Jump to content

Greatest Potential Crushers


Chris Mathison

Recommended Posts

Rick Browne
Morton didn't use a deep set, he used a parallel set, the most legitimate set in grip. I'd also like to see any of the TNS or CCS crowd go ahead and "deep set" and see if they can match him.

If I recall correctly he banged 3 mini reps on the 4 in one of his vids. I voiced his potential due to how quickly he achieved dominance with grippers. I believe he took only a week to close the #3 and then 8 months later closed the #4.

In viewing Dave`s cert vids, he has complete control and dominance of the gripper, he sets the gripper and calmly closes it. There is no struggle, the gripper hand does not move all over the place and shake violently while squeezing the close.

There is another individual who was a buddy of a former member here and his name is Josh Bigger. He closed the #3 the first time he ever put the #3 in his hand. He did not train grippers. I know the board`s Oldtimers remember this guy.

He had something like a 290lb Rolling Thunder.

I believe as I can remember, Bigger did a full pull on the Inch DB his first try.......

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 129
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Teemu I

    17

  • mobsterone

    12

  • lloyd80s

    12

  • jad

    9

Rick Browne
And a great wrist roller.

Yes, thanks. I forgot about his wristroller. Something around 250 or more (?) from chest height, with the roller stationary in a rack.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Morton didn't use a deep set, he used a parallel set, the most legitimate set in grip. I'd also like to see any of the TNS or CCS crowd go ahead and "deep set" and see if they can match him.

That's deep. TNS means the handles are in their original position, CCS means a card goes between them, MMS is less again, 20mm less again and a paralell can and is often less than 20mm (depends on spring depth, handle set and so on). What some call a deep set can be less than that. On most of my grippers paralell is less than 20mm. Why didn't you suggest we see how good Dave is/was with a wider set??

Plus I've 'matched' him (he placed behind me at GGC 04). And let's not have 'crowds' like the bending guys. I asked that we compared like with like. Indeed no one has to match anyone. A TNS beats a CCS, a CCS beats a MMS and so on. These have been debated. Now like with like means someone parallel closing a 4 cannot be compared to someone TNS a 4. It's obvious. Just because it might mean the guy someone admired and looked up to isn't top dog anymore doesn't mean we should all hold events just on grippers so we can match someone else's style. Besides I've been in competition against Dave and he has won events before which means he can have another go against others as good at the next Champion of Champions event if he so wishes.

1. Parallel is not a deep set and you referring to it as that is like me setting a gripper a hair outside of parallel and claiming to have wide set a gripper.

2. Parallel and MMS are the same thing so I don't know why you differentiated between the two.

3. You guys are the ones that came up with the idea of introducing wooden blocks to a gripper event so if parallel is less than 20 mm on some grippers I guess you better cut some new blocks.

4. I don't know how good Dave is with a wider set? I really don't care because parallel is the standard and he is the best at that. TNS, ccs and the rest are just ego-boosters for the big handed guys much like thickbar.

5. Why don't you see how good you are with a "deep" set? You should be able to smoke Dave since TNS and CCS beats his deep set. I'd think if you allowed yourself the luxury of deep setting it you could smash the hardest #4. If you say you can match Dave, feel free to jump on the MM ladder and cruise up to the MM6 or rep a #4 on video, even an "easy" #4. As for GGC04, without looking it up, and I could be wrong, I seem to remember several people closing the same gripper, an MM3dud maybe, and nobody closing anything tougher. If that's what happened, that doesn't count, that's a lack of grippers, not a reflection of your abilities.

6. TNS and CCS only beat MMS if it's the same gripper and the person has the same size hands, otherwise you're just fooling yourself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
mobsterone

1. Parallel is not a deep set and you referring to it as that is like me setting a gripper a hair outside of parallel and claiming to have wide set a gripper.

I believe I clearly stated that how deep a spring is set and how thick a handle is (say for example comparing Paul Savages HG500 or any of the HG400 grippers to a standard gripper) will make a difference.

Parallel and MMS are the same thing so I don't know why you differentiated between the two.

Because others do and because of the variation mentioned above. When the details of a close have been recorded and we, as you and I are now, look at the merits we need to be clear on how the gripper was set.

You guys are the ones that came up with the idea of introducing wooden blocks to a gripper event so if parallel is less than 20 mm on some grippers I guess you better cut some new blocks.

No need. 20mm is 20mm no matter how a gripper is built. It means, as per some events, parallel is not judged with an eye but to a specific width. The fairest way yes?

I don't know how good Dave is with a wider set? I really don't care because parallel is the standard and he is the best at that. TNS, ccs and the rest are just ego-boosters for the big handed guys much like thickbar.

David is 6 feet 5 inches tall and around 260-280 so I think we might hazard a guess he'd be ok at thick bar with his decent sized hands. If the 20mm set and CCS are used more often than not in ALL of the bigger competitions and IM, who set the standard for gripper closes used a CCS or better as their standard then why is parallel the standard?

Why don't you see how good you are with a "deep" set? You should be able to smoke Dave since TNS and CCS beats his deep set. I'd think if you allowed yourself the luxury of deep setting it you could smash the hardest #4. If you say you can match Dave, feel free to jump on the MM ladder and cruise up to the MM6 or rep a #4 on video, even an "easy" #4. As for GGC04, without looking it up, and I could be wrong, I seem to remember several people closing the same gripper, an MM3dud maybe, and nobody closing anything tougher. If that's what happened, that doesn't count, that's a lack of grippers, not a reflection of your abilities.

It was your suggestion I and others might anti up by going up against each other and I stated I had done. At the same event I competed against Jedd, David and others and we all did ok on the grippers. No 4's were closed then. No one brought a gripper they'd certed on - baring in mind what that might have meant and we all, as you pointed out, did what we can with what was there. So no advantage was given to anyone. Like you I have yet to check whether or not I beat David on that day on grippers (I just placed ahead of him overall).

TNS and CCS only beat MMS if it's the same gripper and the person has the same size hands, otherwise you're just fooling yourself.

So you agree - like with like? ;) In spite of the little bits of sniping above (thick bar etc) we agree. To be able to make meaningful comparisons we all need to be doing the same gripper - like the Mash Monster grippers or using the same in competition and the same depth of setting - like in competitions. You might recall that was my view all along. To both look back at what has been done and look forward at who might emerge as a super gripper crushing closer you need meaningful comparisons. I'm glad we see eye to eye. :cool

NB / edit: just checked - I did a RB 300 and he did a MM3 (as did 3 others). I can't find, with a quick look, where the MM3 is placed compared to other grippers. And of course that tells us who was ok on that day as opposed to their best ever.

Edited by mobsterone
Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Parallel is not a deep set and you referring to it as that is like me setting a gripper a hair outside of parallel and claiming to have wide set a gripper.

I believe I clearly stated that how deep a spring is set and how thick a handle is (say for example comparing Paul Savages HG500 or any of the HG400 grippers to a standard gripper) will make a difference.

Yes you did, I'm still unclear as to how this makes parallel a deep set. Parallel is parallel and on most grippers it is around 3/4". Without doing the conversion I'd guess that 20 mm is more than this, so you've deviated from the standard and created yet another set.

Parallel and MMS are the same thing so I don't know why you differentiated between the two.

Because others do and because of the variation mentioned above. When the details of a close have been recorded and we, as you and I are now, look at the merits we need to be clear on how the gripper was set.

Again, parallel is parallel, the distance may or may not be the same on different grippers but requiring parallel handles does ensure a standard.

You guys are the ones that came up with the idea of introducing wooden blocks to a gripper event so if parallel is less than 20 mm on some grippers I guess you better cut some new blocks.

No need. 20mm is 20mm no matter how a gripper is built. It means, as per some events, parallel is not judged with an eye but to a specific width. The fairest way yes?

I don't agree on the distance and I think sticking a block in is pretty gimicky much like the CCS but I can appreciate the concept

I don't know how good Dave is with a wider set? I really don't care because parallel is the standard and he is the best at that. TNS, ccs and the rest are just ego-boosters for the big handed guys much like thickbar.

David is 6 feet 5 inches tall and around 260-280 so I think we might hazard a guess he'd be ok at thick bar with his decent sized hands. If the 20mm set and CCS are used more often than not in ALL of the bigger competitions and IM, who set the standard for gripper closes used a CCS or better as their standard then why is parallel the standard?

Dave is not 6'5, but that's neither here nor there. Maybe the comps you organize or have an influence over use the CCS or the 20 mm but over here it's a joke. GGC tried implementing a CCS and the field dropped way off. Maybe it was just a coincidence? I doubt they'll use CCS for the National Champioships. The deepest fields of 07 over here: BBB, MGC, and Gripmas and none used CCS or 20 mm blocks. When GGC was the deepest, they used parallel set. MGC will be TNS this year but they're going to use narrow grippers; will be interesting to see if they can duplicate the turnout from last year. The GB is the number one place for handstrength in the world and parallel set is the standard of their gripper cert. As far as IM, their cert has lost a lot of credibility with their constant rule changing. Once upon a time it was the standard, certainly not anymore.

Why don't you see how good you are with a "deep" set? You should be able to smoke Dave since TNS and CCS beats his deep set. I'd think if you allowed yourself the luxury of deep setting it you could smash the hardest #4. If you say you can match Dave, feel free to jump on the MM ladder and cruise up to the MM6 or rep a #4 on video, even an "easy" #4. As for GGC04, without looking it up, and I could be wrong, I seem to remember several people closing the same gripper, an MM3dud maybe, and nobody closing anything tougher. If that's what happened, that doesn't count, that's a lack of grippers, not a reflection of your abilities.

It was your suggestion I and others might anti up by going up against each other and I stated I had done. At the same event I competed against Jedd, David and others and we all did ok on the grippers. No 4's were closed then. No one brought a gripper they'd certed on - baring in mind what that might have meant and we all, as you pointed out, did what we can with what was there. So no advantage was given to anyone. Like you I have yet to check whether or not I beat David on that day on grippers (I just placed ahead of him overall).

The thread is about crush not overall grip comp. performance. Anybody can get in on the MM and unseat Dave. It's the same grippers and a"deep" set should make it easy for those using the CCS or wider. All I'm saying is if deep setting makes it so easy, step on up. If you can CCS a bigger gripper than Dave it doesn't mean you can close a bigger one with a parallel set, if you think it does then prove me wrong. Parallel is the standard if you choose to use a different set,then that is on you but until you can beat someone with a parallel set you're not recognized as a stronger crusher.

TNS and CCS only beat MMS if it's the same gripper and the person has the same size hands, otherwise you're just fooling yourself.

So you agree - like with like? ;) In spite of the little bits of sniping above (thick bar etc) we agree. To be able to make meaningful comparisons we all need to be doing the same gripper - like the Mash Monster grippers or using the same in competition and the same depth of setting - like in competitions. You might recall that was my view all along. To both look back at what has been done and look forward at who might emerge as a super gripper crushing closer you need meaningful comparisons. I'm glad we see eye to eye. :cool

I agree like with like. I don't agree that someone CCSing a 3.5 makes them stronger than a #4 closer who used a "deep" set. I don't agree that someone with 8.5" hands that can CCS a #3 but can't "deep" set the same gripper as someone 7.5" hands makes them stronger. Like with like sure, but that means all aspects.

NB / edit: just checked - I did a RB 300 and he did a MM3 (as did 3 others). I can't find, with a quick look, where the MM3 is placed compared to other grippers. And of course that tells us who was ok on that day as opposed to their best ever.

I remember this now and I remember somebody saying something like "steve swept the whole gripper". VERY impressive, but why not "deep" set the MM3 and get more points? Surely you could have done the MM3 if you had "deep" set it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
mobsterone

Due to my recent use with the Vulcan Gripper my setting is getting better (esp my left hand as noted in my log). You said 'If you say you can match Dave' - and I don't recall saying that. Indeed nothing like it. Regarding the fall off at the GGC with CCS use - that says as much about those not willing to change as your asking me to do the same. 20mm and 3/4 of an Inch are about the same (an Inch is around 24mm or so) give or take a fraction. But parallel is judged with an eye and 20mm with the implement used. Hence it's use. Indeed you support its use when you made mention of (or someone did) shaking hands etc. Refs were then allowed to hold the competitors wrist or forearm to stop the shaking so they could see the set.

While I agree 100% with your analogy of the GB's place I find evidence to the contrary in your comment regarding parallel setting being the standard. I'll use the analogy I used on the 1 hand pinch: the feat which most recognize is the picking up of a pair of 45-pound plates. I suggested some comparison might be lost between one man and the next because the width could vary. All who did the feat most certainly pulled 2 discs with 45lbs marked on them both but most plates were not certified as accurate and could vary in thickness. That leaves maybe a half inch of more of width between one guys successful attempt and another. Then we have seen posts and threads here on the massive (4lbs??) variation between a marked number (45) and the actual number. You gave good examples of some events that do not use a CCS and I could equally provide examples of those that do. Neither supports an idea of a standard.

As we agree using settings is no good, we know grippers have varied (hence the MM idea) and so on it becomes almost impossible to do nothing other than what I suggested - the same set gets used and we all compete using them. All other comparisons become impossible to evaluate. The number one reason I've never bothered with the MM certs is cost. I either do not wish to or do not have the spare cash to spend on paying for the postage. I have shut (I think Frankyboy has a vid) a MM2 replica at the last CoC event (post my 10 second hold on an BB Elite).

Regarding the CCS and IM rules. You might recall why they were changed - it was because of the deep setting style used by Dave and others moving too far away from their intended use and the idea behind the cert scheme. Others have adapted the same rules. That some events continue to use a deeper set is their choice and the athletes that compete there will know what the rules are. But it brings us back to no meaningful comparison.

On occasion athletes have posted here the idea that those who can deep set (parallel or better) a gripper will still have enough strength to work to a decent, if not as good, a level using a CCS or a 20mm set. My experience against some such athletes is that this is not the case. At least not yet (I'm thinking of several British lads who have done some monster grippers deeper than I do but who have yet to beat me with a CCS or 20mm). You might ask why that is. They may improve and I may worsen. This may be my best year or the year I start to drop off. What applies to me applies to them and to those I might be compared against and vice versa.

It might be better to 1) wait a while for all to peak and drop off 2) see how we can level the field either by rules or by some formula which levels things out so one set can be compared in an agreeable way to another.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul Savage

i dont understand how wider setting, tns an ccs etc could be ego boosting..seems a bit of an odd thing to say considering you close lesser grippers doing so

for me deep setting is very difficult, ive never been able to set any goal gripper to par, maybe i dont really know how to, maybe i dont have enough strength in my arms/shoulders etc maybe it's thumb weakness, i dont really know, but ive never been able to do it with a goal gripper.

Ive not tried the vulcan gripper yet but i really like the idea that it puts a standard on everything, theres no 'my grippers harder than you're gripper' bs - i can look at the list an know that i want to be ahead of a certain level with which ever set, so if i cannot do that level, i know that where im at is not good enough >i think this is also a great idea for competition, because everybody is using the exact same gripper

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to back up Steve, i remember witnessing him get to within less than a hairs width from shutting a #4 at Iron Grip 07 with a deepish set and since big steve doesn't train the deep set and he pulled this almost close out the bag after a full days competition id say thats mighty impressive in itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
David Horne

I've seen Steve get the #4 pretty damn close at the Champion contest, and this was after quite a day's worth of competing.

I think if Steve changed his training slightly he'd get a #4 with a parallel set pretty soon. But of course this wouldn't be official with IronMind, and so if he is going down this path it's probably best he sticks to a credit card set. Then maybe in the future he can get it before he's too old and past it! ;)

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should they have to change? Because Strossen's lists are getting too long and he just decides? And who knows if that's even the reason for the decline in attendance at GGC, just my hypothesis. I guess if they switch back to parallel this year we'll see. I don't buy for a second that Dave and other's "deep setting" was the reason for the rule change. Strossen published a book dedicated to grippers, in which Nathan Holle, the man he gave a MILO cover to, did a step-by-step pictorial of himself "deep setting" a gripper. Parallel is deeper than 1" which was in the rules for a long time but don't publish a book showing parallel and then start crying about the rules not being followed. My guess is some oldtimers got jealous that too many people were duplicating their feat and the new rules happened to solve a growing list problem for Randy. He changes the rules and puts a spin on it like "protect the spirit of the challenge" and wahlaa we've got the CCS. If the lists hadn't grown so fast we'd have the same rules. Same thing with the Red.

To clarify: I've never been to a contest where the ref steadied someone's arm. If it occured, it certainly wasn't while I was watching and you can bet if anybody steadied my arm while closing a gripper I wouldn't count it, regardless of whether it was approved or not. Why not set a choker to 20mm? That would be even easier to judge and people could close it with one hand. The fact that two hands are used is really what seems to tick a lot of people off anyway. I'm good at chokers and I like to train with them but it is kind of gimmicky, much like a block or a CC.

I can certainly see your point on the cost of the MM gripper. I live in the US and I can almost buy a gripper for the cost of three squeezes on one of those. It is pricey but a good way to compare yourself to others, especially if you're going to dismiss Dave and the others as deep-setters.

Without turning this into the weekly handsize thread; do those that you speak of that can beat you with a "deep set" but can't beat you at the wider settings, have the same size hands as you and do they practice the 20mm block? The block, like the CCS is a skill all in it's own, which is why I ask.

Due to my recent use with the Vulcan Gripper my setting is getting better (esp my left hand as noted in my log). You said 'If you say you can match Dave' - and I don't recall saying that. Indeed nothing like it. Regarding the fall off at the GGC with CCS use - that says as much about those not willing to change as your asking me to do the same. 20mm and 3/4 of an Inch are about the same (an Inch is around 24mm or so) give or take a fraction. But parallel is judged with an eye and 20mm with the implement used. Hence it's use. Indeed you support its use when you made mention of (or someone did) shaking hands etc. Refs were then allowed to hold the competitors wrist or forearm to stop the shaking so they could see the set.

While I agree 100% with your analogy of the GB's place I find evidence to the contrary in your comment regarding parallel setting being the standard. I'll use the analogy I used on the 1 hand pinch: the feat which most recognize is the picking up of a pair of 45-pound plates. I suggested some comparison might be lost between one man and the next because the width could vary. All who did the feat most certainly pulled 2 discs with 45lbs marked on them both but most plates were not certified as accurate and could vary in thickness. That leaves maybe a half inch of more of width between one guys successful attempt and another. Then we have seen posts and threads here on the massive (4lbs??) variation between a marked number (45) and the actual number. You gave good examples of some events that do not use a CCS and I could equally provide examples of those that do. Neither supports an idea of a standard.

As we agree using settings is no good, we know grippers have varied (hence the MM idea) and so on it becomes almost impossible to do nothing other than what I suggested - the same set gets used and we all compete using them. All other comparisons become impossible to evaluate. The number one reason I've never bothered with the MM certs is cost. I either do not wish to or do not have the spare cash to spend on paying for the postage. I have shut (I think Frankyboy has a vid) a MM2 replica at the last CoC event (post my 10 second hold on an BB Elite).

Regarding the CCS and IM rules. You might recall why they were changed - it was because of the deep setting style used by Dave and others moving too far away from their intended use and the idea behind the cert scheme. Others have adapted the same rules. That some events continue to use a deeper set is their choice and the athletes that compete there will know what the rules are. But it brings us back to no meaningful comparison.

On occasion athletes have posted here the idea that those who can deep set (parallel or better) a gripper will still have enough strength to work to a decent, if not as good, a level using a CCS or a 20mm set. My experience against some such athletes is that this is not the case. At least not yet (I'm thinking of several British lads who have done some monster grippers deeper than I do but who have yet to beat me with a CCS or 20mm). You might ask why that is. They may improve and I may worsen. This may be my best year or the year I start to drop off. What applies to me applies to them and to those I might be compared against and vice versa.

It might be better to 1) wait a while for all to peak and drop off 2) see how we can level the field either by rules or by some formula which levels things out so one set can be compared in an agreeable way to another.

Link to post
Share on other sites
i dont understand how wider setting, tns an ccs etc could be ego boosting..seems a bit of an odd thing to say considering you close lesser grippers doing so

for me deep setting is very difficult, ive never been able to set any goal gripper to par, maybe i dont really know how to, maybe i dont have enough strength in my arms/shoulders etc maybe it's thumb weakness, i dont really know, but ive never been able to do it with a goal gripper.

Ive not tried the vulcan gripper yet but i really like the idea that it puts a standard on everything, theres no 'my grippers harder than you're gripper' bs - i can look at the list an know that i want to be ahead of a certain level with which ever set, so if i cannot do that level, i know that where im at is not good enough >i think this is also a great idea for competition, because everybody is using the exact same gripper

It's ego boosting when someone with large hands thinks they're actually stronger than someone with smaller hands because they can wide set a harder gripper. Then they make comments like "work with what you have", "they don't lower the rim", blah, blah ,blah. And of course they dismiss parallel sets as deep sets, because that evens the playing field and they won't come out on top as often.

Not to knock the vulcan but it is not a standard unless every one is made exactly the same and all the springs are exactly the same. Good luck with that. I've tried ISG's that were different strengths and I would imagine that will eventually be the case with the vulcan if it's not already. At a minimum you would need "cert" springs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I've seen Steve get the #4 pretty damn close at the Champion contest, and this was after quite a day's worth of competing.

I think if Steve changed his training slightly he'd get a #4 with a parallel set pretty soon. But of course this wouldn't be official with IronMind, and so if he is going down this path it's probably best he sticks to a credit card set. Then maybe in the future he can get it before he's too old and past it! ;)

David

There is no doubt that Steve is one of the top crushers on the planet but Dave has CLOSED #4s, repped some, and was within a hair of a hard#4 at BBB1. If wide set takes so much more strength then I just feel that Steve or the others should be able to duplicate it. The "if he trained" argument could be applied to Dave as well, with his large hands and enormous strength, he'd quickly rise to the top of the wide set pile as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
mobsterone

Sam is one and is shorter than me so I'd say no - his hands must be smaller. Paul is close to my height so I'm guessing about the same. Pete1006 I can't remember. As I said earlier it's only now that I use a deeper set and have still not used the block in training. I think outside of event training I've used it 2-3 times to see what's what. Last year, in the final 8 weeks or so, I used it 4x before the event. Nick McKinless and David Horne have both stated 'use it more to get used to it' when giving me training advice.

It's also worth stating two more things:

1) use of the block between the handles does not prohibit a wider than the block set only a narrower one.

2) Dave Morton is as equally capable of trying out different widths (as per my inference before) as we are of trying deeper sets. Give me time to see if I improve in that area (before me pension ha ha).

Link to post
Share on other sites
David Horne

Josh,

The Vulcan's are made by the manufacturer in a jig to be exactly the same. The springs come from a spring supplier who made them to the specs we asked. I hand test every spring and gripper before they go. But you are right springs can vary, but I feel in my heart that every machine is close enough to what they should be.

Done my best.

David

Link to post
Share on other sites
Florian Kellersmann

A couple of the guys mentioned I already witnessed closing some grippers in person.

The best performance was done by Chad, closing the 3.81 european competition gripper at the MGC 2007.

Only "offcial" closes like Mashmonster Closes or competition closes count in my opinion, because you can't judge someone's strength just because he's close on "a #4", because some #4s are not really that hard in my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO, all the big boys closing big grippers need to close them with a minimum CCS. Let's face it, Ironmind are the original and best when it comes to heritage and gripper history and they felt that a CCS cert closed needed to be intoduced. A CCS lets even the smallest handed person get their fingers around the gripper, so why does anybody on the planet need to use a set any deeper than a CCS?

For sure, when your training do whatever you want, use negs and 2mm sets if you feel the need, but can we all start setting our grippers down to 20mm and calling it a close?? Nah, I'll tell you why, until Ironmind recognise it as a legitimate close of THEIR gripper then not one single person here can say otherwise. Ironminds #4 gripper is what we all want to close and so, we must respect the rules and regulations set by Ironmind and close it the way they intend.

Daves #4 is a fantastic show of strength, a show that I can't dream of replicating myself, much respect. Though, I would challenge ANYBODY to close all of the grippers they've nailed in the past using a CCS. I saw Clays #4 close on yotube and again huge strength, but get him take a new #4 out of the packet and stick a credit card in it, what do you think the outcome will be?

People that haven't seen grippers before and watched my deep set my #3 to try and get it closed have said " hey your cheating, you used the other hand to close it", I think this is why some level of set rule needs to be respected by all people closing grippers.

WHY DOES ANYBODY NEED TO USE DEEPER SETS THAN A CCS? Who on earth thinks they have the right to host competitions which let people use deeper sets then Ironmind intends?

If your trying to see how fast your car goes, you do it on a flat road, this way you get a true reflection of the top speed. You don't put it at the top of highest hill you can find and then do it do you? And why bacause this would not be a true reflection. Just a deep set gripper close give a true reflection of strength.

In all strength sports there is a full range of movment that needs to be acheived before we can say I've benched 400lbs, deadlifted 500lbs...etc

If i go to the olympics and lift a 500lb bar of the floor by 1 inch and say that I've deadlifted it, they would all laugh and say that it's not a proper lift. It would be seen as an insult to everybody competing for me to even go there and do that.

Ironmind make the rules for the COC grippers, pay them and yourself some respect and close the gripper the way they want you to. Why go on youtube otherwise?

Those of you that disagree, go and get the best gripper that you've closed and then stick a credit card in it :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
mobsterone

Actually he pretty much says 1/2 dozen times either CCS or IM rules. Nothing about TNS. You've made more of what was there than needed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i know he mentioned that, but there are a lot more non im grippers than im grippers. im happy with any set, im trying to train different sets myself so that i can balance my crushing power, so the issue isnt one i want to cause, or contribute to, an argument over.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually he pretty much says 1/2 dozen times either CCS or IM rules. Nothing about TNS. You've made more of what was there than needed.

I needed to emphasise the point Steve, many people here read things and then question the point you were trying to make. I feel that I've said enough to hammer the point home ;)

Oh, and of course, I rate a TNS close higher than any other type. As I'm sure do Ironmind. The just sipulate that a CCS is the maximum set you should use to cert on a gripper......any deeper set would be taking the micky out of the gripper eh?

If you can TNS a gripper then you can close it any way you want. If you can only close it gripper with a deep deep deep set then your nowhere near a real close.

Thing is, nobody here can really argue with this point, and everybody here must want to be able to TNS thier grippers right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually you should use a CCS when certing on an IM gripper and a MMS set when certing on a MM gripper. 2 different certs/organizations if you will, much like raw/equipped powerlifting. Just provides more opportunities for guys, so pick which set you like, train how you like, and cert where you want. Simple as that......

Link to post
Share on other sites
much like raw/equipped powerlifting
And we all know how that ended up! Can't we learn from other's mistakes? Screw IM (apologies, Randy) screw MM (apologies, Bill) WE are the people, let US make the rules! Somebody start a poll for the standard set for all closes CC or //. And then let us all abide by the democratic decision.

(yeah, like that'll even happen! :blink )

Link to post
Share on other sites
Apparently Ironmind runs the gripper world... :whacked

Err, I don't think Ironmind run the gripper world, I have HG's, RB's and COCs as I'm sure you do also. Ironmind do make the #3 and the #4 though are they not the grippers we all talk about to set our gripping standards? Ironmind is the company that makes the rules because it's their gripper you hold when you are trying to cert on the holy grail #4.

And I'm sure that as you've made a point about questioning who runs the gripper world, you'd like to make a better surgestion of who are the people behind the sport? Because it's not the people that by the grippers and make up thier own rules by any means.

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.