" is just

too strong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sean Dockery

I assume by "worst" Kim means "done poorly".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally, Kim, we can agree.

It WAS one of the worst bait and switch deceptions in [iron] history.

The definition of fraud in the dictionary I use suits this Inch situation perfectly.

He created a feint situation.

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.