Jump to content

Oldest Man To Close The #4 Coc.


moonraker182

Recommended Posts

Wannagrip

The Mash Monster cert got started so we could actually start comparing man on man with the SAME exact gripper! And, create the concept of the pyramid of levels and determine who was the "king of the hill" so to speak gripper wise. And, a "battle" so to speak with many levels (like there is now with 10).

Forget about the set here guys. A bigger issue of comparing the certs is the variance in the grippers themselves. And, the MM cert has always been parallel. Most guys hit it over that now actually because if it's a close call I think we tend to red light it if it isn't clearly OVER a parallel set. So, I am sure you can even see it in the very old MM certs compared to today's.

By the way, I am not sure again what the heck this thread is about? :)

  • Like 1
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

functionalpower

...could we just respectfully disagree about it and have our own opinions...

...By the way, I am not sure again what the heck this thread is about? :)

Magnus Samuelsson,

December 21, 1969

(age 42)

I think there should be little dispute over him being able to do it. Btw. has anyone seen him do it as of late?

We have those lists of the hardest TNS/MMS RGC-closes. Could not someone compile a list of all the individuals that had been witnessed to have closed a #4 with birthday and what age they did it last (not sure about Acorn, Mobster and all the others, but I think McGranahan is 46 by now...).

I understand the controvercy on the RGC ratings of the grippers used and the above discussed stroke length, but there could be a chance that such a list could spark more friendly competition and incentive (an a nice overview to the uninitiated) than controvercy...

:flowers:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hubgeezer

...could we just respectfully disagree about it and have our own opinions...

...By the way, I am not sure again what the heck this thread is about? :)

Magnus Samuelsson,

December 21, 1969

(age 42)

I think there should be little dispute over him being able to do it. Btw. has anyone seen him do it as of late?

We have those lists of the hardest TNS/MMS RGC-closes. Could not someone compile a list of all the individuals that had been witnessed to have closed a #4 with birthday and what age they did it last (not sure about Acorn, Mobster and all the others, but I think McGranahan is 46 by now...).

I understand the controvercy on the RGC ratings of the grippers used and the above discussed stroke length, but there could be a chance that such a list could spark more friendly competition and incentive (an a nice overview to the uninitiated) than controvercy...

:flowers:

The problem with a list like this is that most of it would be unverified. That doesn't bother me, but it certainly would many others. And the entire question, that started this thread, can't really be answered because of it (weak documentation). As a matter of fact, I believe there is a rule on this forum that requires video proof for World Class level claims, and the closing of a Number 4, regardless of how one closes it, is World Class.

Take for example, the oldest Number 4 closer, Joe Kinney. Anyone ever seen his date of birth? Do think you will? The only source for that would be Randy asking him: Joe, when was the last time you closed the 4, and by the way, what is your date of birth? With Magnus, the source might be the same, Randy to Magnus: When was the last time you closed the 4?

A guy like Steve G would and could estimate the last time he closed the 4. There are dates of contests for others.

Oh, what set? Oh, what witnesses? Oh, is it on video? What was the gripper rated? In a contest? Do you think it was an average, hard or easy 4? What was the handle width like? Then, we can start determining which of these is important and discussing them.

I am willing to accept that Earl "The Goat" Manigault has the greatest vertical leap in history. But the source of that is mostly from unofficial observers on the basketball courts of Harlem in the 1960s.

Don't let me discourage anyone from compiling the information, as many of us would love to see it. But you will have to accept that compiling it will be a thankless endeavor.

Link to post
Share on other sites
functionalpower

The problem with a list like this is that most of it would be unverified. That doesn't bother me, but it certainly would many others. And the entire question, that started this thread, can't really be answered because of it (weak documentation). As a matter of fact, I believe there is a rule on this forum that requires video proof for World Class level claims, and the closing of a Number 4, regardless of how one closes it, is World Class.

Take for example, the oldest Number 4 closer, Joe Kinney. Anyone ever seen his date of birth? Do think you will? The only source for that would be Randy asking him: Joe, when was the last time you closed the 4, and by the way, what is your date of birth? With Magnus, the source might be the same, Randy to Magnus: When was the last time you closed the 4?

A guy like Steve G would and could estimate the last time he closed the 4. There are dates of contests for others.

Oh, what set? Oh, what witnesses? Oh, is it on video? What was the gripper rated? In a contest? Do you think it was an average, hard or easy 4? What was the handle width like? Then, we can start determining which of these is important and discussing them.

I am willing to accept that Earl "The Goat" Manigault has the greatest vertical leap in history. But the source of that is mostly from unofficial observers on the basketball courts of Harlem in the 1960s.

Don't let me discourage anyone from compiling the information, as many of us would love to see it. But you will have to accept that compiling it will be a thankless endeavor.

True to the word! Maybe something to abstain from in general, I agree, though out of interest my bean counting brain would like to see it...I just think that the thread starter did not mean to spark this discussion, but asked with an innocent mind and hoped anyone would throw in a few numbers, and that's it. Just guessing at the original intention. :shutup:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hubgeezer

True to the word! Maybe something to abstain from in general, I agree, though out of interest my bean counting brain would like to see it...I just think that the thread starter did not mean to spark this discussion, but asked with an innocent mind and hoped anyone would throw in a few numbers, and that's it. Just guessing at the original intention. :shutup:

Oh I agree. The question was legit, it's just that sometimes "we" start picking at the stuff.

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.

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.

JAD -

Pizza and beer is on me and I think we'll find that we actually see eye to eye on the most important stuff—let's face it, this thread has a pile of good information in it and has allowed everyone to express his opinion, but basically it's probably been for the entertainment of the guys reading it.

Happy Easter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
climber511

If we disregard the depth of the set used (and even if we use the IM cert list or use that and others like contests etc) - did we ever actually answer the question of who was the oldest when they closed a COC#4? Kinney - Magnus - who? And at what age was it?

Edited by climber511
Link to post
Share on other sites
Wannagrip

Since a lot of good facts have come out in this thread. Here's another one...

To our knowledge (multiple guys who did the original setting up of the cert) there have been no changes to the MM cert, especially in the way the gripper is closed. There have been changes in witness/judge/etc but the way that the rules for the gripper itself have not been changed. We instituted a rule for example for how long once the gripper arrived in which you needed to perform the cert. As another example.

Happy Easter Weekend everyone!

  • Like 1
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.

JAD -

Pizza and beer is on me and I think we'll find that we actually see eye to eye on the most important stuff—let's face it, this thread has a pile of good information in it and has allowed everyone to express his opinion, but basically it's probably been for the entertainment of the guys reading it.

Happy Easter.

Sounds good Doc! It's easy to misunderstand things over electronic format but I definitely write to the audience and chuckle to myself through many of the posts. Well we may not see eye to eye on certain things, in person, it would be nothing more than a spirited conversation akin to two old friends giving each other a hard time as much for the amusement of their friends watching as to the actual topic matter.

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.

The "drinking the koolaide" was in response you sounding like you're regurgitating IM catalogues, IM board info, and IM articles vs. getting out and competing and getting to know some people in the sport before you actually weigh in on it. Grip is much bigger than a couple internet message boards.

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.

Again, I think we're pushing the limits of electronic communication :grin: My position was that people who close a #4 with ~1" set NOW/Post-CCS are doing the same thing that 4/5 #4 closers did and to call them "short stroke" or "WVS" is disrespectful but even more it's plain silly because the only difference between the two groups (certs/short strokers) are one man's rules; the feats are the same. If you don't want to put them on some list and give them a t-shirt; fine, but the feat itself is the same and doesn't magically deteriorate because of a rule change. They ARE #4 closers.

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.

Edited by jad
Link to post
Share on other sites
climber511

What is Grip Sport and who is “running it”? This question is something I think about now and then. Is it IronMind – the GripBoard – The Collective (a work in progress) – David Horne – the various promoters and sponsors – the competitors – the certifications (various) – Benders BattleField for bending??? What about You Tube? I guess the answer is Yes to all the above (well not You Tube – at least in my mind). Lots of different “rules” get thrown around and my two cents is that “Grip” at this point in time is actually not quite a unified entity :wub: just yet. Anyone who wants to make rules does so and anyone who wants to ignore those and make up their own does that too. IM is certainly able to use the CCS for their gripper certification – I mean hey – it’s their cert. And the GB can certainly use MMS for theirs – it’s theirs. And as a promoter I am free to have grippers in chokers as my test of gripper strength. People are free to believe and do any one or all three “sets” as they see fit. And for Randall, Bill, or me to think that “my” way is the only right way is pretty ridiculous. People will vote for what they want with their free will and choice.

At the moment there is a small group of us working towards a set of rules or guidelines or something to use in grip contests – which I have no doubt will be totally ignored by some and applauded by others – but I think it is a start. Many of these are “borrowed” from other organizations – an example might be the use of the IPF standard DL rules for lifting the IM Axle in competition as to what makes for a legal lift. IMs rules for the Rolling Thunder seem to have no controversy around them and will be used as well. David Horne invented the 2 HP used now and his rules will remain in place for this - these are just examples. Lots more will be in there when finished. Some rules are probably better than no rules at all I guess and hopefully will bring some cohesion to this wild west show called grip. As for “sets” I think all have value and all have a sort of artificial side to them. I mean what makes the use of anything slide between the handles – regardless of thickness – something natural to do when handed a gripper?

So who is actually “in charge” of the sport of grip? When you get right down to it – the people who “show up” to do the comp – the certs – and make the lists are in charge – they vote with their feet. What if you gave a cert and nobody came – you’d know pretty quick what people think of it?

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.

The "drinking the koolaide" was in response you sounding like you're regurgitating IM catalogues, IM board info, and IM articles vs. getting out and competing and getting to know some people in the sport before you actually weigh in on it. Grip is much bigger than a couple internet message boards.

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.

Again, I think we're pushing the limits of electronic communication :grin: My position was that people who close a #4 with ~1" set NOW/Post-CCS are doing the same thing that 4/5 #4 closers did and to call them "short stroke" or "WVS" is disrespectful but even more it's plain silly because the only difference between the two groups (certs/short strokers) are one man's rules; the feats are the same. If you don't want to put them on some list and give them a t-shirt; fine, but the feat itself is the same and doesn't magically deteriorate because of a rule change. They ARE #4 closers.

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.

I know what the "koolaid" comment was in response to, which still doesn't change the point what so ever. You have no idea about my personal involvement with grip work, training, various certifications or other competitive athletics etc- so commenting on "getting out before talking about it" is a baseless and incorrect assumption. The bottom line is we disagree about some aspects, one of which is the role IM plays in the grip world. You may take my view as pro-IM rhetoric and I may view yours as an opposite extreme discrediting IMs role too much. None of this, however, changes what I said about respectful disagreements and talking like men (or as close as an online forum allows) rather than internet insults.

Edited by Bojast
Link to post
Share on other sites
Randall Strossen

The Mash Monster cert got started so we could actually start comparing man on man with the SAME exact gripper! And, create the concept of the pyramid of levels and determine who was the "king of the hill" so to speak gripper wise. And, a "battle" so to speak with many levels (like there is now with 10).

Forget about the set here guys. A bigger issue of comparing the certs is the variance in the grippers themselves. And, the MM cert has always been parallel. Most guys hit it over that now actually because if it's a close call I think we tend to red light it if it isn't clearly OVER a parallel set. So, I am sure you can even see it in the very old MM certs compared to today's.

By the way, I am not sure again what the heck this thread is about? :)

Well, that's partly true, but the rest of the story is that the variability of CoCs even way back then was grossly exaggerated, the grippers used for the MM cert have changed over time and there have been some colorful discussions about the legal depth on the MM parallel set—what exactly was parallel, what was too deep, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Randall Strossen

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.

The "drinking the koolaide" was in response you sounding like you're regurgitating IM catalogues, IM board info, and IM articles vs. getting out and competing and getting to know some people in the sport before you actually weigh in on it. Grip is much bigger than a couple internet message boards.

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.

Again, I think we're pushing the limits of electronic communication :grin: My position was that people who close a #4 with ~1" set NOW/Post-CCS are doing the same thing that 4/5 #4 closers did and to call them "short stroke" or "WVS" is disrespectful but even more it's plain silly because the only difference between the two groups (certs/short strokers) are one man's rules; the feats are the same. If you don't want to put them on some list and give them a t-shirt; fine, but the feat itself is the same and doesn't magically deteriorate because of a rule change. They ARE #4 closers.

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.

I know what the "koolaid" comment was in response to, which still doesn't change the point what so ever. You have no idea about my personal involvement with grip work, training, various certifications or other competitive athletics etc- so commenting on "getting out before talking about it" is a baseless and incorrect assumption. The bottom line is we disagree about some aspects, one of which is the role IM plays in the grip world. You may take my view as pro-IM rhetoric and I may view yours as an opposite extreme discrediting IMs role too much. None of this, however, changes what I said about respectful disagreements and talking like men (or as close as an online forum allows) rather than internet insults.

Bojast -

Just wanted to thank you for the points you've made in support of IronMind—historically, that takes some real balls over here!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Randall Strossen

What is Grip Sport and who is “running it”? This question is something I think about now and then. Is it IronMind – the GripBoard – The Collective (a work in progress) – David Horne – the various promoters and sponsors – the competitors – the certifications (various) – Benders BattleField for bending??? What about You Tube? I guess the answer is Yes to all the above (well not You Tube – at least in my mind). Lots of different “rules” get thrown around and my two cents is that “Grip” at this point in time is actually not quite a unified entity :wub: just yet. Anyone who wants to make rules does so and anyone who wants to ignore those and make up their own does that too. IM is certainly able to use the CCS for their gripper certification – I mean hey – it’s their cert. And the GB can certainly use MMS for theirs – it’s theirs. And as a promoter I am free to have grippers in chokers as my test of gripper strength. People are free to believe and do any one or all three “sets” as they see fit. And for Randall, Bill, or me to think that “my” way is the only right way is pretty ridiculous. People will vote for what they want with their free will and choice.

At the moment there is a small group of us working towards a set of rules or guidelines or something to use in grip contests – which I have no doubt will be totally ignored by some and applauded by others – but I think it is a start. Many of these are “borrowed” from other organizations – an example might be the use of the IPF standard DL rules for lifting the IM Axle in competition as to what makes for a legal lift. IMs rules for the Rolling Thunder seem to have no controversy around them and will be used as well. David Horne invented the 2 HP used now and his rules will remain in place for this - these are just examples. Lots more will be in there when finished. Some rules are probably better than no rules at all I guess and hopefully will bring some cohesion to this wild west show called grip. As for “sets” I think all have value and all have a sort of artificial side to them. I mean what makes the use of anything slide between the handles – regardless of thickness – something natural to do when handed a gripper?

So who is actually “in charge” of the sport of grip? When you get right down to it – the people who “show up” to do the comp – the certs – and make the lists are in charge – they vote with their feet. What if you gave a cert and nobody came – you’d know pretty quick what people think of it?

I think control/wanting to be in charge is a big thing here—IronMind isn't trying to control any more than its own certifications and I prefer factual statements about grippers, etc., but not everyone is quite this narrow in what he aspires to and we have some wannabe emperors in the grip world just as elsewhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wannagrip

"the grippers used for the MM cert have changed over time"

The gripper Heath used for the first MM1 cert is still the same used today by every guy. None of the grippers have changed since the beginning. They are still the exact grippers Warren made to specs. That's why they are travelling grippers. There were discussions "about the rules" on the board but the rules certainly did not change whatsoever.

As to variance of the IM grippers, that's been discussed plenty of times and whether exaggerated or not the variances were enough at the time that you would not find someone here at least that thought that it was a fair comparison of closing a 3.

Why did people start to calibrate or attempt to? There would be no need if the differences were not thought to be significant for comparison of the same model grippers (all models out there not just IM).

Link to post
Share on other sites
I know what the "koolaid" comment was in response to, which still doesn't change the point what so ever. You have no idea about my personal involvement with grip work, training, various certifications or other competitive athletics etc- so commenting on "getting out before talking about it" is a baseless and incorrect assumption. The bottom line is we disagree about some aspects, one of which is the role IM plays in the grip world. You may take my view as pro-IM rhetoric and I may view yours as an opposite extreme discrediting IMs role too much. None of this, however, changes what I said about respectful disagreements and talking like men (or as close as an online forum allows) rather than internet insults.

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.

Would accusing me of being an incessant whiner fall under respectful disagreements and talking like men? Please send me a copy of your Guide to Respectful Internet Disagreements so I'm better prepared for the next time we don't agree on something.

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.

Interesting discussion. And while it's true that this conversation has been rehashed a number of times, it usually doesn't involve Dr. Strossen as part of it on the gripboard.

Since you don't seem aware of it, there is at least one pre-CCS closer who has been removed from the list and remains off it: Josh Dale (take a look at the 2003 certs between Jerry Duty and Jon Andersen as it looks now, and how it looked in 2010). Although that hasn't been a focus of this discussion, it has probably had an effect on the tone.

I don't have a problem with the IM rule changes for certification. Dr. Strossen saw a problem, made a rule change, realized his mistake quickly, and fixed it. Although it seems like it was more a problem of the judging rather than the rules.

On the other hand, one point that jad made is a good one: the use of the terms "deep set" and "short stroke", as well as the joking about "WVS". In the context of this thread only, they are simply descriptive terms and some good natured ribbing. In the context of the years of history before wannagrip and Dr. Strossen made nice ... well, it's pretty clear that they were meant to be insulting and pejorative.

You just need to take a look at the Captains of Crush Grippers website:

and

I have never heard of anyone claiming that a MMS close was the same as a CCS close, but training MMS is supposed to be "Self-deception"?

Only the uninformed grip enthusiast would expect that training for a strong crushing grip should translate into a strong support grip, and yet that's the argument made for MMS training having "Minimal transfer value". Why should someone expect gripper training to improve RT numbers?

And has anyone reported that MMS training was a "Route to injury" that "turn[ed] [their] hand into a lifeless claw that isn't even strong in a useful sense"?

So I can see jad's point that the use of the terms "deep set" and "short stroke", and talk of "WVS" are insulting, whether intentional or not. Especially when those terms are used in a thread on the gripboard to talk about people who have closed the #4 by gripboard (MMS) standards. Even moreso when those terms are never used when talking about IM's official list of certified #4 closers, the majority of whom certified with a set that was deeper than CCS.

tl;dr version:

Based on history, "deep set" and "short stroke" are meant to be denigrating.

It's inconsistent and misleading to say that gripboard-recognized #4 closers (who used a set narrower than CCS but at least as wide as MMS) used a "deep set" without acknowledging that many on the official IM list of #4 closers were certified while using a "deep set".

Link to post
Share on other sites
Randall Strossen

"the grippers used for the MM cert have changed over time"

The gripper Heath used for the first MM1 cert is still the same used today by every guy. None of the grippers have changed since the beginning. They are still the exact grippers Warren made to specs. That's why they are travelling grippers. There were discussions "about the rules" on the board but the rules certainly did not change whatsoever.

As to variance of the IM grippers, that's been discussed plenty of times and whether exaggerated or not the variances were enough at the time that you would not find someone here at least that thought that it was a fair comparison of closing a 3.

Why did people start to calibrate or attempt to? There would be no need if the differences were not thought to be significant for comparison of the same model grippers (all models out there not just IM).

My apologies if that is not true as I was told that they had been switched along the way—so this is another gripper myth? How are the handles holding up from those earliest one? Feeling smoother or just as clean and sharp as they were the day they were born?

Perceptions and reality are not necessarily the same thing, and this applies in the gripper world as elsewhere—so just because someone says something is different doesn't necessarily mean it is, or they might exaggerate the difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wannagrip

"the grippers used for the MM cert have changed over time"

The gripper Heath used for the first MM1 cert is still the same used today by every guy. None of the grippers have changed since the beginning. They are still the exact grippers Warren made to specs. That's why they are travelling grippers. There were discussions "about the rules" on the board but the rules certainly did not change whatsoever.

As to variance of the IM grippers, that's been discussed plenty of times and whether exaggerated or not the variances were enough at the time that you would not find someone here at least that thought that it was a fair comparison of closing a 3.

Why did people start to calibrate or attempt to? There would be no need if the differences were not thought to be significant for comparison of the same model grippers (all models out there not just IM).

My apologies if that is not true as I was told that they had been switched along the way—so this is another gripper myth? How are the handles holding up from those earliest one? Feeling smoother or just as clean and sharp as they were the day they were born?

Perceptions and reality are not necessarily the same thing, and this applies in the gripper world as elsewhere—so just because someone says something is different doesn't necessarily mean it is, or they might exaggerate the difference.

Yes, it is a myth.

Given there are only 3 single attempts made I would think the knurling is holding up. Good question though. Most guys would likely have more attempts in 3 months training with a gripper. So, it that sense it probably is less than 6 months old wear wise. Just a guess. Hmmm...I would guess the knurling is still pretty good right now (thinking as I type here). :)

I agree on exaggeration and perceptions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Randall Strossen

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.

Interesting discussion. And while it's true that this conversation has been rehashed a number of times, it usually doesn't involve Dr. Strossen as part of it on the gripboard.

Since you don't seem aware of it, there is at least one pre-CCS closer who has been removed from the list and remains off it: Josh Dale (take a look at the 2003 certs between Jerry Duty and Jon Andersen as it looks now, and how it looked in 2010). Although that hasn't been a focus of this discussion, it has probably had an effect on the tone.

I don't have a problem with the IM rule changes for certification. Dr. Strossen saw a problem, made a rule change, realized his mistake quickly, and fixed it. Although it seems like it was more a problem of the judging rather than the rules.

On the other hand, one point that jad made is a good one: the use of the terms "deep set" and "short stroke", as well as the joking about "WVS". In the context of this thread only, they are simply descriptive terms and some good natured ribbing. In the context of the years of history before wannagrip and Dr. Strossen made nice ... well, it's pretty clear that they were meant to be insulting and pejorative.

You just need to take a look at the Captains of Crush Grippers website:

and

I have never heard of anyone claiming that a MMS close was the same as a CCS close, but training MMS is supposed to be "Self-deception"?

Only the uninformed grip enthusiast would expect that training for a strong crushing grip should translate into a strong support grip, and yet that's the argument made for MMS training having "Minimal transfer value". Why should someone expect gripper training to improve RT numbers?

And has anyone reported that MMS training was a "Route to injury" that "turn[ed] [their] hand into a lifeless claw that isn't even strong in a useful sense"?

So I can see jad's point that the use of the terms "deep set" and "short stroke", and talk of "WVS" are insulting, whether intentional or not. Especially when those terms are used in a thread on the gripboard to talk about people who have closed the #4 by gripboard (MMS) standards. Even moreso when those terms are never used when talking about IM's official list of certified #4 closers, the majority of whom certified with a set that was deeper than CCS.

tl;dr version:

Based on history, "deep set" and "short stroke" are meant to be denigrating.

It's inconsistent and misleading to say that gripboard-recognized #4 closers (who used a set narrower than CCS but at least as wide as MMS) used a "deep set" without acknowledging that many on the official IM list of #4 closers were certified while using a "deep set".

I think this is an interesting post because it returns the focus to rules, and that's how we got on this track, with me objecting to what was being counted as closing the CoC No. 4.

Yes, using the certification rules, let alone how most people would naturally close a gripper, one would have to consider a MMS to be a short stroke, a partial movement, and yes, if you want to compare doing a short-range movement to a full range movement, it is self deception, whether it's a partial on a gripper or a squat. And yes, labeling is a big thing: deep set has a negative connotation to it isn't so immediately apparent with parallel set. Of course, if you have all your buddies telling you it's a swell thing to do and you have little hands, etc., it's easy to get swept up in a different view of reality.

After I got a certain number of complaints about stuff Josh Dale had said about IronMind, he got booted from the CoC certification list (we require at least a reasonable level of good sportsmanship and reasonable manners, not just closing the gripper)—frankly, though, I thought his name had been reinstated and if it hasn't I will do it because he has every right to disagree with me/IronMind and he's never said anything over the top at least in a long time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, using the certification rules, let alone how most people would naturally close a gripper, one would have to consider a MMS to be a short stroke, a partial movement, and yes, if you want to compare doing a short-range movement to a full range movement, it is self deception, whether it's a partial on a gripper or a squat. And yes, labeling is a big thing: deep set has a negative connotation to it isn't so immediately apparent with parallel set. Of course, if you have all your buddies telling you it's a swell thing to do and you have little hands, etc., it's easy to get swept up in a different view of reality.

Do you oppose people using different upright heights to squat from then?

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.