Jump to content

Oldest Man To Close The #4 Coc.


moonraker182

Recommended Posts

Randall Strossen

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?

Amaury -

Ha ha—yes, and how about lists for the guys who brought their own grippers (not to mention the guys passed around what they thought was an easy No. 3), and shouldn't anyone with red hair get extra credit and what about . . .

JAD has noted how the 1" rule was a one-year blip in something with a 22-year history worldwide. And it happened almost a decade ago. Is it time to, perhaps, get over this?

How about some pizza and beer? I think the guys who are reading this are offering to buy . . .

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

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

Ok, then regarding #1, why cert guys at 1"? It's YOUR company, you certified several individuals under this 1" rule, and then you completely change the rules by doubling the distance and you wonder why people accuse you of changing the rules? The impetus for this whole conversation was you making fun of guys closing grippers under the same condition that you used to cert people on. I've done my level best to stay away from debating the actual distance and keep this thing towards your process/rules.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Randall Strossen
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.

Scott -

[ "a deep set is still a close IMO" . . . ] This is how the door opened for the WVS which at least some guys take offense at, but I think the real lesson is Different strokes for different folks.

Boring.

Time to boulder?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Randall Strossen
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.

JAD -

Yes, this is an important point because as Bill Piche can confirm, that is how the whole Mash Monster thing started: the feeling was that who was IronMind to say how to certify on their grippers . . . how dare they?!

Well, JAD, that's fine if you hate IronMind, want to demonize me, and want to pretend that 1" isn't a short stroke on a gripper, but while I'm over here, take a minute to tell me what you've contributed to the grip world—equipment, promotion, sponsorship, visibility, credibility . . . you name it. Seriously, what have you brought to the table? Entertaining five or six guys on the Gripboard? Showing that you can flip IronMind the figurative finger and get three guys to go rah rah. That's your big contribution?

And on that basis, you say with a straight face that the players make the rules? Where's that concept come from?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Randall Strossen
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...

Hubgeezer's got this right, that they followed the rules of their time, but for some reason, JAD is not going for that.

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

Ok, then regarding #1, why cert guys at 1"? It's YOUR company, you certified several individuals under this 1" rule, and then you completely change the rules by doubling the distance and you wonder why people accuse you of changing the rules? The impetus for this whole conversation was you making fun of guys closing grippers under the same condition that you used to cert people on. I've done my level best to stay away from debating the actual distance and keep this thing towards your process/rules.

JAD -

Let's see, we've talked about where the 1" came from, put it in historical context, have repeated this several times, linked to online articles on the subject and even referred to a book that has far more details, yet you're back asking about this as if it's our first time on the subject.

Someone accused me/IronMind of changing the rules? That's odd—I thought we're the ones who announced that we had:

http://www.ironmind.com/ironmind/opencms/Articles/2004/Mar/Captains_of_Crushx_Gripper_Certification_The_Challenge.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
Randall Strossen

I got lost in the posts but the analogy with MLB and Rawlings was incorrect because what we're talking about would be like Rawlings inventing, for example, a game called catch, with them defining the rules for it, and then a group coming along and saying, We don't like those rules and when we play catch, we have 5 years old throwing underhand, not MLB fielders ripping at full force. And then the second group speaks of their accomplishments in catch the same way as one would discuss those in the first group.

So now we're back where we started on this thread because I said that IronMind defines closed, officially, as being on the IronMind certification lists and this gave JAD an opportunity for asking questions, challenging things, etc., but the fact remains that this got started because I asked if it were not reasonable that stats for the game be kept the way the guys who invented and managed that game specified.

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.

JAD, my entire point is basically that a huge majority of people with grippers are following IMs guidelines. Call it "newb" or what you want, but because you and a handful of us guys here know about the Grip collective, US Grip sport etc etc, doesn't change the fact that most do not. (something I hope we change over time)

I think im done with this debate, as no matter what sound logic is presented (even from Dr. Strossen himself), you aren't budging... you are upset because the man who created a cert which many consider "The" grip cert. changed his rules, and you feel offended about "deep sets". Bill and the gripboard did something productive by deciding to go another direction. You seem intent on simply whining incessantly about the rule changes from almost a decade ago. IMO its a good rule, everyone will have closed from the same distance now- not some at .75 in. others at 2+. I dont necessarily "like" that I have to do something much harder for me (CCS) but still think its a good rule.

PS- Dr. Strossen, good point about TNS not being the best due to width differences. I should have included that I feel a have truly mastered a CoC gripped once closed with minimal set or TNSd.

what we're talking about would be like Rawlings inventing, for example, a game called catch, with them defining the rules for it, and then a group coming along and saying, We don't like those rules and when we play catch...

Good point.

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.

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.

What standards would those be? You've already admitted there was no objective standard and you relied on some sweetspot which no doubt meant different things to different people. You evolving the rules as you see fit is certainly your right to do as the company owner but it doesn't change the reality. Someone closing a #4 with a ~1" set is the same thing as 4 of your 5 #4 closers. When you make perjorative comments about them you just contradict yourself. As I stated earlier, I'm going to try and stay out of the handsize debate so I'll resist addressing the Corlett Constant and the big grippers...for now.

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.

JAD, my entire point is basically that a huge majority of people with grippers are following IMs guidelines. Call it "newb" or what you want, but because you and a handful of us guys here know about the Grip collective, US Grip sport etc etc, doesn't change the fact that most do not. (something I hope we change over time)

I think im done with this debate, as no matter what sound logic is presented (even from Dr. Strossen himself), you aren't budging... you are upset because the man who created a cert which many consider "The" grip cert. changed his rules, and you feel offended about "deep sets". Bill and the gripboard did something productive by deciding to go another direction. You seem intent on simply whining incessantly about the rule changes from almost a decade ago. IMO its a good rule, everyone will have closed from the same distance now- not some at .75 in. others at 2+. I dont necessarily "like" that I have to do something much harder for me (CCS) but still think its a good rule.

PS- Dr. Strossen, good point about TNS not being the best due to width differences. I should have included that I feel a have truly mastered a CoC gripped once closed with minimal set or TNSd.

what we're talking about would be like Rawlings inventing, for example, a game called catch, with them defining the rules for it, and then a group coming along and saying, We don't like those rules and when we play catch...

Good point.

Enjoy the Kool-Aid my friend

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?)

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

Ok, then regarding #1, why cert guys at 1"? It's YOUR company, you certified several individuals under this 1" rule, and then you completely change the rules by doubling the distance and you wonder why people accuse you of changing the rules? The impetus for this whole conversation was you making fun of guys closing grippers under the same condition that you used to cert people on. I've done my level best to stay away from debating the actual distance and keep this thing towards your process/rules.

JAD -

Let's see, we've talked about where the 1" came from, put it in historical context, have repeated this several times, linked to online articles on the subject and even referred to a book that has far more details, yet you're back asking about this as if it's our first time on the subject.

Someone accused me/IronMind of changing the rules? That's odd—I thought we're the ones who announced that we had:

http://www.ironmind...._Challenge.html

Did you forget about your post in this thread about being rankled about the new rules?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I got lost in the posts but the analogy with MLB and Rawlings was incorrect because what we're talking about would be like Rawlings inventing, for example, a game called catch, with them defining the rules for it, and then a group coming along and saying, We don't like those rules and when we play catch, we have 5 years old throwing underhand, not MLB fielders ripping at full force. And then the second group speaks of their accomplishments in catch the same way as one would discuss those in the first group.

So now we're back where we started on this thread because I said that IronMind defines closed, officially, as being on the IronMind certification lists and this gave JAD an opportunity for asking questions, challenging things, etc., but the fact remains that this got started because I asked if it were not reasonable that stats for the game be kept the way the guys who invented and managed that game specified.

Except for the fact you didn't invent grippers and you've already admitted that prior to the 1" you didn't even have an objective standard; so you really have no idea how people were closing them. You're an equipment company that supplies product to a sport; you aren't the sport, you didn't invent the sport.

Link to post
Share on other sites
JAD -

Yes, this is an important point because as Bill Piche can confirm, that is how the whole Mash Monster thing started: the feeling was that who was IronMind to say how to certify on their grippers . . . how dare they?!

Well, JAD, that's fine if you hate IronMind, want to demonize me, and want to pretend that 1" isn't a short stroke on a gripper, but while I'm over here, take a minute to tell me what you've contributed to the grip world—equipment, promotion, sponsorship, visibility, credibility . . . you name it. Seriously, what have you brought to the table? Entertaining five or six guys on the Gripboard? Showing that you can flip IronMind the figurative finger and get three guys to go rah rah. That's your big contribution?

And on that basis, you say with a straight face that the players make the rules? Where's that concept come from?

It's a short stroke but you, the company owner, chose to certify people at it?

As for my contributions, I've helped promote 3 midwest qualifiers as a way to increase participation for Nats, have driven all over the country to support other's contests, and answer countless grip questions both in person and via pm systems and all for free.

Rules are generally made by governing bodies....wait for it...composed of former players. Tell me with a straight face about a sport where equipment manufacturers make the rules.

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.

What standards would those be? You've already admitted there was no objective standard and you relied on some sweetspot which no doubt meant different things to different people. You evolving the rules as you see fit is certainly your right to do as the company owner but it doesn't change the reality. Someone closing a #4 with a ~1" set is the same thing as 4 of your 5 #4 closers. When you make perjorative comments about them you just contradict yourself. As I stated earlier, I'm going to try and stay out of the handsize debate so I'll resist addressing the Corlett Constant and the big grippers...for now.

JAD -

I think you've taken a wrong turn here: we've already established that the whole point of the CoC certification rules was to preserve the spirit of the challenge and that as loopholes were discovered or created, the rules had to evolve to plug them, just as in any well-organized sport; and the deep set was not part of that heritage.

Yes, I can see why it would be an irritant to have a 1" rule be in place for a year and then yanked, but let's not forget your tally of how many years for each side of this great divide: it's 21 to 1 and it's the 1-inch side that's down by 20 so it's not like they are even close.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me ask a better question Randy; if everyone had obeyed the 1" rule would you have still changed it since "1 inch always seemed too narrow"?

If you say "yes", then you just appear indecisive and your cert's rules just sway with your mood.

If you say "no", then the obvious question is why didn't you pick 1" objective starting point (there are countless everyday 1" items as well) as that addresses the issue. You quoting smarmy IM articles and trying tell me history doesn't address the reasoning behind your actions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Randall Strossen

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

JAD, my entire point is basically that a huge majority of people with grippers are following IMs guidelines. Call it "newb" or what you want, but because you and a handful of us guys here know about the Grip collective, US Grip sport etc etc, doesn't change the fact that most do not. (something I hope we change over time)

I think im done with this debate, as no matter what sound logic is presented (even from Dr. Strossen himself), you aren't budging... you are upset because the man who created a cert which many consider "The" grip cert. changed his rules, and you feel offended about "deep sets". Bill and the gripboard did something productive by deciding to go another direction. You seem intent on simply whining incessantly about the rule changes from almost a decade ago. IMO its a good rule, everyone will have closed from the same distance now- not some at .75 in. others at 2+. I dont necessarily "like" that I have to do something much harder for me (CCS) but still think its a good rule.

PS- Dr. Strossen, good point about TNS not being the best due to width differences. I should have included that I feel a have truly mastered a CoC gripped once closed with minimal set or TNSd.

what we're talking about would be like Rawlings inventing, for example, a game called catch, with them defining the rules for it, and then a group coming along and saying, We don't like those rules and when we play catch...

Good point.

Enjoy the Kool-Aid my friend

JAD -

Might not be the best idea to invoke the Kool-Aid analogy or someone might point out what a large factor willful blindness pays in your arguments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's your company, change the rules on a daily basis if you please but I will continue to be the voice of reason when you make comments indicating that ~1" closes are somehow less meritous than those on your list who certed under the same standard.

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.

JAD, my entire point is basically that a huge majority of people with grippers are following IMs guidelines. Call it "newb" or what you want, but because you and a handful of us guys here know about the Grip collective, US Grip sport etc etc, doesn't change the fact that most do not. (something I hope we change over time)

I think im done with this debate, as no matter what sound logic is presented (even from Dr. Strossen himself), you aren't budging... you are upset because the man who created a cert which many consider "The" grip cert. changed his rules, and you feel offended about "deep sets". Bill and the gripboard did something productive by deciding to go another direction. You seem intent on simply whining incessantly about the rule changes from almost a decade ago. IMO its a good rule, everyone will have closed from the same distance now- not some at .75 in. others at 2+. I dont necessarily "like" that I have to do something much harder for me (CCS) but still think its a good rule.

PS- Dr. Strossen, good point about TNS not being the best due to width differences. I should have included that I feel a have truly mastered a CoC gripped once closed with minimal set or TNSd.

what we're talking about would be like Rawlings inventing, for example, a game called catch, with them defining the rules for it, and then a group coming along and saying, We don't like those rules and when we play catch...

Good point.

Enjoy the Kool-Aid my friend

JAD -

Might not be the best idea to invoke the Kool-Aid analogy or someone might point out what a large factor willful blindness pays in your arguments.

Willful blindness? You're the one that thinks because you change the rules somehow reality changes.

-Pre-CCS: close a #4 with a ~1" set, get a MILO cover

-Post-CCS: close a #4 witha ~1" set, be dismissed as a deepsetter, short stroker, or user of the WVS

What's changed?

Answer: Randy's rules

Link to post
Share on other sites
Randall Strossen

Let me ask a better question Randy; if everyone had obeyed the 1" rule would you have still changed it since "1 inch always seemed too narrow"?

If you say "yes", then you just appear indecisive and your cert's rules just sway with your mood.

If you say "no", then the obvious question is why didn't you pick 1" objective starting point (there are countless everyday 1" items as well) as that addresses the issue. You quoting smarmy IM articles and trying tell me history doesn't address the reasoning behind your actions.

JAD -

I think that's a good question—so good that you can find my answer above: it was not my preferred distance, but I agreed to give it a trial. In use, it seemed clearly at odds with the spirit and tradition of the challenge (it would be like giving attaboys to mile-high squats or using a harness to lift the Dinnie Stones). We could also see the problem of letting guys judge the starting distance by themselves.

Smarmy? I thought they irritated you—remember, I'm the guy who didn't drink the Gripboard Kool-Aid when it came to dog legs, seasoning, calibration or, yes, deep sets for CoC certifications.

I actually think a lot of those articles are pretty good. Either way, at least you're reading them now and you have a better chance to learn how and why these things unfolded as they did. And as for the reasoning behind the conclusions, what part has gone unexplained, either in the articles you mention or in these posts?

It's your company, change the rules on a daily basis if you please but I will continue to be the voice of reason when you make comments indicating that ~1" closes are somehow less meritous than those on your list who certed under the same standard.

JAD -

I know you are exaggerating for effect, but count the changes over 22 years and you won't get whiplash.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Randall Strossen

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

JAD, my entire point is basically that a huge majority of people with grippers are following IMs guidelines. Call it "newb" or what you want, but because you and a handful of us guys here know about the Grip collective, US Grip sport etc etc, doesn't change the fact that most do not. (something I hope we change over time)

I think im done with this debate, as no matter what sound logic is presented (even from Dr. Strossen himself), you aren't budging... you are upset because the man who created a cert which many consider "The" grip cert. changed his rules, and you feel offended about "deep sets". Bill and the gripboard did something productive by deciding to go another direction. You seem intent on simply whining incessantly about the rule changes from almost a decade ago. IMO its a good rule, everyone will have closed from the same distance now- not some at .75 in. others at 2+. I dont necessarily "like" that I have to do something much harder for me (CCS) but still think its a good rule.

PS- Dr. Strossen, good point about TNS not being the best due to width differences. I should have included that I feel a have truly mastered a CoC gripped once closed with minimal set or TNSd.

what we're talking about would be like Rawlings inventing, for example, a game called catch, with them defining the rules for it, and then a group coming along and saying, We don't like those rules and when we play catch...

Good point.

Enjoy the Kool-Aid my friend

JAD -

Might not be the best idea to invoke the Kool-Aid analogy or someone might point out what a large factor willful blindness pays in your arguments.

Willful blindness? You're the one that thinks because you change the rules somehow reality changes.

-Pre-CCS: close a #4 with a ~1" set, get a MILO cover

-Post-CCS: close a #4 witha ~1" set, be dismissed as a deepsetter, short stroker, or user of the WVS

What's changed?

Answer: Randy's rules

JAD -

I think now you are beginning see exactly how divisive the deep set was.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Randall Strossen

JAD -

So, back to how this conversation got started and my point of sticking with the rules of the cert you are discussing, Wouldn't you be unhappy if IronMind started anointing guys with MM honors if they used a WVS instead of a MMS or in some other way disregarded the rules of that cert?

I'd guess that you would not be pleased. That's the deal, but now turn the tables.

Incidentally, championing policy of no change, why haven't you brought up the history of how MM rules have evolved?

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.

JAD, my entire point is basically that a huge majority of people with grippers are following IMs guidelines. Call it "newb" or what you want, but because you and a handful of us guys here know about the Grip collective, US Grip sport etc etc, doesn't change the fact that most do not. (something I hope we change over time)

I think im done with this debate, as no matter what sound logic is presented (even from Dr. Strossen himself), you aren't budging... you are upset because the man who created a cert which many consider "The" grip cert. changed his rules, and you feel offended about "deep sets". Bill and the gripboard did something productive by deciding to go another direction. You seem intent on simply whining incessantly about the rule changes from almost a decade ago. IMO its a good rule, everyone will have closed from the same distance now- not some at .75 in. others at 2+. I dont necessarily "like" that I have to do something much harder for me (CCS) but still think its a good rule.

PS- Dr. Strossen, good point about TNS not being the best due to width differences. I should have included that I feel a have truly mastered a CoC gripped once closed with minimal set or TNSd.

what we're talking about would be like Rawlings inventing, for example, a game called catch, with them defining the rules for it, and then a group coming along and saying, We don't like those rules and when we play catch...

Good point.

Enjoy the Kool-Aid my friend

JAD -

Might not be the best idea to invoke the Kool-Aid analogy or someone might point out what a large factor willful blindness pays in your arguments.

Willful blindness? You're the one that thinks because you change the rules somehow reality changes.

-Pre-CCS: close a #4 with a ~1" set, get a MILO cover

-Post-CCS: close a #4 witha ~1" set, be dismissed as a deepsetter, short stroker, or user of the WVS

What's changed?

Answer: Randy's rules

JAD -

I think now you are beginning see exactly how divisive the deep set was.

I don't even know what to say other than there is obviously a clear lack of understanding via electronic communication. I look forward to the beers and popcorn chat someday because this is worthless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

JAD -

So, back to how this conversation got started and my point of sticking with the rules of the cert you are discussing, Wouldn't you be unhappy if IronMind started anointing guys with MM honors if they used a WVS instead of a MMS or in some other way disregarded the rules of that cert?

It would depend if the WVS was previously allowed to cert MM participants. Assuming it had been, I wouldn't be arrogant enough to dismiss those using the WVS to close the MM7 as fake closers.

I'd guess that you would not be pleased. That's the deal, but now turn the tables.

Incidentally, championing policy of no change, why haven't you brought up the history of how MM rules have evolved?

I'm not anti-change, I don't agree with your changes ( but that's another topic). What I have a problem with is you dismissing other's accomplishments when the only difference is your rules of the time.

Please indicate which changes you are talking about with the MM process. I haven't done it in years and have never hid the fact that although I respected the process and understood the reasoning, I thought it was too much of hassle and preferred to close my grippers in contests.

Edited by jad
Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me ask a better question Randy; if everyone had obeyed the 1" rule would you have still changed it since "1 inch always seemed too narrow"?

If you say "yes", then you just appear indecisive and your cert's rules just sway with your mood.

If you say "no", then the obvious question is why didn't you pick 1" objective starting point (there are countless everyday 1" items as well) as that addresses the issue. You quoting smarmy IM articles and trying tell me history doesn't address the reasoning behind your actions.

JAD -

I think that's a good question—so good that you can find my answer above: it was not my preferred distance, but I agreed to give it a trial. In use, it seemed clearly at odds with the spirit and tradition of the challenge (it would be like giving attaboys to mile-high squats or using a harness to lift the Dinnie Stones). We could also see the problem of letting guys judge the starting distance by themselves.

So by in use you mean the certs were going up to fast, the #3 cert wasn't so mythical anymore, and something had to be done? BTW, you still didn't answer the question.

Smarmy? I thought they irritated you—remember, I'm the guy who didn't drink the Gripboard Kool-Aid when it came to dog legs, seasoning, calibration or, yes, deep sets for CoC certifications.

I've already addressed the calibration issue with your friend bojast. I cited Webster's and was accused using it out of context. Here's some Gripboard Kool-Aid though "use the search function" and you can check it yourself.

I actually think a lot of those articles are pretty good. Either way, at least you're reading them now and you have a better chance to learn how and why these things unfolded as they did. And as for the reasoning behind the conclusions, what part has gone unexplained, either in the articles you mention or in these posts?

Oh I read them quite some time ago and wrote my own :grin: Of course I'm sure you know that as they were no doubt my good conduct violation for the #3 list.

It's your company, change the rules on a daily basis if you please but I will continue to be the voice of reason when you make comments indicating that ~1" closes are somehow less meritous than those on your list who certed under the same standard.

JAD -

I know you are exaggerating for effect, but count the changes over 22 years and you won't get whiplash.

Enlighten me on what other rule you flip flopped on? For example, "what do you mean guys are using tacky?", "Ok, I'm going to allow tacky but only xyz brand....eh, guys are using other brands and I don't really like that. Tacky is no longer allowed and now you must oil the handles as all the oldtimers came home with grease on their hands from working 28 hours and closed their grippers".

Edited by jad
Link to post
Share on other sites

Jad, could we just respectfully disagree about it and have our own opinions, and avoid the classic internet argument: when someone doesn't agree with you, they are "drinking the koolaide" or "insert some other personal insult." Unfortunately these latter methods are completely unproductive.

Not sure why you think you/other pre CCS closers are somehow victims, or second class? Maybe some of the comments from Dr. Strossen hit you that way; but at the same time all are equally recognized... had pre-CCS closes been removed from the list I would most certainly see your point.

All (nearly) sports rules change over time often in reply to unforeseen circumstances. Sometimes they sway a couple ways before the "right/final" decision is ultimately adopted.

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.