Jump to content

Oldest Man To Close The #4 Coc.


moonraker182

Recommended Posts

How about the set Holle demonstrates in the CoC book? Is that an inch or was he just demonstrating an illegal deep set for us, for posterity?

It's a demonstration of how to deep set: "Nathan shows the steps in training with partials on a Captains of Crush Gripper—in this case, a No. 4(!)" (page 157).

Which part of that was confusing?

Was this quote the same in both editions? What set did Nathan claim to have certified with then?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 162
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Randall Strossen

    52

  • jad

    33

  • Wannagrip

    9

  • Cannon

    9

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Check out the axle dead lift challenge!

Me, Paul, Mobster. There's 3. - Aaron

Josh Dale and Steve McGranahan also come to mind. I wanted to say Woodall as well, but I checked the contest I was thinking about and that was a BBSE he closed. I concede that "quite a few" is ambi

Thanks for getting me the answer to my question Randall - although i didn't expect it would cost you a COC. I (obviously) didn't know you had answered it many times on your website.

I still find preferable to have two separate lists. But "your company, your decision" of course (i decided to create my company a few years ago, and I know that not having someone to tell you how to run things is part of the appeal :flowers:).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Randall Strossen

Arturo -

Probably so as I get all the screen names mixed up and am pretty lame at navigating and posting replies, so how about you tell us what the point of that article was and can collect the CoC/IMTUG if you'd like.

It's ok Mr. Strossen but I would have like to have won it for real and not on second chances, heh heh. Thanks for the opportunity though. I just thought the article I linked was actually a more in-depth explination and better suited as an answer to amaury's question. After all, this article begins with: "“I would like to ask what is the reason that the certifications with different rules are on the same list, without even mentioning that they are done with different rules?" .... which is nearly the same as amaury's question, and you went in depht about 1991, KTA, Bill Piche, Joe Kinney, Richard Sorin, people diluting the certification, the game not having changed, etc. etc. So I respectfully leave this thread, grab some pop-corn (kidding) and await for Jad's reply and look forward to your conversation with him. :-)

Sounds like a good answer to me so you can claim your CoC/IMTUG if you'd like—as I recall, the point was that IronMind wasn't going to make things retroactive or guess at what some guys might have done and penalize them for it.

I hope there's a lot of popcorn—we could be here for a while and I'm going to want some , too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Randall Strossen

What about this article: http://ironmind.com/...t_Ever_Was.html

Where Mr. Strossen states, and I quote: "it’s hard to argue that things have changed: the strong are still the strong, and all IronMind® has done has made it more difficult for the charlatans to dilute things."

So apparently the reason why the list is not sepparated is because the guys who certed before the CC rule were using a set, but it was not "too deep" by Mr. Strossen's standards. So when people attempted to certify with too deep of a set, the rule was invented. And since Richard Sorin re-certified many years later, it is a testament that everyone who certed before the CC rule (and before the KTA program came out), used only a modest set, therefore could probably have closed it with a CCS as well.

The concepts here are pretty simple:

1) follow the rules and you get certified (not the rules before or after, or even as they might have been)

The problem is you have drastically changed the rules and then make perjorative comments (eg WVS)

about closes that were within your rules at one point but now are somehow not real closes

2) rules change in response to situational demands (pre-tacky, for example, one wouldn't have to say tacky was prohibiited)

3) if Richard Sorin were the exception in terms of not using a deep set pre CCS on a CoC3 cert, KTA would never have had a market and the Gripboard would never have had its cause celebre

KTA was a one of kind program, provided for relatively little cost, promoted at the number one place for a very specialized audience. It's marketing mix alone all but guarantees success. Also, thanks to the GB you had a much larger audience for your grippers which means you'd have more people training on them and certing. Pulling the blob has become pretty common as well; is that because of some cheater move in Blob KTA or the fact that more people are actually hearing about it, learning how to train for it, and have the strength for when they finally get to try one.

By your way of thinking, we should have footnotes by each person's name—noting on which side they fell of each rule—but that seems a little excessive to me.

Looks like I still haven't learned how to pick up multiple quotes to use in one reply, but this is as good a place as any to start because if JAD read the short article about no second class citizens he would understand he's got the story backwards.

Absolutely true that KTA has a lot of good stuff in it and the deep set is only a part of the mix, but it's what really set things apart for guys who wanted to suddenly appear to be 0.5 gripper stronger than they really are (the Corlett Constant), if you accept the fact the deep set/parallel set/MM set or whatever you want to call it is a partial movement.

The traditional way to close a gripper is over what's essentially its full range of motion, not just a lockout at the end. You take offense at being told this obvious truth and would like to portray me as a villain for pointing it out to you, but this stuff is no different than squatting and can't really be debated: cut the depth and increase the weight.

Which you seem to forget when you make your WVC comments. The same set you're making fun of is what was likely used by all of the #4 certs except Kinney and while I personally believe Kinney's close; there's no lack of controversey surrounding that one as well. I'd be interested if Dave, Tommy, or Nathan claim to have used a wider than parallel set. The only #4 vid I've seen of Magnus is so clouded you can't even tell if he closed it with two and is holding it with one or has actually shut it with one but it wouldn't even pass our parallel set cert here on the board; not even close.

Is this the correct timeline then?

Beginning to 2003: no defined set distance but everyone pre-KTA was using a full range of motion which is anything 2.13" or greater

2003-2004: KTA has bred the deep setter so legit closes are now 1" or greater. This has drastically reduced it from 2.13" but is a real close or real enough to allow you to certify

2004-present: set distance is now 2.13" or greater and we've taken an additional step of measuring it with a credit card/

JAD -

This is good because I think we're starting to get more specific about some of your comments, questions and concerns, and some concentrated repetition can help communication.

My guess, and it's only a guess, is that both Joe and Magnus would have had no trouble closing the CoC No. 4 with the credit card rule, but that the other guys could not have done this, but—and I will keep repeating this until you either say you understand or don't care—they met the rules at the time, so it's not fair to later penalize them. Would you kick all the likely positives out of the Olympics in the years before drug testing? And why are you just focusing on that one rule when each rule that was added was added because of a specific concern we at IronMind had about had the spirt of the challenge was being compromised by something someone did? Rules evolve to cover breeches as necessary.

Your basic outline is correct and therein you see why I rankle at the phrase "new rules," especially because when laid out as you have, it's easy to see the morph: it's the thin slice of time when we tried the 1-inch rule—that was the exception, not rule.

Yes, absolutely, our trial with 1-inch rule was in response to what guys had learned from KTA and we were giving it a test. At the time, the principal choice was between adopting a minimum of 1- or 2-inches and I discussed it with several guys whose opinions I valued. The idea of going for 1 inch was not unanimous, but I ultimately opted to give it try. The rest, as they say, is history: it didn't work and we ended the experiment.

Pass the popcorn, please.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Randall Strossen

I re-reviewed my own videos in KTA again. One is of me doing a beef builder. It is a MMS. Steve Weiner is in there closing a 3 as an example and I am sure it's not a CCS but it certainly is not deep. And, there is no mention of setting deep purposely that's for sure. :)

What's this thread about again? I seem to have lost track as to where we are going with this. ;)

Interesting archives and thank you for sharing this.

The claims that everyone pre-CCS deep set or that everyone post KTA deep set on their CoC certification attempts would never hold up under careful thought or close inspection, and there's nothing wrong with having introduced and formalized deep sets; in fact, I consider it a milestone in gripper training. On the other hand, it was IronMind's job to say, fine, that can be a good training technique, but it doesn't count for a CoC certification. It's too bad that some guys took that personally since their sense of entitlement included recognition for short-stroke gripper closes or they simply can't acknowledge the physical reality sitting in the palm of their hand.

I think this thread is good in that JAD, for example, can assert things or ask questions and I can reply directly—it's always good for each of us to check what we think we know.

Stephen-Colbert-Popcorn.gif

:laugh

Except during the 1" era but again those KTA rascals may have set it a quarter inch too deep, depending on the gripper

Yes, absolutely—part of the problem was that not only was 1" really cutting things thin as far as the ROM goes, but when I saw some guy's interpretation of 1" I could see what a problem we had . . . 3/4" . . . 5/8" . . .

So, putting these pieces together, a bright young guy like you can understand why IronMind took the initiative to both 1) define the minimum permissible starting position as wider than something this deep and 2) define this minimum legal width objectively, rather than letting it swing in the breeze as a subjective call.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Randall Strossen

JAD -

I don't know about you, but I could go for a couple of beers, along with the popcorn.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I re-reviewed my own videos in KTA again. One is of me doing a beef builder. It is a MMS. Steve Weiner is in there closing a 3 as an example and I am sure it's not a CCS but it certainly is not deep. And, there is no mention of setting deep purposely that's for sure. :)

What's this thread about again? I seem to have lost track as to where we are going with this. ;)

Interesting archives and thank you for sharing this.

The claims that everyone pre-CCS deep set or that everyone post KTA deep set on their CoC certification attempts would never hold up under careful thought or close inspection, and there's nothing wrong with having introduced and formalized deep sets; in fact, I consider it a milestone in gripper training. On the other hand, it was IronMind's job to say, fine, that can be a good training technique, but it doesn't count for a CoC certification. It's too bad that some guys took that personally since their sense of entitlement included recognition for short-stroke gripper closes or they simply can't acknowledge the physical reality sitting in the palm of their hand.

I think this thread is good in that JAD, for example, can assert things or ask questions and I can reply directly—it's always good for each of us to check what we think we know.

Stephen-Colbert-Popcorn.gif

:laugh

Except during the 1" era but again those KTA rascals may have set it a quarter inch too deep, depending on the gripper

Yes, absolutely—part of the problem was that not only was 1" really cutting things thin as far as the ROM goes, but when I saw some guy's interpretation of 1" I could see what a problem we had . . . 3/4" . . . 5/8" . . .

So, putting these pieces together, a bright young guy like you can understand why IronMind took the initiative to both 1) define the minimum permissible starting position as wider than something this deep and 2) define this minimum legal width objectively, rather than letting it swing in the breeze as a subjective call.

I can appreciate the "give them an inch, they take a foot" and putting the kibosh on that and I love numbers/objectively defined things but what I can't understand is why the distance increased so drastically and why closes that were once "legal" under the 1" rule are now "short stroke". To clarify: why go with the CCS vs selling a 1" IM block?

Edited by jad
Link to post
Share on other sites

What about this article: http://ironmind.com/...t_Ever_Was.html

Where Mr. Strossen states, and I quote: "it’s hard to argue that things have changed: the strong are still the strong, and all IronMind® has done has made it more difficult for the charlatans to dilute things."

So apparently the reason why the list is not sepparated is because the guys who certed before the CC rule were using a set, but it was not "too deep" by Mr. Strossen's standards. So when people attempted to certify with too deep of a set, the rule was invented. And since Richard Sorin re-certified many years later, it is a testament that everyone who certed before the CC rule (and before the KTA program came out), used only a modest set, therefore could probably have closed it with a CCS as well.

The concepts here are pretty simple:

1) follow the rules and you get certified (not the rules before or after, or even as they might have been)

The problem is you have drastically changed the rules and then make perjorative comments (eg WVS)

about closes that were within your rules at one point but now are somehow not real closes

2) rules change in response to situational demands (pre-tacky, for example, one wouldn't have to say tacky was prohibiited)

3) if Richard Sorin were the exception in terms of not using a deep set pre CCS on a CoC3 cert, KTA would never have had a market and the Gripboard would never have had its cause celebre

KTA was a one of kind program, provided for relatively little cost, promoted at the number one place for a very specialized audience. It's marketing mix alone all but guarantees success. Also, thanks to the GB you had a much larger audience for your grippers which means you'd have more people training on them and certing. Pulling the blob has become pretty common as well; is that because of some cheater move in Blob KTA or the fact that more people are actually hearing about it, learning how to train for it, and have the strength for when they finally get to try one.

By your way of thinking, we should have footnotes by each person's name—noting on which side they fell of each rule—but that seems a little excessive to me.

Looks like I still haven't learned how to pick up multiple quotes to use in one reply, but this is as good a place as any to start because if JAD read the short article about no second class citizens he would understand he's got the story backwards.

Absolutely true that KTA has a lot of good stuff in it and the deep set is only a part of the mix, but it's what really set things apart for guys who wanted to suddenly appear to be 0.5 gripper stronger than they really are (the Corlett Constant), if you accept the fact the deep set/parallel set/MM set or whatever you want to call it is a partial movement.

The traditional way to close a gripper is over what's essentially its full range of motion, not just a lockout at the end. You take offense at being told this obvious truth and would like to portray me as a villain for pointing it out to you, but this stuff is no different than squatting and can't really be debated: cut the depth and increase the weight.

Which you seem to forget when you make your WVC comments. The same set you're making fun of is what was likely used by all of the #4 certs except Kinney and while I personally believe Kinney's close; there's no lack of controversey surrounding that one as well. I'd be interested if Dave, Tommy, or Nathan claim to have used a wider than parallel set. The only #4 vid I've seen of Magnus is so clouded you can't even tell if he closed it with two and is holding it with one or has actually shut it with one but it wouldn't even pass our parallel set cert here on the board; not even close.

Is this the correct timeline then?

Beginning to 2003: no defined set distance but everyone pre-KTA was using a full range of motion which is anything 2.13" or greater

2003-2004: KTA has bred the deep setter so legit closes are now 1" or greater. This has drastically reduced it from 2.13" but is a real close or real enough to allow you to certify

2004-present: set distance is now 2.13" or greater and we've taken an additional step of measuring it with a credit card/

JAD -

This is good because I think we're starting to get more specific about some of your comments, questions and concerns, and some concentrated repetition can help communication.

My guess, and it's only a guess, is that both Joe and Magnus would have had no trouble closing the CoC No. 4 with the credit card rule, but that the other guys could not have done this, but—and I will keep repeating this until you either say you understand or don't care—they met the rules at the time, so it's not fair to later penalize them. Would you kick all the likely positives out of the Olympics in the years before drug testing? And why are you just focusing on that one rule when each rule that was added was added because of a specific concern we at IronMind had about had the spirt of the challenge was being compromised by something someone did? Rules evolve to cover breeches as necessary.

Based off of the video that I've seen, Magnus doesn't have a prayer at CCS a #4. I'm sure he could train up and do it but not right now.

But it is fair to demean otherss closes as "short stroke or deep set" when they closed it the same way as some of those on your list?

I focus on this rule because of the flip-flop you did when you allowed 1" set and then decided anything less than CCS was short stroke or deep set. To clarify: if you'd never defined the set distance and then put in the CCS, claiming this is what you'd assumed people were doing all along; I'd think you were either extremely naieve or lying and just trying to keep certs down to preserve the mystique of the #3, I would still think the distance was ridiculous and would be uninterested in your cert BUT I'd still have respect for your process. On a side-note, I have issues with some of your other rules as well but there are only so many hours in the day :grin: I'm sure we could produce a sequel to our show here on the topic of your unopened, brand-new gripper rule.

Your basic outline is correct and therein you see why I rankle at the phrase "new rules," especially because when laid out as you have, it's easy to see the morph: it's the thin slice of time when we tried the 1-inch rule—that was the exception, not rule.

NO, I don't see it at all. You doubled the distance that grippers were required to be closed at, you certed likely 4/5 #4 closers at that distance, and you wonder why people say "new rules".

Yes, absolutely, our trial with 1-inch rule was in response to what guys had learned from KTA and we were giving it a test. At the time, the principal choice was between adopting a minimum of 1- or 2-inches and I discussed it with several guys whose opinions I valued. The idea of going for 1 inch was not unanimous, but I ultimately opted to give it try. The rest, as they say, is history: it didn't work and we ended the experiment.

You're talking about 1/4" and maybe less depending on the gripper. KTA didn't teach the hocus pocus close, it taught parallel set. So again, I don't understand why you would double the distance if you're concerned about 1/4". Also, you really had judges telling you, "boy...that guy was clearly at 3/4" not an 1"; I really didn't feel great about passing him". Were they professional sharpshooters?

Pass the popcorn, please.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Randall Strossen

How about the set Holle demonstrates in the CoC book? Is that an inch or was he just demonstrating an illegal deep set for us, for posterity?

It's a demonstration of how to deep set: "Nathan shows the steps in training with partials on a Captains of Crush Gripper—in this case, a No. 4(!)" (page 157).

Which part of that was confusing?

Was this quote the same in both editions? What set did Nathan claim to have certified with then?

Sorry, I only looked at the second edition, but the point remains the same: Nathan is demonstrating a deep set and explaining how he would train by increasing the gap as he got stronger . . . if you read the book, you know that, right?

Nathan didn't claim any set beyond what was legal at the time—which is why you can't fault him if it was less than the CCS distance that was subsequently required. I am curious to see how many times I will repeat this principle.

Ok, I went back and checked: same quote about Nathan in the first edition—it's on p. 86. Is that the edition you read?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Randall Strossen

I re-reviewed my own videos in KTA again. One is of me doing a beef builder. It is a MMS. Steve Weiner is in there closing a 3 as an example and I am sure it's not a CCS but it certainly is not deep. And, there is no mention of setting deep purposely that's for sure. :)

What's this thread about again? I seem to have lost track as to where we are going with this. ;)

Interesting archives and thank you for sharing this.

The claims that everyone pre-CCS deep set or that everyone post KTA deep set on their CoC certification attempts would never hold up under careful thought or close inspection, and there's nothing wrong with having introduced and formalized deep sets; in fact, I consider it a milestone in gripper training. On the other hand, it was IronMind's job to say, fine, that can be a good training technique, but it doesn't count for a CoC certification. It's too bad that some guys took that personally since their sense of entitlement included recognition for short-stroke gripper closes or they simply can't acknowledge the physical reality sitting in the palm of their hand.

I think this thread is good in that JAD, for example, can assert things or ask questions and I can reply directly—it's always good for each of us to check what we think we know.

Stephen-Colbert-Popcorn.gif

:laugh

Except during the 1" era but again those KTA rascals may have set it a quarter inch too deep, depending on the gripper

Yes, absolutely—part of the problem was that not only was 1" really cutting things thin as far as the ROM goes, but when I saw some guy's interpretation of 1" I could see what a problem we had . . . 3/4" . . . 5/8" . . .

So, putting these pieces together, a bright young guy like you can understand why IronMind took the initiative to both 1) define the minimum permissible starting position as wider than something this deep and 2) define this minimum legal width objectively, rather than letting it swing in the breeze as a subjective call.

I can appreciate the "give them an inch, they take a foot" and putting the kibosh on that and I love numbers/objectively defined things but what I can't understand is why the distance increased so drastically and why closes that were once "legal" under the 1" rule are now "short stroke". To clarify: why go with the CCS vs selling a 1" IM block?

JAD

I'm not joshing you, the summary you presented demonstrates my point about the 1" rule being a blip—that's part one. Part two, should be equally apparent if you review the history: it didn't work.

I always leaned toward 2-inches, when we were have the 1-or-2 inches discussion, but was trying to be open minded about it, so said OK, we'll give it a try. So, when I saw that already-small gap shrink faster than a $5 T-shirt, we whistled it back and said it's time to dump this foolishness.

So far, things were pretty simple: IronMind learned that 1" was a bust unless you also believed in the tooth fairy and 16 year girls benching 700 lb. and we knew that letting guys guess at a legal gap was like having a hooked gambler say what he'd lost the night before.

The tough part was that IronMind wanted something that was also universal and readily available—not something that was owned by maybe 15 guys in the entire Western Hemisphere and not something you had to buy from IronMind. Enter the credit card/ATM card: the right width, all over the world, everyone has one. Frankly, I can understand why a guy said to me, F#@k*^g brilliant, because it worked like a charm.

Not sure exactly when you entered the gripper world, but if it was around that time, you know how quickly other people copied this basic idea of using an objective standard to define the legal starting point—only they used some weenie distance and forced you to buy their gizmo . . . so what you got was a watered down, copy cat product that you had to pay money for—not my idea of a good deal, but it showed how sound the basic idea was that IronMind developed to solve the problem of defining a legal starting position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How about the set Holle demonstrates in the CoC book? Is that an inch or was he just demonstrating an illegal deep set for us, for posterity?

It's a demonstration of how to deep set: "Nathan shows the steps in training with partials on a Captains of Crush Gripper—in this case, a No. 4(!)" (page 157).

Which part of that was confusing?

Was this quote the same in both editions? What set did Nathan claim to have certified with then?

Sorry, I only looked at the second edition, but the point remains the same: Nathan is demonstrating a deep set and explaining how he would train by increasing the gap as he got stronger . . . if you read the book, you know that, right?

Nathan didn't claim any set beyond what was legal at the time—which is why you can't fault him if it was less than the CCS distance that was subsequently required. I am curious to see how many times I will repeat this principle.

Ok, I went back and checked: same quote about Nathan in the first edition—it's on p. 86. Is that the edition you read?

Oh believe me, I couldn't wait to get the book and read it over and over, especially the Kinney section. I believe I actually emailed you and told you how much I enjoyed the Kinney section. I sold most of my IM stuff when the rules started changing though so I was a little rusty and yes I def had the first edition. I had another board member check their first addition and there is mention and possibly photo of Nathan doing a 25mm set which would be almost spot-on 1" or what you call a short stroke now. I'll be curious as to how many times I have to repeat that it is unacceptable and frankly a bit comical that you've got 4 of the 5 "official #4 closers" using that set but now deem the same thing a short stroke or deep set. As a side note, I certainly don't fault Nathan or anybody else using a 1" set or even a MMS and that's regardless of whether you deem it in fashion at the time or not. No disrespect intended but comments like that indicate that you're a little out of touch; the overwhelming majority of the Gripworld doesn't take CCS seriously as evidenced by the fact it's been rarely used in contests.

Link to post
Share on other sites
JAD

I'm not joshing you, the summary you presented demonstrates my point about the 1" rule being a blip—that's part one. Part two, should be equally apparent if you review the history: it didn't work.

I always leaned toward 2-inches, when we were have the 1-or-2 inches discussion, but was trying to be open minded about it, so said OK, we'll give it a try. So, when I saw that already-small gap shrink faster than a $5 T-shirt, we whistled it back and said it's time to dump this foolishness.

So far, things were pretty simple: IronMind learned that 1" was a bust unless you also believed in the tooth fairy and 16 year girls benching 700 lb. and we knew that letting guys guess at a legal gap was like having a hooked gambler say what he'd lost the night before.

The tough part was that IronMind wanted something that was also universal and readily available—not something that was owned by maybe 15 guys in the entire Western Hemisphere and not something you had to buy from IronMind. Enter the credit card/ATM card: the right width, all over the world, everyone has one. Frankly, I can understand why a guy said to me, F#@k*^g brilliant, because it worked like a charm.

Not sure exactly when you entered the gripper world, but if it was around that time, you know how quickly other people copied this basic idea of using an objective standard to define the legal starting point—only they used some weenie distance and forced you to buy their gizmo . . . so what you got was a watered down, copy cat product that you had to pay money for—not my idea of a good deal, but it showed how sound the basic idea was that IronMind developed to solve the problem of defining a legal starting position.

You lost me on the part where 1" didn't work because there was no objective standard and your next move was to double the distance. I don't have a PhD but I'm fairly educated and I just can't follow that logic. It's not like there is a lack of standard items that are 1". The rest sounds like a conversation between you and David Horne but I will add that David was letting people use their own 20mm block at one point (has this changed?)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jad, you seem to be taking offense to the term "short stroke," but it really is just a definition of the range of movement, not a term of belittlement. If a wide open close (tns) is considered as long a stroke as possible with a gripper, any set which reduces the overall closing distance is simply by definition a shorter stroke. We can argue exactly what constitutes a "short stroke" but its fair to say that compared to a long stroke, something in the range of discussion here is a short stroke.

Also, Magnus has been quoted as saying something along the lines of "I dont want to brag, but the #4 is fairly easy for me now" in a somewhat recent article. (of course talk is cheap, but just pointing this out in reference to your doubts as to if he could close it or not now- I do not know if he was referring to a CCS close etc.)

Rules change in all sports and the governing body decides the fate of records and achievements under the original set of rules. Dr. Strossen clearly felt some rules would help maintain the spirit of the close/certification and rather than jump to CCS distance right away, gave 1" a shot. Shortly after, he felt 1" still did not resolve the issues (regardless if a 1" implement could have easily been made available) and went for credit card distance. As said he also chose to continue to acknowledge with equal praise those who completed the feat under any rules so far...

Finally, while our grip contests may not commonly use the CCS distance, I would argue that CoC grippers sold far and away outnumber those of us who attend competitions where the use of 20mm etc blocks dominates. So while our tiny number of competitors prefer one thing, Dr. Strossen and his CCS rule are overall, undoubtedly, far more prominent and hardly "out of touch" with the big picture. (Ive never met anyone I showed a gripper just start with a deep set- its not innate, picking it up and shutting it is- I would assume thats the spirit intended to be promoted with a larger starting distance rule) Thats not to say a less natural way will not prevail for our competitive level sport if its what the governing body decides (hell just look at bench shirts)

All that said, while I like many greatly benefit from a deep set, I never truly feel I have mastered a gripper until I can close it with just minimal placement or ideally a TNS.

Just my .02

Edited by Bojast
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Hubgeezer

I say I can close a gripper when I do it via HGS, which for me, means Hubgeezer Set, approximately 1 5/8ths inches wide. Even in contests, I don't squeeze the handles closer than that. The person who I most want to please is myself. Yeah, I want to get certified on the Number 3. Yeah, it is frustrating that I have easily closed more than one gripper that others have certified on. It bothers my son that "a third of those guys on the list deserve it less than you Dad" (which is not true, I think it is less than 10%), but I don't care about that myself.

All of the Number 4 closers are deserving to be on the list, as they were the best of their time and followed the rules of the time.

Henry Ford is said to have said "Don't complain, don't explain". It seems like Josh and Randy, on principle, are doing that (JAD complaining, more out of principle I think, and RS explaining, based on the intergrity of his business philosophy). I guess the good thing to it is that it is pretty out in the open and each is making their points in as factual and logical manner as possible.

But back on the "HGS". Most of us on this subject (handle width) are stubborn as mules, and not much is going to change our minds. We are going to do what we are going to do.My point is not "can't we all get along", but "you ain't gonna get me to change my mind". But hey, don't let me stop you from posting away...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jad, you seem to be taking offense to the term "short stroke," but it really is just a definition of the range of movement, not a term of belittlement. If a wide open close (tns) is considered as long a stroke as possible with a gripper, any set which reduces the overall closing distance is simply by definition a shorter stroke. We can argue exactly what constitutes a "short stroke" but its fair to say that compared to a long stroke, something in the range of discussion here is a short stroke.

I think it's pretty clear he means it negatively as evidenced by his comments like the WVS vs. literal.

Also, Magnus has been quoted as saying something along the lines of "I dont want to brag, but the #4 is fairly easy for me now" in a somewhat recent article. (of course talk is cheap, but just pointing this out in reference to your doubts as to if he could close it or not now- I do not know if he was referring to a CCS close etc.)

Exactly, talk is cheap. The video where he closes one right out of the package is awesome but hardly a CCS close nor does it indicate he could do one.

Rules change in all sports and the governing body decides the fate of records and achievements under the original set of rules. Dr. Strossen clearly felt some rules would help maintain the spirit of the close/certification and rather than jump to CCS distance right away, gave 1" a shot. Shortly after, he felt 1" still did not resolve the issues (regardless if a 1" implement could have easily been made available) and went for credit card distance. As said he also chose to continue to acknowledge with equal praise those who completed the feat under any rules so far...

No, that's not what he said. He acknowledges those on his list that certed under the rules of the day but when anybody that closes a gripper after those rules using the 1" set is short stroking it or gets WVS comments; nevermind that they did exactly the same feat.

Finally, while our grip contests may not commonly use the CCS distance, I would argue that CoC grippers sold far and away outnumber those of us who attend competitions where the use of 20mm etc blocks dominates. So while our tiny number of competitors prefer one thing, Dr. Strossen and his CCS rule are overall, undoubtedly, far more prominent and hardly "out of touch" with the big picture. (Ive never met anyone I showed a gripper just start with a deep set- its not innate, picking it up and shutting it is- I would assume thats the spirit intended to be promoted with a larger starting distance rule) Thats not to say a less natural way will not prevail for our competitive level sport if its what the governing body decides (hell just look at bench shirts)

Think about what you're saying: I don't think you'll find anybody would argue that IM has sold more grippers than we've had participants in contests. However this proves nothing. For example, Rawlings has sold more baseballs than the MLB has players but the MLB determines what the specs are not vice-versa. If Rawlings just up and changed the size of the ball and the MLB didn't adopt, who would be out of touch?

All that said, while I like many greatly benefit from a deep set, I never truly feel I have mastered a gripper until I can close it with just minimal placement or ideally a TNS.

Just my .02

Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep forgetting about the 1" rule. So we would need 3 separate lists in fact ... (Just kidding). I wonder whether Randall imagined how serious people would get about his COC certification when he created it.

I used to take it rather seriously myself: i trained hard from failing on the #1 to deep setting a #3 (dit it in contests and even posted videos at the time :ninja: ). When the CCS rule was introduced - and although it made perfect sense TBH - I was a little pissed lol

Popcorn anyone?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Styles

This set argument has been re-hashed so many times, I doubt many of the guys who have been here for years are even bothering to follow it. I will say that I agree with JAD and do not think I am the only one. I watched Josh, Dave, and Big Steve close the #4 at that grip contest. A deep set is still a close IMO.

I do understand that closing a gripper and certifying on it are very different things. But that is not what the original poster asked about.

Link to post
Share on other sites
climber511

Boring.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Think about what you're saying: I don't think you'll find anybody would argue that IM has sold more grippers than we've had participants in contests. However this proves nothing. For example, Rawlings has sold more baseballs than the MLB has players but the MLB determines what the specs are not vice-versa. If Rawlings just up and changed the size of the ball and the MLB didn't adopt, who would be out of touch?

Unfortunately for us grip lovers, our tiny and currently cult sport can not be compared with MLB, its thousands of players, prospects etc and millions of fans. I agree with you completely, MLB is the motor that moves the rest of the business- its basically that "governing body" I spoke of that sets the flow. Ironmind can be considered the main motor that moves the gripper business. Until our sport grows, which I hope it does more and more,its Ironmind that is really that governing body, and the rest of us are fringe. (the grip collective is a good start towards an oficial body, but is just in its infancy)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Think about what you're saying: I don't think you'll find anybody would argue that IM has sold more grippers than we've had participants in contests. However this proves nothing. For example, Rawlings has sold more baseballs than the MLB has players but the MLB determines what the specs are not vice-versa. If Rawlings just up and changed the size of the ball and the MLB didn't adopt, who would be out of touch?

Unfortunately for us grip lovers, our tiny and currently cult sport can not be compared with MLB, its thousands of players, prospects etc and millions of fans. I agree with you completely, MLB is the motor that moves the rest of the business- its basically that "governing body" I spoke of that sets the flow. Ironmind can be considered the main motor that moves the gripper business. Until our sport grows, which I hope it does more and more,its Ironmind that is really that governing body, and the rest of us are fringe. (the grip collective is a good start towards an oficial body, but is just in its infancy)

Ironmind is not the governing body of Grip nor has it ever been. The individuals that compete, promote contests, elect or take part directly in the Grip Collective, etc...are the governing body; not some equipment company.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Think about what you're saying: I don't think you'll find anybody would argue that IM has sold more grippers than we've had participants in contests. However this proves nothing. For example, Rawlings has sold more baseballs than the MLB has players but the MLB determines what the specs are not vice-versa. If Rawlings just up and changed the size of the ball and the MLB didn't adopt, who would be out of touch?

Unfortunately for us grip lovers, our tiny and currently cult sport can not be compared with MLB, its thousands of players, prospects etc and millions of fans. I agree with you completely, MLB is the motor that moves the rest of the business- its basically that "governing body" I spoke of that sets the flow. Ironmind can be considered the main motor that moves the gripper business. Until our sport grows, which I hope it does more and more,its Ironmind that is really that governing body, and the rest of us are fringe. (the grip collective is a good start towards an oficial body, but is just in its infancy)

Ironmind is not the governing body of Grip nor has it ever been. The individuals that compete, promote contests, elect or take part directly in the Grip Collective, etc...are the governing body; not some equipment company.

Figuratively, not literally...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not figuratively either unless you happen to be some newb that never ventures beyond the IM catalogue or website.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Randall Strossen

How about the set Holle demonstrates in the CoC book? Is that an inch or was he just demonstrating an illegal deep set for us, for posterity?

It's a demonstration of how to deep set: "Nathan shows the steps in training with partials on a Captains of Crush Gripper—in this case, a No. 4(!)" (page 157).

Which part of that was confusing?

Was this quote the same in both editions? What set did Nathan claim to have certified with then?

Sorry, I only looked at the second edition, but the point remains the same: Nathan is demonstrating a deep set and explaining how he would train by increasing the gap as he got stronger . . . if you read the book, you know that, right?

Nathan didn't claim any set beyond what was legal at the time—which is why you can't fault him if it was less than the CCS distance that was subsequently required. I am curious to see how many times I will repeat this principle.

Ok, I went back and checked: same quote about Nathan in the first edition—it's on p. 86. Is that the edition you read?

Oh believe me, I couldn't wait to get the book and read it over and over, especially the Kinney section. I believe I actually emailed you and told you how much I enjoyed the Kinney section. I sold most of my IM stuff when the rules started changing though so I was a little rusty and yes I def had the first edition. I had another board member check their first addition and there is mention and possibly photo of Nathan doing a 25mm set which would be almost spot-on 1" or what you call a short stroke now. I'll be curious as to how many times I have to repeat that it is unacceptable and frankly a bit comical that you've got 4 of the 5 "official #4 closers" using that set but now deem the same thing a short stroke or deep set. As a side note, I certainly don't fault Nathan or anybody else using a 1" set or even a MMS and that's regardless of whether you deem it in fashion at the time or not. No disrespect intended but comments like that indicate that you're a little out of touch; the overwhelming majority of the Gripworld doesn't take CCS seriously as evidenced by the fact it's been rarely used in contests.

JAD -

I think the point of difference is that you do not want to acknowledge that rules evolve as necessary so I wonder why you don't say we should roll things back to the standards of the first people certified?

No offense taken, but the correct statement would be that most grip contests that are run by guys who favor things other than the CCS do so because there's a lot of motivation to capitalize on the Corlett Constant—or as the Diesel Crew used to say, Guys want to close big grippers after spending all that time and money traveling to contests.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Randall Strossen
JAD

I'm not joshing you, the summary you presented demonstrates my point about the 1" rule being a blip—that's part one. Part two, should be equally apparent if you review the history: it didn't work.

I always leaned toward 2-inches, when we were have the 1-or-2 inches discussion, but was trying to be open minded about it, so said OK, we'll give it a try. So, when I saw that already-small gap shrink faster than a $5 T-shirt, we whistled it back and said it's time to dump this foolishness.

So far, things were pretty simple: IronMind learned that 1" was a bust unless you also believed in the tooth fairy and 16 year girls benching 700 lb. and we knew that letting guys guess at a legal gap was like having a hooked gambler say what he'd lost the night before.

The tough part was that IronMind wanted something that was also universal and readily available—not something that was owned by maybe 15 guys in the entire Western Hemisphere and not something you had to buy from IronMind. Enter the credit card/ATM card: the right width, all over the world, everyone has one. Frankly, I can understand why a guy said to me, F#@k*^g brilliant, because it worked like a charm.

Not sure exactly when you entered the gripper world, but if it was around that time, you know how quickly other people copied this basic idea of using an objective standard to define the legal starting point—only they used some weenie distance and forced you to buy their gizmo . . . so what you got was a watered down, copy cat product that you had to pay money for—not my idea of a good deal, but it showed how sound the basic idea was that IronMind developed to solve the problem of defining a legal starting position.

You lost me on the part where 1" didn't work because there was no objective standard and your next move was to double the distance. I don't have a PhD but I'm fairly educated and I just can't follow that logic. It's not like there is a lack of standard items that are 1". The rest sounds like a conversation between you and David Horne but I will add that David was letting people use their own 20mm block at one point (has this changed?)

JAD

Sorry if that wasn't clear:

1. I inch always seemed too narrow

2. Guys were guessing at what was 1 inch and it was drifting toward 1/2" in practice

3. Seeing 1 and 2, IronMind moved to 2 inches with an objective way to measure the legal starting position

Link to post
Share on other sites
Randall Strossen

Jad, you seem to be taking offense to the term "short stroke," but it really is just a definition of the range of movement, not a term of belittlement. If a wide open close (tns) is considered as long a stroke as possible with a gripper, any set which reduces the overall closing distance is simply by definition a shorter stroke. We can argue exactly what constitutes a "short stroke" but its fair to say that compared to a long stroke, something in the range of discussion here is a short stroke.

Also, Magnus has been quoted as saying something along the lines of "I dont want to brag, but the #4 is fairly easy for me now" in a somewhat recent article. (of course talk is cheap, but just pointing this out in reference to your doubts as to if he could close it or not now- I do not know if he was referring to a CCS close etc.)

Rules change in all sports and the governing body decides the fate of records and achievements under the original set of rules. Dr. Strossen clearly felt some rules would help maintain the spirit of the close/certification and rather than jump to CCS distance right away, gave 1" a shot. Shortly after, he felt 1" still did not resolve the issues (regardless if a 1" implement could have easily been made available) and went for credit card distance. As said he also chose to continue to acknowledge with equal praise those who completed the feat under any rules so far...

Finally, while our grip contests may not commonly use the CCS distance, I would argue that CoC grippers sold far and away outnumber those of us who attend competitions where the use of 20mm etc blocks dominates. So while our tiny number of competitors prefer one thing, Dr. Strossen and his CCS rule are overall, undoubtedly, far more prominent and hardly "out of touch" with the big picture. (Ive never met anyone I showed a gripper just start with a deep set- its not innate, picking it up and shutting it is- I would assume thats the spirit intended to be promoted with a larger starting distance rule) Thats not to say a less natural way will not prevail for our competitive level sport if its what the governing body decides (hell just look at bench shirts)

All that said, while I like many greatly benefit from a deep set, I never truly feel I have mastered a gripper until I can close it with just minimal placement or ideally a TNS.

Just my .02

Bojast -

Yes, short stroke really is just a ROM descriptor—it's not like someone is ridiculing another person's anatomy, so, yes, we should be able to talk about it without getting too edgy.

On TNS, things get a little slippery because it doesn't control for the width of the gripper, so I could make, modify or buy a gripper that was narrow, TNS it, in fact, even though the stroke was really MMS, and not even vaguely CCS. That's why IronMind did not adopt that standard—it fools people because while it sounds like one thing, it can really be something quite different.

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.