Jump to content

Greatest Potential Crushers


Chris Mathison

Recommended Posts

Teemu I
I'm honoured to be mentioned in this thread, but personally I don't give much value to the whole concept of potential. Potential doesn't close grippers for anyone, and it's all nothing but talk until a person shows what he is capable of. There's only one way to find out. In that sense potential is worth crap. When people talk about potential they often begin "if the certain so and so trained for that they'd do that" and after that we have huge imaginery gripper closes or something like that. To me, only real achievements matter.

Resisting the urge to engage in the handsize argument and trying to get more on topic; Teemu definitely has huge upside when it comes to potential greatest crushers. I'd base this off of his R&P strength. I've heard it mentioned that they are stronger than his I&M? My I&M and everybody else I know, other than Teemu,have tons more horsepower in their I&M than their R&P. If he gets that way given the R&P power he already has...WOW! To put some numbers behind it: I'm pretty consistent with a single on my tug#6 R&P (doubled it once) and am usually in the 15-20 rep range I&M. If I could add 14-19 reps worth of strength to my R&P or if Teemu could get his I&M proportionately that much stronger than his current level of R&P....you get the idea.

I don't have any idea about my potential, as I said there's only one way to find out. But to comment on the pinky and ring finger strength, strange as it seems it is that way around for me. Those supposed to be weaker fingers seem to be stronger on the regular grippers as well as on the Imtugs for me. Maybe I've overdone the bottom two finger work and neglected the other two? Or is that the ROM beeing lesser on the regular closes means that my first two fingers are weak in that final part of ROM when they are positioned where the bottom two fingers are normally? Anyway I guess I need to do more fingerpair work for the index and middle finger then. Edited by Teemu I
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

mobsterone
Comparing gripper close to bench press is a poor comparison.

Parallel set takes out the hand size issue and you have a better measure of hand strength in a competition. The wider the set, the less worthy they are in comparisons.

As for training towards the goal of stronger grip, there's not much point for the smaller handed to spend most of their time juggling the gripper for TNS or CCS, as the time would be better spent on getting a comfortable set and then squeezing as hard as possible.

If the TNS or CCS logic would be applied to bench press, you would be forcing individuals with shorter arms begin the movement from the racks set too high, making it all ridiculous.

I don't understand at all why it all should be so purist/black & white, different rules can be applied under different circumstances in any sport and there's a freedom of choice whether to participate or not. I choose to use all sets.

Training is not a clear indication of who is the best so suggestions regarding how people train should be ignored when trying to make meaningful comparisons. The same applies with 'go with what suits you' or asking why it needs to be so black and white. How else do any of those in this thread level the playing field to make those already mentioned comparisons?

You are right to ask. I did comment on this on the other thread, and said that to compare, we need to be using the exact same grippers with same rules. So the MM-ladder is the best we have so far.

The part you quote I wrote only to defend a parallel set, as it seems to me like most of wide set advocates defend their views that are based on personal preference more than anything else, ignoring the smaller handed individuals.

There's been talks about the "intended use of grippers". I seriously doubt that these heavy duty grippers were so well thought out and ergonomically planned at the first place, as the design is old and it seems to be a coincidence that 3" or little less is the so-called standard. In fact if we follow that logic, the spread on most grippers would imply that these heavy duty grippers are not intended to be used by individuals with average or small hands. So who defines the intended use? I think the intended use can be defined differently for different certs or comps if so desired.

Your last para in particular only adds more weight to the view that people/camps and the like will use them how they will so making comparisons impossible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Teemu I
Comparing gripper close to bench press is a poor comparison.

Parallel set takes out the hand size issue and you have a better measure of hand strength in a competition. The wider the set, the less worthy they are in comparisons.

As for training towards the goal of stronger grip, there's not much point for the smaller handed to spend most of their time juggling the gripper for TNS or CCS, as the time would be better spent on getting a comfortable set and then squeezing as hard as possible.

If the TNS or CCS logic would be applied to bench press, you would be forcing individuals with shorter arms begin the movement from the racks set too high, making it all ridiculous.

I don't understand at all why it all should be so purist/black & white, different rules can be applied under different circumstances in any sport and there's a freedom of choice whether to participate or not. I choose to use all sets.

Training is not a clear indication of who is the best so suggestions regarding how people train should be ignored when trying to make meaningful comparisons. The same applies with 'go with what suits you' or asking why it needs to be so black and white. How else do any of those in this thread level the playing field to make those already mentioned comparisons?

You are right to ask. I did comment on this on the other thread, and said that to compare, we need to be using the exact same grippers with same rules. So the MM-ladder is the best we have so far.

The part you quote I wrote only to defend a parallel set, as it seems to me like most of wide set advocates defend their views that are based on personal preference more than anything else, ignoring the smaller handed individuals.

There's been talks about the "intended use of grippers". I seriously doubt that these heavy duty grippers were so well thought out and ergonomically planned at the first place, as the design is old and it seems to be a coincidence that 3" or little less is the so-called standard. In fact if we follow that logic, the spread on most grippers would imply that these heavy duty grippers are not intended to be used by individuals with average or small hands. So who defines the intended use? I think the intended use can be defined differently for different certs or comps if so desired.

Your last para in particular only adds more weight to the view that people/camps and the like will use them how they will so making comparisons impossible.

Only if it you want to see it that way. I'm only describing the current situation, where we have different certs with different rules and not all comps are done with same rules.

I vote yes for standardized measuring for any meaningful comparisons and haven't said anything to support the opposite views. That is the part where I agree with you fully. For the purpose of making any meaningful comparisons, the widest sets aren't as good as the parallel set, but for me it doesn't mean that I would refuse to compete with any set.

Edited by Teemu I
Link to post
Share on other sites
Florian Kellersmann
Ok, for small hands you need a set. A CCS is fine though isn't it?

Apart from all the free to set how you like comments, and of course all of use are free to do what we want with our grippers. Can anybody, PLEASE anybody just tell me why in some competitions and gripper closes, people are happy to use a more easy set than a CCS? This is all i want to know.

The idea of strength training is to get stronger, and you do that by using the least set possible. A TNS is ideal but if you really need a set, why does anybody feel it needs to be easier than a CCS?

I only used bench as an example of having a a standardised movment that EVERYBODY worldwide recognises. With many gripper vids I see oon youtube the set are deep with no ruler to indicate how deep it is, therefore all you can really do i guess? Inserting an object in the handles give everybody a fair view and means everybody can judge how strong they are compared to others.

If you host a comp that has no object inserted in the handles to show the set, would some people not gain an unfair advantge over others? I'm sure some comps do have a measure of some kind but lot's of videos don't. Just seems logical to uses a ccs, as most people in grip want to close #3s and #4s?

The CC Set is too wide for small handed guys. Large handed individual have an advantage, cause a credit card set may be comfortable for them, but not for the small handed guys. A parallel set is for small handed and large handed people comfortable. Why is this so hard to understand?

What is your handsize and which gripper can you close with MM Set and CC Set?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, for small hands you need a set. A CCS is fine though isn't it?

Apart from all the free to set how you like comments, and of course all of use are free to do what we want with our grippers. Can anybody, PLEASE anybody just tell me why in some competitions and gripper closes, people are happy to use a more easy set than a CCS? This is all i want to know.

The idea of strength training is to get stronger, and you do that by using the least set possible. A TNS is ideal but if you really need a set, why does anybody feel it needs to be easier than a CCS?

I only used bench as an example of having a a standardised movment that EVERYBODY worldwide recognises. With many gripper vids I see oon youtube the set are deep with no ruler to indicate how deep it is, therefore all you can really do i guess? Inserting an object in the handles give everybody a fair view and means everybody can judge how strong they are compared to others.

If you host a comp that has no object inserted in the handles to show the set, would some people not gain an unfair advantge over others? I'm sure some comps do have a measure of some kind but lot's of videos don't. Just seems logical to uses a ccs, as most people in grip want to close #3s and #4s?

The CC Set is too wide for small handed guys. Large handed individual have an advantage, cause a credit card set may be comfortable for them, but not for the small handed guys. A parallel set is for small handed and large handed people comfortable. Why is this so hard to understand?

What is your handsize and which gripper can you close with MM Set and CC Set?

My Hand size is 7 3/4, my best close ccs is a #2.5 my best MM set close is my RB210 which is nearly as hard as my #3.

The thing is, I find lots of people say that a CCS is to hard as their hands are small but they only seem to bring this up with grippers they can't do. A guy I know can close a #1 no problem with a CCS but when I give him a #2 he starts to complain about the his hands not being big enough, it's because he's not strong enough....period.

If your hands can close a trainer ccs the they have the size to close a #4 ccs. It's about strength not hand size most of the time.

Do you know anyone that couldn't close the IM guide gripper with a CCS because their hands are too small? Probably not, you'll find loads say their hands hands are too small to close a #3 though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Teemu I
Ok, for small hands you need a set. A CCS is fine though isn't it?

Apart from all the free to set how you like comments, and of course all of use are free to do what we want with our grippers. Can anybody, PLEASE anybody just tell me why in some competitions and gripper closes, people are happy to use a more easy set than a CCS? This is all i want to know.

The idea of strength training is to get stronger, and you do that by using the least set possible. A TNS is ideal but if you really need a set, why does anybody feel it needs to be easier than a CCS?

I only used bench as an example of having a a standardised movment that EVERYBODY worldwide recognises. With many gripper vids I see oon youtube the set are deep with no ruler to indicate how deep it is, therefore all you can really do i guess? Inserting an object in the handles give everybody a fair view and means everybody can judge how strong they are compared to others.

If you host a comp that has no object inserted in the handles to show the set, would some people not gain an unfair advantge over others? I'm sure some comps do have a measure of some kind but lot's of videos don't. Just seems logical to uses a ccs, as most people in grip want to close #3s and #4s?

The CC Set is too wide for small handed guys. Large handed individual have an advantage, cause a credit card set may be comfortable for them, but not for the small handed guys. A parallel set is for small handed and large handed people comfortable. Why is this so hard to understand?

What is your handsize and which gripper can you close with MM Set and CC Set?

My Hand size is 7 3/4, my best close ccs is a #2.5 my best MM set close is my RB210 which is nearly as hard as my #3.

The thing is, I find lots of people say that a CCS is to hard as their hands are small but they only seem to bring this up with grippers they can't do. A guy I know can close a #1 no problem with a CCS but when I give him a #2 he starts to complain about the his hands not being big enough, it's because he's not strong enough....period.

If your hands can close a trainer ccs the they have the size to close a #4 ccs. It's about strength not hand size most of the time.

Do you know anyone that couldn't close the IM guide gripper with a CCS because their hands are too small? Probably not, you'll find loads say their hands hands are too small to close a #3 though.

That is a good question, but again, not the whole truth but only one way to look at this thing. It is one thing to use hand size as an excuse to avoid wider sets, but not the reason I'll defend parallel set as the best measure. I'm able to CCS a 3.5-level grippers so I don't have a personal problem with that. If you look at this thing objectively and that is what I try to do, you will see that the CCS is really awkward and requires a lot of juggling and for the smaller handed individuals it gets to a point where it's more about juggling than about "pure" hand strength. So if I beat a guy who has smaller hands than I have using a CCS would I say my gripper strength is better? No. I would do any comparisons with the parallel set as that allows the smaller handed person to show his strength as well it as it allows me to do the same. Edited by Teemu I
Link to post
Share on other sites
Teemu I

As for the parallel set that is shown clearly or measured with a block, what suggests that it is a bad way to measure gripper performance? The strongest always closes the hardest gripper anyway with that set, which is not the case with wider sets.

Edited by Teemu I
Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the topic at hand,

I think the greatest potential crushers are:

Steve Gardener

Martin Arildson

Florian Kellersmann

Paul Savage

Teemu I

...all capable of the #4 cert with specialised training.

Edited by CoC#3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wondering what their hand sizes are and bodyweight are. Are any of them under 7.7/8" hand length? RS

Link to post
Share on other sites
burkhardmacht
Just wondering what their hand sizes are and bodyweight are. Are any of them under 7.7/8" hand length? RS

Florian has 7,5 inch hands - he is strong and he will mash the 4#! :rock :rock :rock

Link to post
Share on other sites
Florian Kellersmann
Back to the topic at hand,

I think the greatest potential crushers are:

Steve Gardener

Martin Arildson

Florian Kellersmann

Paul Savage

Teemu I

...all capable of the #4 cert with specialised training.

Hey Sam, thanks for your kind words. To be mentioned as one with the potential to close a #4 really motivates me to punish the #4 in my coming workouts :flame I didn't really train grippers in the last years, but I'll go for it again, bro :mosher

Edited by Florian Kellersmann
Link to post
Share on other sites

You have the potential brother! Go for it. I am always attacking the #4 myself, maybe even a bit too much for my own good! ;) Saying that i didn't list myself in that list of mine but i think i have the potential to cert on the #4 one day.

I don't think hand size comes into it as much as people think. I have 8'' hands, so my hands are probably middle of the pack in this thread (which should give me an unbiased view). Look at Teemu with less than 7.5'' hands. He can CCS a BBE. That should be enough to bering an end to whiny posts like 'can't even CCS a #2 my hands are only 7.5'' everyone who is any good has huge hands...'. Just make do with what you have.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How short does the hand size have to be in order to be considered a small-handed individual? If that is known, then we can just measure everyone's hand at the competition and if none of the competitors are small-handed, then the CCS set can be used during the competition. If there are small-handed individuals present, then MM set can be used to be fair to them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
mobsterone
Just wondering what their hand sizes are and bodyweight are. Are any of them under 7.7/8" hand length? RS

No but I'm about your best bodyweight as was.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Teemu I

I just decided that this was the last time I talked about different sets.

I bet we'll see some #4 closes this year, but certs are unlikely.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bob Lipinski

My hand size is 7.25, bodyweight 205-245 within the last few years.

I don't think hand size comes into it as much as people think. I have 8'' hands, so my hands are probably middle of the pack in this thread (which should give me an unbiased view).

Trust me, some of the wider grippers are a bite in the ass even with the MM set.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting off the best set debate and who's the greatest potential crusher :D

Err for me-

Teemu is the most likely to close a new #4 in 2008.....I don't think a cert will come on a #4 for at least 2 years by anyone though.

Wes looks like he could cert on a #4 one day but is he training for it? He seems to have youth and natural strength on his side.

Morton has closed a #4 but if he could have certed then he would have done back then I guess. Doesn't everyone that trains grip want to be on the #4 list? He's ranked up there with most people as being recorded as closing the toughest gripper in the level 6. Does Dave aim to or work on the #4 cert?

Martin Arildson, the #3.5 fell some time ago so has he improved on it?

Patricks videos are awsome, he's got to be in with a shout.

I have to give Pete a shout, he seems to have a will that most of us would be proud to own. He's somebody that's not grabbed a #3 and closed it first time, but he's worked from the #2 up and that shows that his training methods work. Where he'll end up is in his hands.........literally :)

There are of course loads of other potential closers but I've based my choices on some of the younger grippers that have a bit more to show before they peak.

Overall I think Temmu will set the bar highest, and I base my view that way because I'm already seeing him do things I don't think anyone else could do......ring and pinky anyone!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dave Morton is already certified on the #4. ;)

:blink

http://74.205.126.46/ironmind/opencms/iron...nsofcrush4.html

I'm talking with the current ccs ruls. Daves cert was not a ccs. is he training for a "New" 4 cert?

I guess all of the original #4 cert guys will in a way feel a bit bummed when the CCS #4 cert is done by somebody, as that will be considered the best close ever it terms of difficulty?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I saw that Teemu. I forgot that he was the one on the ladder. How far is Dave Morton on CCSing a #4?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dave Morton is already certified on the #4. ;)

:blink

http://74.205.126.46/ironmind/opencms/iron...nsofcrush4.html

I'm talking with the current ccs ruls. Daves cert was not a ccs. is he training for a "New" 4 cert?

I guess all of the original #4 cert guys will in a way feel a bit bummed when the CCS #4 cert is done by somebody, as that will be considered the best close ever it terms of difficulty?

I'd rank Kinney's close above a CCS #4 close but that's a whole nother can o worms. :cool

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.