supersqueeze Posted December 2, 2002 Share Posted December 2, 2002 Unfortunately all posts on this topic must either start with I BELIEVE or I don't BELIEVE. The key word here is BELIEVE. There is no definate proof either way. The choice to believe is yours, but sadly, it is only a choice. The only hard facts presented are so muddy and contradicting that I refuse to believe any of them. It's not as though I don't want to believe, it's just too big a mess to earn my respect. Yes, I strongly disrespect the way this situation has been handled. Furthermore, I may be nobody but that is this nobody's opinion! Heath - I don't think the next closer of a #4 will have any problems with the public because they will be required by IM to meet the same standards as all recently certified #3 closers (maybe ever stricter). However, if the next closer chooses not to meet those standards and instead provides a low resolution home video ... expect all hell to break loose!! Mike M. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roark Posted December 2, 2002 Share Posted December 2, 2002 In any argument, the affirmative has the burden of proof. If I say I have not closed a #4, I need not offer proof. If I say I have closed a #4, it is my burden IF I WANT PUBLIC CREDIT to provide proof to the public. Who is it that is saying Kinney closed the 4 & where is the proof? Frankly, I believe he closed it, but that is a personal belief, and not an argument I would dare to enter unarmed with anything other than my 'belief'. Look at what happened in the Inch and Anderson matters when 'belief' replaced evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bseedot Posted December 3, 2002 Share Posted December 3, 2002 (edited) I don't know much of the tit-for-tat going on with this debate, as it's none of my business and, frankly, it's of little interest to me. It seems that Wanna's intent was not to start another did he or didn't he debate, but to point out what Ironmind has publicly written about the #4 in their most recent catalog. I can't help but think that that little diddy was written for, and in response to, grip geeks who are found primarily on this board. Who else would know, and care, about the controversy or that there was even a debate going on about it? With that in mind, I found some of the answers to be vague, ambiguous, and misguided. For example, if Ironmind was going to convince us of the claims that they made about the 're'-testing of Joe's #4, they certainly weren't very persuasive. If it's worth using a page of the catalog to address some of these issues then give us the details and quit beating around the bush. It seems that either Ironmind is attempting to mislead the public or they have their own working definitions of 'testing' and 'full strength', etc. Giving Ironmind the benefit of the doubt, I'm inclined to think that they have their own definitions for those words, however vague and unacceptable they are to people on this board. As far as Ironmind's assertion that people saying things to the contrary are misinformed or have an axe to grind, I'm not sure what to think about that statement except that I believe that I fall into neither grouping. If Ironmind was expecting that the information they've provided would conclusively inform us of 'the facts' and remove room to entertain doubt then a very poor job was done of that. This information provided in their catalog is no less misinforming than alternative rhetoric being posited in opposition to Ironmind's assertions. The whole thing should have probably been left unprinted. BC. Edited December 3, 2002 by bseedot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sybersnott Posted December 4, 2002 Share Posted December 4, 2002 Alright, now my 2 cents worth. I have heard both sides of this story, and I even talked to Joe about it trying to get his explanation of it. I have the tape, having seen it dozens of times, and I have trained to close the #3 EXCLUSIVELY on his grip machine, the SW. My final verdict: ??? To be honest, I am, as Wanna would say, "on the fence". I purchased my #4 right around the time Kinney officially closed his. My #4 is a friggin' brick! And I can't go any higher in weight on my SW than about 175 pounds (and that is sheer murder on my hands). Kinney claims to go past 350 pounds on his!! Funny how that gripper disappeared. Too many coincidences!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathan Say Posted December 4, 2002 Share Posted December 4, 2002 Ok I got the explanation right here: Randy stole Kinney's #4 to keep it from getting tested by PDA back when PDA was doing that. PDA isn't doing that anymore so now Kinney 'found' his #4 on his front porch one day. Does that make sense? :huh I'm just being funny but there are sillier things I could have thought of... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slazbob Posted February 20, 2021 Share Posted February 20, 2021 On 11/30/2002 at 4:27 PM, Wannagrip said: IM: a) it didn't exist. Answer: Everyone knew it existed (at least here on this board). The question was on his ORIGINAL gripper he certified with. It's missing. Per Joe's words himself. IM: b) had been tampered with Answer: No one knows this except Joe himself since NO credible expert witnessed him closing it or examined the gripper for themselves. IM: c) was unusually weak Answer: There are no weak #4's. However, examining the picture one can see the handles are set very low on the spring. This means it's likely an "easier 4" if there is such a thing (there is not). The handles are set very low. Probably the lowest I have ever seen on a 4. So, if anything this picture lends credible evidence Joe closed it. IM: b) it's been well used Answer: For sure. Joe was known to do 100 reps at 50 per hand PER workout. IM: c) We recently re-tested it. Answer: Wait a minute here! When was it tested in the first place?! Prior to all the guys here figuring out all was not as it seemed (massive gripper variance), there was NO testing. Now, it's been re-tested?! By what method? We also know through PDA's research that testing is hit or miss at best and IM was one of the biggest bashers of "testing" when the truth came out on this board about the variances and meaningless numbers placed on them. IM: c) it came in at full strength Answer: What the heck is "full strength"!? It's well known now that through seasoning a gripper will weaken and then level off to an easier level than when brand new. With Kinney's volume, his gripper was definitely seasoned so how could it come in at full strength? By the way, what's full strength again?! IM: d) anyone who says anything to the contrary is misinformed or has an axe to grind. Answer: The only people misinformed are those reading the IM catalog who haven't been to this board. Axe to grind? Again, it seems a bash of 1st COC? I am throughly disappointed in what was written. I know this is a very old thread and this post may not make it a day! It has to do with Joe’s gripper going missing/stolen. Joe has stated this as fact his Milo picture/ cert no.4 is gone. so the video close is done with a new no.4 bought from a friend of Joe’s. I had mentioned to Joe that the stamp is in the exact position for the Milo cover and the video. He said it’s more likely to get two stamps in the same position than unlikely. But out of nowhere, I’ve noticed a speck or blemish in the metal to the upper right of the no.4 stamp. It’s in the picture, and it’s in the video- Is it possible to now have, supposedly, two different no.4’s with the exact stamp position and metal blemish? can it be argued (if interested), that the cert no.4, the (easy one), never left his possession? It was said to have been lost to avoid finding out it was easy or modified ...And the new one which was never closed on the video was shown around ...even to Heath...and tested by Iron Mind? doesn't it make more sense now to anyone who has done all of the training- exactly like Joe, yet never has shown that dominance (even myself) he was maybe not so forthright? I always believed Joe! And even after the Monster gripper I did...but that bothered me; how could you leave out such a valuable piece? He has said it was his fault and they were amateur’s ...but being honest doesn’t involve or take video production skills . I believe Joe was a strong guy! But I think he hit the wall the way we all have with his training advice. 22 months to close the no.4 that way is phenomenal! Too good to be true, right? Every thing about his hands in the original video ...the “easy gripper “demonstrations ...to the grip machine opening up his hands with 220lbs does not support what he looked like with the no.4 ; if you’re that strong you simply would not look normal with such easy tasks...it would be harder to mask your strength than it would be to show it off. He would have had to go out of his way to hold back after watching that no.4 close! but, I digress what are the odds that the stamps are identical and the blemish is identical? What are the odds it’s the same gripper? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busa Posted February 20, 2021 Share Posted February 20, 2021 Only seen the video a few times and read a few stories so don't know much about it. The one thing that always puzzled me was how could anyone spend so much time (you mention 22 months) and effort (making training equipment) to complete a task and then for the gripper to go missing after the close. Yes agree you could not mask that type of strength, 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Piche Posted February 20, 2021 Author Share Posted February 20, 2021 Good gosh..digging up 18+ year old posts!? For what it's worth, I today believe he closed it. The biggest reason is I have seen many come after him who were mega freaks in hand strength in a very short period of time. So, these people do exist out there so if your genetics suck for grippers well you just better get over it. It's like any other athletic performance. There are genetic freaks in all sports, etc. As a side note, Kinney's set was a thing of beauty in reality. You can tell there was major work there and practice to maximize leverage. I analyzed the crap out of his set to help my own closes. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slazbob Posted February 20, 2021 Share Posted February 20, 2021 1 hour ago, Wannagrip said: Good gosh..digging up 18+ year old posts!? For what it's worth, I today believe he closed it. The biggest reason is I have seen many come after him who were mega freaks in hand strength in a very short period of time. So, these people do exist out there so if your genetics suck for grippers well you just better get over it. It's like any other athletic performance. There are genetic freaks in all sports, etc. As a side note, Kinney's set was a thing of beauty in reality. You can tell there was major work there and practice to maximize leverage. I analyzed the crap out of his set to help my own closes. Bill- i can’t believe you glossed over the fact it’s the same gripper in the Milo and the video Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slazbob Posted February 21, 2021 Share Posted February 21, 2021 2 hours ago, Wannagrip said: Good gosh..digging up 18+ year old posts!? For what it's worth, I today believe he closed it. The biggest reason is I have seen many come after him who were mega freaks in hand strength in a very short period of time. So, these people do exist out there so if your genetics suck for grippers well you just better get over it. It's like any other athletic performance. There are genetic freaks in all sports, etc. As a side note, Kinney's set was a thing of beauty in reality. You can tell there was major work there and practice to maximize leverage. I analyzed the crap out of his set to help my own closes. And yes! It’s one of the few that weren’t locked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.