Geralt Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 Still, Tommy, despite it beeing 'only' 163, it's a strong close. The block set is a whole different ballgame so this takes serious crushingstrength. Congrats on all that progress man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 Still, Tommy, despite it beeing 'only' 163, it's a strong close. The block set is a whole different ballgame so this takes serious crushingstrength. Congrats on all that progress man. Its important to remember that Eric rates grippers slightly different than most. His ratings are always significantly lower. This is the one from Rich that rated 169 with the tradition method, right Tommy? Either way its a great close, but I just wanted to point out that the 163 would be much higher with the method most people use. I'm not saying either way is correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macaz Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 I must point out that Eric cross-rated it too before Paul and Tim got hold of it and Eric got the same rating as me. It seems for sure that the gripper is looser than a $1 whore now. Thanks guys Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geralt Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 Ok guys, if this gripper was closed by both Tim and Paul, this thing belongs in a mausoleum to be preserved for ever. that said, Tommy you do yourself (and guys like me ) a little short by saying you aren't that strong on tsg's. Even if this thing was 160lbs, closing it with a 1.5" blockset still reigns strong in my book. You made more progress in 1 year, 5 months and 1 day than I have done in 4 years, 9 months and 4 days. Just saying. Frankly I don't get it how a lot guys here manage to bend the biggest nails and still progress in closing big ass grippers' in a very short time frame. Anyway, dude, just sayin' you blocksetted and closed a freakin Ghp8 If you keep climbing at this rate, there will be a lot more in store. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricMilfeld Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 Still, Tommy, despite it beeing 'only' 163, it's a strong close. The block set is a whole different ballgame so this takes serious crushingstrength. Congrats on all that progress man. Its important to remember that Eric rates grippers slightly different than most. His ratings are always significantly lower. This is the one from Rich that rated 169 with the tradition method, right Tommy? Either way its a great close, but I just wanted to point out that the 163 would be much higher with the method most people use. I'm not saying either way is correct. For clarification's sake, I should point out that in theory we are all using the same calibration method. Perhaps I'm following the standard a little more closely than some. For example, I insure the bottom handle remains perfectly level during calibration. I periodically put a level to my device, and also, instead of the bottom handle going through a ring of some sort on which it may tilt I have the entire handle resting on a level, flat surface. I also insure the handles stay plumb relative to each other as the handles kiss. As far as other things I do, such as finding the least amount of weight it takes to keep the handles shut, it should go without saying that such a standard will yield the most easily reproduceable results. Oiling and seasoning is also essential. I've posted about this several times in the past and at least a few guys responded by saying they were following the same standards. I've more recently been pleased to discover through cross-calibration that others are getting the same numbers I'm acquiring. I don't believe calibration inconsistencies are as much of a problem today as they once were. My main concern is that we don't have cert and contest grippers being used with inflated numbers. After all, we are keeping "world" records in gripper events now. Long story short, I don't think it's quite accurate to say my methodology is different from than most, at least not anymore. No offense taken, though. In fact, I know that what I've said on the subject previously is the reason people would believe I have "my own method". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macaz Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 There is a strange thing when rating grippers. I think i heard it called it spring memory... or somthing like that. If you close a gripper all the way then back off small amounts of weight till it just starts to open you will get a 2 to 4 pound lower result. Like it makes the spring relax just a tad. The other way is to get it "close" to closed and then slowly add weight intill the handls touch. This method allways seems to give a few pounds more the the prior method. The way I look at it is the second method is more like closing the gripper manualy. The first method is better for consistancy though. I dont know that it matters that much but maybe we should agree on a correct method. I think the first method is easier to do because I usualy end up adding too much weight and having to back up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slazbob Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 Figured you had it. Level 8 is a fine feat Tommy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricMilfeld Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 There is a strange thing when rating grippers. I think i heard it called it spring memory... or somthing like that. If you close a gripper all the way then back off small amounts of weight till it just starts to open you will get a 2 to 4 pound lower result. Like it makes the spring relax just a tad. The other way is to get it "close" to closed and then slowly add weight intill the handls touch. This method allways seems to give a few pounds more the the prior method. The way I look at it is the second method is more like closing the gripper manualy. The first method is better for consistancy though. I dont know that it matters that much but maybe we should agree on a correct method. I think the first method is easier to do because I usualy end up adding too much weight and having to back up. Excellent post, Rich. And I agree, that the first example should be the standard. This way should produce the most consistent results and insure we're all on the same page. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electron Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 Each way of doing it had pros and cons and depending on which way somebody already does it, their preference will be influenced. There should be a vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macaz Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 I vote the pre-close method. I think Matt does it this way too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 Still, Tommy, despite it beeing 'only' 163, it's a strong close. The block set is a whole different ballgame so this takes serious crushingstrength. Congrats on all that progress man. Its important to remember that Eric rates grippers slightly different than most. His ratings are always significantly lower. This is the one from Rich that rated 169 with the tradition method, right Tommy? Either way its a great close, but I just wanted to point out that the 163 would be much higher with the method most people use. I'm not saying either way is correct. For clarification's sake, I should point out that in theory we are all using the same calibration method. Perhaps I'm following the standard a little more closely than some. For example, I insure the bottom handle remains perfectly level during calibration. I periodically put a level to my device, and also, instead of the bottom handle going through a ring of some sort on which it may tilt I have the entire handle resting on a level, flat surface. I also insure the handles stay plumb relative to each other as the handles kiss. As far as other things I do, such as finding the least amount of weight it takes to keep the handles shut, it should go without saying that such a standard will yield the most easily reproduceable results. Oiling and seasoning is also essential. I've posted about this several times in the past and at least a few guys responded by saying they were following the same standards. I've more recently been pleased to discover through cross-calibration that others are getting the same numbers I'm acquiring. I don't believe calibration inconsistencies are as much of a problem today as they once were. My main concern is that we don't have cert and contest grippers being used with inflated numbers. After all, we are keeping "world" records in gripper events now. Long story short, I don't think it's quite accurate to say my methodology is different from than most, at least not anymore. No offense taken, though. In fact, I know that what I've said on the subject previously is the reason people would believe I have "my own method". My bad Eric. I wasn't trying to start a debate over the correct method. I have just read about the spring memory method on the board and how the numbers are usually lower using it. I remember reading that really long thread about it. Me and Paul Knight just talked about it recently when I went to a comp in Ohio a few weeks ago. I had no idea more people were using it. I just thought you and Mighty Joe were using it. Sorry dude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricMilfeld Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 Still, Tommy, despite it beeing 'only' 163, it's a strong close. The block set is a whole different ballgame so this takes serious crushingstrength. Congrats on all that progress man. Its important to remember that Eric rates grippers slightly different than most. His ratings are always significantly lower. This is the one from Rich that rated 169 with the tradition method, right Tommy? Either way its a great close, but I just wanted to point out that the 163 would be much higher with the method most people use. I'm not saying either way is correct. For clarification's sake, I should point out that in theory we are all using the same calibration method. Perhaps I'm following the standard a little more closely than some. For example, I insure the bottom handle remains perfectly level during calibration. I periodically put a level to my device, and also, instead of the bottom handle going through a ring of some sort on which it may tilt I have the entire handle resting on a level, flat surface. I also insure the handles stay plumb relative to each other as the handles kiss. As far as other things I do, such as finding the least amount of weight it takes to keep the handles shut, it should go without saying that such a standard will yield the most easily reproduceable results. Oiling and seasoning is also essential. I've posted about this several times in the past and at least a few guys responded by saying they were following the same standards. I've more recently been pleased to discover through cross-calibration that others are getting the same numbers I'm acquiring. I don't believe calibration inconsistencies are as much of a problem today as they once were. My main concern is that we don't have cert and contest grippers being used with inflated numbers. After all, we are keeping "world" records in gripper events now. Long story short, I don't think it's quite accurate to say my methodology is different from than most, at least not anymore. No offense taken, though. In fact, I know that what I've said on the subject previously is the reason people would believe I have "my own method". My bad Eric. I wasn't trying to start a debate over the correct method. I have just read about the spring memory method on the board and how the numbers are usually lower using it. I remember reading that really long thread about it. Me and Paul Knight just talked about it recently when I went to a comp in Ohio a few weeks ago. I had no idea more people were using it. I just thought you and Mighty Joe were using it. Sorry dude. Nah, you're good, Chez. I just wanted to bring a little clarity to the the waters I, myself, have probably muddied. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Gillingham Posted May 16, 2013 Author Share Posted May 16, 2013 Eric Milfeld adds his name to the GHP Gripper Challenge list. Congrats Eric! 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macaz Posted May 16, 2013 Share Posted May 16, 2013 Congrats Eric. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted May 16, 2013 Share Posted May 16, 2013 Very Nice. Congrats Eric! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GatorGrip Posted May 16, 2013 Share Posted May 16, 2013 You still got it buddy - A hell of a close Eric! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricMilfeld Posted May 16, 2013 Share Posted May 16, 2013 Thanks, guys! I'm pretty proud of this one, especially since I'm down to 171 pounds. I don't think I've ever shut a gripper of that level with a wide set like that before. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juha Harju Posted May 16, 2013 Share Posted May 16, 2013 Congrats Eric! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterSweden Posted May 16, 2013 Share Posted May 16, 2013 Im looking forward to doing this myself one day! Congratulations to this achievement! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricMilfeld Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 Thanks, guys! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geralt Posted May 18, 2013 Share Posted May 18, 2013 Eric, have you calibrated your gripper? Just curious. I have a 155 lbs one. Totally different feeling on the Ghp7 compared to my IM#3's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy C. Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 Nice close Eric! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricMilfeld Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 Thanks, Jeremy! Geralt, yes, the one I certed on was Tommy's and it calibrated at 148. And you're right about it being a different feel. I think most guys say the sweep feels relatively more difficult on the GHPs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mightyjoe Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 Sorry for the delay Eric but awesome close my friend! One thing for certain is your grippers strength hasn't been affected by your weight loss. At least not yet! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mightyjoe Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 There is a strange thing when rating grippers. I think i heard it called it spring memory... or somthing like that. If you close a gripper all the way then back off small amounts of weight till it just starts to open you will get a 2 to 4 pound lower result. Like it makes the spring relax just a tad. The other way is to get it "close" to closed and then slowly add weight intill the handls touch. This method allways seems to give a few pounds more the the prior method. The way I look at it is the second method is more like closing the gripper manualy. The first method is better for consistancy though. I dont know that it matters that much but maybe we should agree on a correct method. I think the first method is easier to do because I usualy end up adding too much weight and having to back up. I don't have time to go into details but the correct term is residual memory and if you take weight away until the handles open this will always be an erroneous reading because of RM. The rating is based on getting the handles to touch not to open up. That's all because I know that's not what this thread is about. 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.