Rgc Ratings

[Kaesar83]

48 minutes ago, mcalpine1986 said:

Yeah see where your coming from but ive spoke to  few people who have had ratings from Gog and not seen anything that would suggest they are wrong. Also the post about being on par with CPWs ratings on reddit. I think heavy grips are the hardest grippers to compare to other brands as well since the poundage and spreads vary so much. 

I bet if you tested say 50 of each strength gripper you would find a lot of variance. Also i remember a post on here by CPW saying that the average spread of a Hg was 65mm new but after some full closes and testing the ratings they lost about 5mm on average in spread. Maybe Matt can chime in a bit more on this? 

All good my man, if they're accurate or comparable to cpw that's all I care about. If they happen to be light then whatever, gives me reason to buy more haha. Also means I've got one in that 130 Goldilocks zone so that's decent.

All of mine are 58-62mm (minus the 72mm 150) so if they're around 65mm~ when new then them losing 5mm from initial seasoning sounds about right. Unfortunately, I never even thought to check them when brand new but I guess Matt can confirm that from unpackaging and rating new ones. 

Edited September 26, 2020 by Kaesar83

[Cannon]

On 9/26/2020 at 3:29 AM, mcalpine1986 said:

Solid points but HGs can and do vary massively. Matt says he has a Hg300 rating 115lbs. Also remember the sample size of on the heavy grips data is small. Like only 17 250s tested and 14 300s. 

There are two things that I hope to redirect here. This is general information; it's just your comment reminded me to post both these things:   

1) As a result of the comment above highlighting the number of grippers rated--and a report from a customer that their low HG250 was not reflected in our data--we discovered an error in our spreadsheet that was causing it to miss all HGs we've rated since about 2015! We really should have noticed the data was not changing update after update.  Here are all the figures.   

 

2) The second thing is what I would call an urban legend at this point. Heavy Grips do not vary "massively" compared to other brands. If you look at a gripper like the GHP 7 you can see it ranges from 138 to 160 representing a 22 lbs spread. HG300 is performing the same. But it can be said with 263 GHP 7s rated, there are many more chances for one to be high or low. So then compare similar sample sizes as another example, we have only rated 56 Trainers and there is a 12 lbs spread between low and high. Similarly we have rated 51 HG250s with only a 15 lbs spread. This is too similar to call them anything except "equally variable". On the contrary, we have only rated 52 Grip Genie Level 5s and there is already a 37 lbs gap. But honestly we don't hear people saying Grip Genie varies a lot, never mind that Grip Genie 5 has actually been critical to hitting some hard-to-find numbers.   

CPW has worked hard to change the messaging around variation. It is GOOD. Variation is the lifeblood of assembling a useful training set. People want options. We know people want the variations because when we post pre-rated grippers it's the edges that sell immediately. The ones that land around "average" absolutely take longer to sell.

As with most things in life, diversity is desirable.  

[Cannon]

1 hour ago, Cannon said:

On the contrary, we have only rated 52 Grip Genie Level 5s and there is already a 37 lbs gap. But honestly we don't hear people saying Grip Genie varies a lot, never mind that Grip Genie 5 has actually been critical to hitting some hard-to-find numbers. 

Maybe just another point here that the Ratings Data might not tell the full story about this either. Truthfully we had ONE Grip Genie 5 at 126 and then I think the next lowest is something like 138. So there is a 37 lbs gap but largely due to one oddball gripper. Throw that oddball out and you have a more typical 25 lbs spread.

In a recent article on our blog, we posted a line graph that showed the curve of all our rated #3s. It was a nice Matterhorn-looking mountain. Meaning, a vast majority of the numbers are located in a sharp peak through the middle with foothills on either side. You can see that a bulk of all numbers are actually contained between roughly 145 and 154, a much tighter range. 

The point I'm trying to make about Heavy Grips (or any gripper) is that the line graph is going to look the same. They all vary, and all have the same spike near the average falling off to both sides. If you want to know the rating of any one gripper, you need to rate that gripper.   

[Maiche 25]

28 minutes ago, Cannon said:

Maybe just another point here that the Ratings Data might not tell the full story about this either. Truthfully we had ONE Grip Genie 5 at 126 and then I think the next lowest is something like 138. So there is a 37 lbs gap but largely due to one oddball gripper. Throw that oddball out and you have a more typical 25 lbs gap.

In a recent article on our blog, we posted a line graph that showed the curve of all our rated #3s. It was a nice Matterhorn-looking mountain. Meaning, a vast majority of the numbers are located in a sharp peak through the middle with foothills on either side. You can see that a bulk of all numbers are actually contained between roughly 145 and 154, a much tighter range. 

The point I'm trying to make about Heavy Grips (or any gripper) is that the line graph is going to look the same. They all vary, and all have the same spike near the average falling off to both sides. If you want to know the rating of any one gripper, you need to rate that gripper.   

I am the proud owner of this grip genie 5 with RGC 126, I closed it CCS yesterday (my record after 7 months of grip training). Really incredible it looks like a very hard heavy grip 250 and certainly not a gripper that could potentially be harder than a coc 3 ... I'm still mad at not being able to buy the 136.

[Maiche 25]

Almost sure that it was 136 and not 138 for the less hard second grip genie 5

[mcalpine1986]

16 hours ago, Cannon said:

There are two things that I hope to redirect here. This is general information; it's just your comment reminded me to post both these things:   

1) As a result of the comment above highlighting the number of grippers rated--and a report from a customer that their low HG250 was not reflected in our data--we discovered an error in our spreadsheet that was causing it to miss all HGs we've rated since about 2015! We really should have noticed the data was not changing update after update.  Here are all the figures.   

 

2) The second thing is what I would call an urban legend at this point. Heavy Grips do not vary "massively" compared to other brands. If you look at a gripper like the GHP 7 you can see it ranges from 138 to 160 representing a 22 lbs spread. HG300 is performing the same. But it can be said with 263 GHP 7s rated, there are many more chances for one to be high or low. So then compare similar sample sizes as another example, we have only rated 56 Trainers and there is a 12 lbs spread between low and high. Similarly we have rated 51 HG250s with only a 15 lbs spread. This is too similar to call them anything except "equally variable". On the contrary, we have only rated 52 Grip Genie Level 5s and there is already a 37 lbs gap. But honestly we don't hear people saying Grip Genie varies a lot, never mind that Grip Genie 5 has actually been critical to hitting some hard-to-find numbers.   

CPW has worked hard to change the messaging around variation. It is GOOD. Variation is the lifeblood of assembling a useful training set. People want options. We know people want the variations because when we post pre-rated grippers it's the edges that sell immediately. The ones that land around "average" absolutely take longer to sell.

As with most things in life, diversity is desirable.  

Matt that was an awesome informative consise post. Now the chart has been updated HGs seem about the same as cocs in variation and with a large amount of tested grippers that is great. Are you updated the chart to include the crazy low 160 coc 3.5? 

Your 115lb 300 must be an oddball gripper. The crazy world of Gripper ratings. 

Edited September 30, 2020 by mcalpine1986

[Kaesar83]

19 hours ago, Cannon said:

There are two things that I hope to redirect here. This is general information; it's just your comment reminded me to post both these things:   

1) As a result of the comment above highlighting the number of grippers rated--and a report from a customer that their low HG250 was not reflected in our data--we discovered an error in our spreadsheet that was causing it to miss all HGs we've rated since about 2015! We really should have noticed the data was not changing update after update.  Here are all the figures.   

 

2) The second thing is what I would call an urban legend at this point. Heavy Grips do not vary "massively" compared to other brands. If you look at a gripper like the GHP 7 you can see it ranges from 138 to 160 representing a 22 lbs spread. HG300 is performing the same. But it can be said with 263 GHP 7s rated, there are many more chances for one to be high or low. So then compare similar sample sizes as another example, we have only rated 56 Trainers and there is a 12 lbs spread between low and high. Similarly we have rated 51 HG250s with only a 15 lbs spread. This is too similar to call them anything except "equally variable". On the contrary, we have only rated 52 Grip Genie Level 5s and there is already a 37 lbs gap. But honestly we don't hear people saying Grip Genie varies a lot, never mind that Grip Genie 5 has actually been critical to hitting some hard-to-find numbers.   

CPW has worked hard to change the messaging around variation. It is GOOD. Variation is the lifeblood of assembling a useful training set. People want options. We know people want the variations because when we post pre-rated grippers it's the edges that sell immediately. The ones that land around "average" absolutely take longer to sell.

As with most things in life, diversity is desirable.  

Matt, great and interesting post. The data definitely looks better. However, there still seems to be some missing data? If you look back a few pages (page 35) someone had an 80lb rated HG200 but your minimum there is only showing 85? Unless it was left out for a specific reason?

Edited September 30, 2020 by Kaesar83

[Cannon]

3 hours ago, mcalpine1986 said:

Are you updated the chart to include the crazy low 160 coc 3.5? 

Your 115lb 300 must be an oddball gripper. The crazy world of Gripper ratings. 

Yeah the 3.5 will be in there eventually. We update in batches. 

My HG300 is old. The ratings data is only new grippers rated for CPW. I think my HGs are from about 2006 and CPW started in 2012.

[Cannon]

1 hour ago, Kaesar83 said:

Matt, great and interesting post. The data definitely looks better. However, there still seems to be some missing data? If you look back a few pages (page 35) someone had an 80lb rated HG200 but your minimum there is only showing 85? Unless it was left out for a specific reason?

Was it Rate and Return?  The ratings data is only NEW grippers sold by CPW.

Edit: It was used. Used grippers and filed grippers are also not in the general data.  

[Maiche 25]

9 minutes ago, Cannon said:

Was it Rate and Return?  The ratings data is only NEW grippers sold by CPW.

Edit: It was used. Used grippers and filed grippers are also not in the general data.  

Very intelligent, in fact you never know what happened to a second hand gripper so its rating is only valid for its buyer and not to obtain reliable and objective data on a gripper model. Anyway with use and time the RGC probably changes a bit.

[Kaesar83]

57 minutes ago, Cannon said:

Was it Rate and Return?  The ratings data is only NEW grippers sold by CPW.

Edit: It was used. Used grippers and filed grippers are also not in the general data.  

Ah yes, looks to be second hand . Fair enough, I guess you can't be too sure on what someone has or hasn't done to them whilst being in their possession.

Are you planning on prerating any more GGs?

Edited September 30, 2020 by Kaesar83

[Cannon]

18 minutes ago, Kaesar83 said:

Are you planning on prerating any more GGs?

Yes, always.

[ChimpGrip]

On 12/6/2016 at 11:47 AM, Fist of Fury said:

Thats a nice collection you have there @Jörg Keilbach. Personally I prefer GHP, I'm trying to find as many rated ones I can afford. My current rated grippers are:

78# Tetting Advanced (CPW)
92# Atomgripz 3 (exarmy)
102# COC#2 (CPW)
104# COC#2 (CPW)
112# COC#2 (CPW)
115# GHP5 (CPW)
120# RB210 Spectrum (CPW) (for sale)
122# RB210 Spectrum (CPW) (for sale)
125# GHP6 (CPW)
128# Tetting Super Master (CPW)
128# GHP6 (CPW)
131# GHP6 (CPW)
133# Tetting Super Master (CPW)
135# GHP6 (CPW)
137# GHP6 (Chris Rice)
140# T6 (CPW)
142# COC#3 (CPW)
146# Tetting Grand Master (CPW)
146# GHP7 (CPW)
149# Tetting Grand Master (CPW)
150# GHP7 (CPW)
174# GHP8 (CPW)
 

This is interesting! I have been building up my collection lately, it includes rated and unrated grippers. Here it is below...

UPDATE as of 15. October 2020... just got a new GHP 10 rated at 275 from CPW, the heaviest GHP 10 ever rated. Also got a COC#4 double-stamped on the way from CPW, made in 2004 and rated at 215.

All rated grippers rated by Cannon PowerWorks.

COC#1

COC#1.5

COC#2

COC#2 Filed

COC #2.5

RB Black Skull Stamp Gripper (rated 125)

COC#2.5 Filed (rated 135)

COC#2.5 Filed

GHP6

GHP7 (rated 142)

GHP7 (rated 144)

GHP7 (rated 147)

Tetting Grandmaster (rated 148)

COC#3

COC#3 (rated 150)

COC#3 (rated 152)

Grip Genie Level 5 (rated 153)

GHP Level 7 (rated 154)

COC#3 Filed (rated 160)

Adjustable #3

Left-turn #3

GHP8

COC #3.5

COC#3.5

Armlifting Greece Yperion

HG350 (rated 167)

GHP Level 8 (rated 169)

COC#3.5 (rated 172)

GHP Level 8 (rated 177)

CPW Hybird (rated 180)

COC#3.5 Filed (rated 188)

Grip Genie Level 6 (rated 191)

GHP Level 9 (rated 212)

GHP Level 9 (rated 218)

COC#4

COC#4 (rated 215 - double-stamped and made in 2004)

COC #4 (rated 223)

COC#4 (rated 225)

RB365 (rated 228)

GHP10

GHP10

GHP10

GHP10 (rated 275 - heaviest GHP10 ever rated)

Tetting World Class x 2

AtomGripz6 (rated 305)

Tetting Thor

Tetting Thor with Double Loop Spring x 3

Tetting Hercules

Edited February 16, 2021 by ChimpGrip

[ChimpGrip]

@Cannon just got my atomgripz6 in rated at 305, holy cow this thing is heavy! What could one do with so much crushing power? Pop a coconut like a grape?

[mcalpine1986]

1 minute ago, ChimpGrip said:

@Cannon just got my atomgripz6 in rated at 305, holy cow this thing is heavy! What could one do with so much crushing power? Pop a coconut like a grape?

305! Thats crazy. Can you even budge it? Id be impressed if anyone could even chest crush it.

[Fist of Fury]

38 minutes ago, mcalpine1986 said:

305! Thats crazy. Can you even budge it? Id be impressed if anyone could even chest crush it.

That is actually a very good range for chest crushing. If you're strong at steel bending anything less would be too easy.

I wish there were more grippers in that range.

[mcalpine1986]

6 minutes ago, Fist of Fury said:

That is actually a very good range for chest crushing. If you're strong at steel bending anything less would be too easy.

I wish there were more grippers in that range.

I wasnt aware tbh..i have no idea about chest crushing grippers it just sounds damn hard

[ChimpGrip]

On 10/13/2020 at 11:47 AM, mcalpine1986 said:

305! Thats crazy. Can you even budge it? Id be impressed if anyone could even chest crush it.

It'll move maybe 5mm lol, if that counts!

[mcalpine1986]

8 hours ago, ChimpGrip said:

It'll move maybe 5mm lol, if that counts!

Well if you move it only 5mm. People who could fully close it chest crusing must be pretty strong. Its over double my coc 3. Crazy heavy gripper. 

[ChimpGrip]

14 hours ago, mcalpine1986 said:

Well if you move it only 5mm. People who could fully close it chest crusing must be pretty strong. Its over double my coc 3. Crazy heavy gripper. 

Yeah its a monster, the spring on it is insane. My world class feels harder, but that'st just because there's no "give" when you squeeze

[JJM]

Grippers are sometimes rated with numbers like 2.73, 3.00 or 3.2 etc. based on rgc results. What is the formula behind this rating?

I figured out that 150lbs is around 3.00, 110 lbs equals to 2.00 and 180 lbs is 3.50. It makes sense, right? But how do you calculate these numbers?

[Fist of Fury]

3 hours ago, JJM said:

Grippers are sometimes rated with numbers like 2.73, 3.00 or 3.2 etc. based on rgc results. What is the formula behind this rating?

I figured out that 150lbs is around 3.00, 110 lbs equals to 2.00 and 180 lbs is 3.50. It makes sense, right? But how do you calculate these numbers?

I suck at math but it should be easy to calculate if you know the difference. Between the numbers. Like if #4 is 210 and #3 is 150. That means the difference is 60. Then if you rate a gripper at 180 you're right in between that, which makes it 3.5.

Or if you rate a gripper at 175 it will be 25 / 60 =  3.416. Since it's 25 more than 150. That seems to make sense to me but I don't know.

[Cannon]

4 hours ago, JJM said:

Grippers are sometimes rated with numbers like 2.73, 3.00 or 3.2 etc. based on rgc results. What is the formula behind this rating?

I figured out that 150lbs is around 3.00, 110 lbs equals to 2.00 and 180 lbs is 3.50. It makes sense, right? But how do you calculate these numbers?

This is an arbitrary and unnecessary conversion. It’s based on declaring that a 3 or 4 “should” have a certain rating then doing the math for your rating to see where it lands. 

For example if you decide a 3 “should” be 150 but yours is 153 then the conversion is (153/150)*3=3.06. 

But again the conversion is arbitrary and unnecessary and the more useful info about your gripper was that the rating is 153. 

[JJM]

1 hour ago, Fist of Fury said:

I suck at math but it should be easy to calculate if you know the difference. Between the numbers. Like if #4 is 210 and #3 is 150. That means the difference is 60. Then if you rate a gripper at 180 you're right in between that, which makes it 3.5.

Or if you rate a gripper at 175 it will be 25 / 60 =  3.416. Since it's 25 more than 150. That seems to make sense to me but I don't know.

Well if you say so , but in that case I suck way more. But it is just how you put it. I just got confused because the gap in lbs is different between 1 - 2 / 28 lbs, 2 - 3 / 40 lbs, 3 - 4 / 60 lbs etc.

4 minutes ago, Cannon said:

This is an arbitrary and unnecessary conversion. It’s based on declaring that a 3 or 4 “should” have a certain rating then doing the math for your rating to see where it lands. 

For example if you decide a 3 “should” be 150 but yours is 153 then the conversion is (153/150)*3=3.06. 

But again the conversion is arbitrary and unnecessary and the more useful info about your gripper was that the rating is 153. 

I woudn't say it's totally unnecessary conversion. It's just another way to state the rating of the gripper and may be easier to compare the springs. Especially easier for someone who doesn't have a clue what 145 lbs or 195 lbs might mean. In the end it's still just comparing one number to another and allowing you to sort out your grippers in some order.

But in order to use this kind of rating you certainly have to define exact readings for every average gripper, like 3.00 = 150 lbs. Otherwise it doesn't really mean anything.

 

I was reading old entries on this thread and there are hundreads(?) of ratings with this kind of numbering, mainly done by Matti Heiskanen, and it got me thinking how he defines the numbers.

He seem to have defined the whole numbers using round kg's like this:

- #1.00 = 37,5 kg (82,67 lbs)

- #2.00 = 50 kg (110,23 lbs)

- #3.00 = 68 kg (149,91 lbs)

- #4.00 = 95 kg (209,44 lbs)

- #5.00 = ??? kg

 

The same with round lbs would be like this:

- #1.00 = 82,5 lbs

- #2.00 = 110 lbs

- #3.00 = 150 lbs

- #4.00 = 210 lbs

- #5.00 = ??? lbs

 

Putting it this way there are already two different definitions, metric and U.S. rating. Maybe the whole numbering should be forgotten and just stay with the dominant RGC lbs?

 

I started to study this because I finally started to build my own calibrating machine. I have my old inaccurate hanging weight system, but the new one is powered with special smooth pneumatic cylinders and it has accurate pressure and linear sensors and the mechanics leave very little room for error and variation. The idea is to generate force / travel curves on computer so we can also measure the sweep and compare it between grippers.

[Fist of Fury]

1 hour ago, Cannon said:

This is an arbitrary and unnecessary conversion. It’s based on declaring that a 3 or 4 “should” have a certain rating then doing the math for your rating to see where it lands. 

For example if you decide a 3 “should” be 150 but yours is 153 then the conversion is (153/150)*3=3.06. 

But again the conversion is arbitrary and unnecessary and the more useful info about your gripper was that the rating is 153. 

I agree with this. There's no specific rating that a certain gripper "should" have. Average rating will change over time when more and more ratings are being done.