Jump to content

Oldest Man To Close The #4 Coc.


moonraker182

Recommended Posts

EricMilfeld

With regards to the Mash Monster grippers, they have shown no apparent change in level of difficulty in the several years that I have been their caretaker. I have noticed that grippers of various makes go through an initial "softening-up" phase when fresh out of the package. But after about a dozen or more closes they seem to stabilize. Keep in mind the MM grippers are being shut only for official certifications. So, despite their age, they are relatively "new" in terms of wear.

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

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.

I'll go you one further: language is a big thing. A subtle change in our choice of words can help reframe a discussion.

Here you've put forth what you consider synonyms to MMS: short stroke, partial movement, deep set, parallel set.

"Short stroke" and "deep set" are imprecise. They are vague (shorter than what? deeper than what? how short? how deep?) and subject to multiple interpretations -- not just between IM and the GB, but also in this thread. And if "deep set" has a negative connotation, I'll go out on a limb and say that attitudes like this are what create that negative connotation. There isn't anything inherently negative in the use of the phrase "deep set". But if you bring your IM definition of "deep set" (deeper than CCS) to a conversation on the GB without being clear that your meaning is different from the GB definition for "deep set" (deeper than MMS/parallel), that's an invitation to disagreement and argument where none needs exist. And I'll say it again: I have yet to see anyone claim that a MMS close is as good as a CCS (or TNS) close, so I think this imaginary man who gets "swept up in a different view of reality" is exactly that -- imaginary.

"Partial movement" is also imprecise, but it doesn't suffer from the (strong) possibility that writer and reader bring their assumptions about "how short?" and "how deep?" to the term "partial". "Partial movement" may be imprecise, but at least it's obvious about its imprecision -- writer and reader don't jump in thinking they already know what it means.

"Parallel set" is the best because it very clearly and precisely communicates the idea of the expected starting position. People might have problems judging a parallel starting point, but -- unless someone missed out on grade school geometry -- there can be no question about the meaning. You seem to think that the lack of a negative connotation is a bug. I think it's a feature. It means the reader knows what you're writing about and can decide for him/herself the pros/cons of the position.

As far as the Mash Monster ladder goes, I think wannagrip/Bill did everything right with this. Short of requiring TNS (which I think the BB and RB certs did), the MMS is the easiest position to judge without requiring the dexterity to manage another tool in the other hand. This means the Mash Monster certs can be a truer test of crushing strength instead of a test of dexterity+crushing strength. Using the same specific gripper for certs at each level was just genius.

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.

That sounds like the right thing to do.
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.

I unfortunately assumed I would get some sort of response like this rather than a man to man (internet style) "good point lets move forward without the unneeded stuff" (or something like that) I wish I had been wrong and we could just take responsibility and burry the hatchet; and keep our discussion to the point at hand only (whether in agreement or not)

No one is going to be perfect, attitudes and approaches (especially on the internet) can flair- especially when passionate about a subject, so I too can work on keeping comments to the subject rather than the person.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

I thought this was interesting. For all the complaints you received, I never received a one. In fact, after I wrote the parody pieces people sent me pm after pm telling me how funny they thought they were. I'm not doubting your word; I'm just rather suprised and somewhat amused at the level of passive agressiveness.

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.

I unfortunately assumed I would get some sort of response like this rather than a man to man (internet style) "good point lets move forward without the unneeded stuff" (or something like that) I wish I had been wrong and we could just take responsibility and burry the hatchet; and keep our discussion to the point at hand only (whether in agreement or not)

No one is going to be perfect, attitudes and approaches (especially on the internet) can flair- especially when passionate about a subject, so I too can work on keeping comments to the subject rather than the person.

fair enough

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hubgeezer

Bill does a real good job of protecting the Mash Monster grippers' physical condition. A few years back, he issued a warning that they were NOT to be put in a RGC to "measure" their difficulty. Though the risk may be small of damaging the grippers, it is nevertheless a risk. No one else is supposed to be sqeezing them at the time of certification, other than the 3 tries of the guy being certified. If that was being violated, I understand it would be a big deal and that person would be in trouble. So, the grippers will probably be around a long time.

When the RGC interest level was peaking a few years ago, there was some chatter about where they fell on the scale. I personally narked/finked to Bill that it concerned me a bit, and he reiterated that the grippers were not to be put in any type of testing device.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Randall Strossen

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?

I think the parallel is that everyone lifts from the same height plates, faces the same height hurdles, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Randall Strossen

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.

I'll go you one further: language is a big thing. A subtle change in our choice of words can help reframe a discussion.

Here you've put forth what you consider synonyms to MMS: short stroke, partial movement, deep set, parallel set.

"Short stroke" and "deep set" are imprecise. They are vague (shorter than what? deeper than what? how short? how deep?) and subject to multiple interpretations -- not just between IM and the GB, but also in this thread. And if "deep set" has a negative connotation, I'll go out on a limb and say that attitudes like this are what create that negative connotation. There isn't anything inherently negative in the use of the phrase "deep set". But if you bring your IM definition of "deep set" (deeper than CCS) to a conversation on the GB without being clear that your meaning is different from the GB definition for "deep set" (deeper than MMS/parallel), that's an invitation to disagreement and argument where none needs exist. And I'll say it again: I have yet to see anyone claim that a MMS close is as good as a CCS (or TNS) close, so I think this imaginary man who gets "swept up in a different view of reality" is exactly that -- imaginary.

"Partial movement" is also imprecise, but it doesn't suffer from the (strong) possibility that writer and reader bring their assumptions about "how short?" and "how deep?" to the term "partial". "Partial movement" may be imprecise, but at least it's obvious about its imprecision -- writer and reader don't jump in thinking they already know what it means.

"Parallel set" is the best because it very clearly and precisely communicates the idea of the expected starting position. People might have problems judging a parallel starting point, but -- unless someone missed out on grade school geometry -- there can be no question about the meaning. You seem to think that the lack of a negative connotation is a bug. I think it's a feature. It means the reader knows what you're writing about and can decide for him/herself the pros/cons of the position.

As far as the Mash Monster ladder goes, I think wannagrip/Bill did everything right with this. Short of requiring TNS (which I think the BB and RB certs did), the MMS is the easiest position to judge without requiring the dexterity to manage another tool in the other hand. This means the Mash Monster certs can be a truer test of crushing strength instead of a test of dexterity+crushing strength. Using the same specific gripper for certs at each level was just genius.

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.

That sounds like the right thing to do.

For all your wordiness and editorial asides, why didn't you mention that the length of the stroke on a parallel set depends on the geometry of the gripper?

Link to post
Share on other sites
mightyjoe

I find it AMAZING that Randy has taken ALL THIS TIME to debate Josh but refuses to

answer some PM's I've sent him numerous times. And No, the PM's are not about this

thread.

Others have complained that Randy ignores their PM's as well.

Sorry for being off-topic here but jeez! Randy could have wrote a book with all his wranglings

with Josh but can't respond to a simple yes or no PM!

WOW!!!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Hubgeezer

I find it AMAZING that Randy has taken ALL THIS TIME to debate Josh but refuses to

answer some PM's I've sent him numerous times. And No, the PM's are not about this

thread.

Others have complained that Randy ignores their PM's as well.

Sorry for being off-topic here but jeez! Randy could have wrote a book with all his wranglings

with Josh but can't respond to a simple yes or no PM!

WOW!!!

Ignores your PMs? Big Deal. If I were to belly ache on this forum about different people ignoring PMs, I would be considered a whiny, belly-aching crybaby. Don't Complain, Don't Explain.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Randall Strossen

I find it AMAZING that Randy has taken ALL THIS TIME to debate Josh but refuses to

answer some PM's I've sent him numerous times. And No, the PM's are not about this

thread.

Others have complained that Randy ignores their PM's as well.

Sorry for being off-topic here but jeez! Randy could have wrote a book with all his wranglings

with Josh but can't respond to a simple yes or no PM!

WOW!!!

Holy moly—I've got PMs (PMS)?!

Very sorry, but I had no idea, and maybe I'd better figure out how to access them.

Please feel free to email me, as I check email all the time and always reply—probably a lot better way to reach me than PMs even if I manage to figure out where they are and how I reply to them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Randall Strossen

I find it AMAZING that Randy has taken ALL THIS TIME to debate Josh but refuses to

answer some PM's I've sent him numerous times. And No, the PM's are not about this

thread.

Others have complained that Randy ignores their PM's as well.

Sorry for being off-topic here but jeez! Randy could have wrote a book with all his wranglings

with Josh but can't respond to a simple yes or no PM!

WOW!!!

Ignores your PMs? Big Deal. If I were to belly ache on this forum about different people ignoring PMs, I would be considered a whiny, belly-aching crybaby. Don't Complain, Don't Explain.

Guys can get kind of thin skinned or maybe bored, or maybe they really feel as if they've been snubbed, which nobody would like.

Anyway, it's no secret: if you want to reach me, pick up the phone and call or send an email.

PMs are probably great if you're plugged into a board all the time, but I'm not, so even after I figure out how to access them here, they won't reach me as quickly and reliably as emails or phone calls.

Randall, click this thing in the upper-right of your browser.

gallery_9552_555_7818.png

Randall, click this thing in the upper-right of your browser.

gallery_9552_555_7818.png

Randall, click this thing in the upper-right of your browser.

gallery_9552_555_7818.png

Got it—thanks much, Matt!
Link to post
Share on other sites
Randall Strossen

Ok, thanks to Matt, I found that pile of PMs and just replied to all of them: Mighty Joe, not sure you got the answer on the Back poster, but we keep the guy anonymous on purpose—reptilian spinal erectors, huh?

Now that I know about them, I will try to keep an eye on the PMs, but always feel free to call or email—it's a better way to reach me and I always reply/return calls.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For all your wordiness and editorial asides, why didn't you mention that the length of the stroke on a parallel set depends on the geometry of the gripper?

Because I didn't realize we were talking about IM gripper variation?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cannon
Ok, thanks to Matt, I found that pile of PMs and just replied to all of them: Mighty Joe, not sure you got the answer on the Back poster, but we keep the guy anonymous on purpose—reptilian spinal erectors, huh? Now that I know about them, I will try to keep an eye on the PMs, but always feel free to call or email—it's a better way to reach me and I always reply/return calls.

Also, in your control panel, there is a control you can toggle that you're notified via email when you have a PM. The content of the PM is included in the email as well as a link you can use to reply.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Randall Strossen

For all your wordiness and editorial asides, why didn't you mention that the length of the stroke on a parallel set depends on the geometry of the gripper?

Because I didn't realize we were talking about IM gripper variation?

Ha ha, but that wasn't the right answer.

Let's talk about gripper variation—IronMind's especially—if you'd like to, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For all your wordiness and editorial asides, why didn't you mention that the length of the stroke on a parallel set depends on the geometry of the gripper?

Because I didn't realize we were talking about IM gripper variation?

Ha ha, but that wasn't the right answer.

Let's talk about gripper variation—IronMind's especially—if you'd like to, though.

Nope, not really interested -- gripper variation (IM or otherwise) is another topic that has been beaten to death.

I'll be the first to admit that tone doesn't always come through clearly on the internet, so I may have misunderstood you. I thought you were serious when you said "why didn't you mention that the length of the stroke on a parallel set depends on the geometry of the gripper?", and it seemed obvious -- without needless "wordiness" -- that your question leads directly to gripper variation. And since we're in a thread talking about closing an IM #4 ...

Just to make sure we're talking about the same thing, I'm going to assume that you use the phrase "length of the stroke" to refer to the distance between the bottom of the handles at the starting point.

So yes, the length of the stroke on a parallel set depends on the geometry of the gripper -- if we're talking about different grippers.

If we're talking about one specific gripper used by everyone certifying (i.e. any of the cert MM grippers, not replicas) the length of the stroke does not change unless you alter the gripper (e.g. shaved handles, altered spring, etc.).

However, since we're talking about closing the IM #4 in this thread, we are talking about different grippers made to similar specifications. If I take at face value that "[you] have never found a Captains of Crush Hand Gripper to be outside its narrow tolerances," then those specifications are pretty tight. So the difference in "the length of the stroke on a parallel set" between one IM #4 and another should be insignificant.

To put it more plainly: yes, your question ("why didn't you mention that the length of the stroke on a parallel set depends on the geometry of the gripper?") is a fair one, but only if you assume that there is a significant difference in the geometry between one IM #4 and another. That's why it reads (to me) like you're leading this discussion into the topic of gripper variation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
mightyjoe

I find it AMAZING that Randy has taken ALL THIS TIME to debate Josh but refuses to

answer some PM's I've sent him numerous times. And No, the PM's are not about this

thread.

Others have complained that Randy ignores their PM's as well.

Sorry for being off-topic here but jeez! Randy could have wrote a book with all his wranglings

with Josh but can't respond to a simple yes or no PM!

WOW!!!

Ignores your PMs? Big Deal. If I were to belly ache on this forum about different people ignoring PMs, I would be considered a whiny, belly-aching crybaby. Don't Complain, Don't Explain.

You entirely missed the point HG!

And yes, this was a BIG DEAL! You spout off without knowing facts.

The ad hominems don't bother me at all. Try, try again!

Don't explain! Please!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wannagrip, or anyone else who can answer, I had a question that may have been answered but I can't recall/locate: Before that I'll say that despite some of my posts apparently coming across as pro Ironmind (which you could say I am...Im pro any company that I thinks delivers a good product/service including GB, GHP etc too), I believe the MM certification process is the best in terms of 1- guys using the same gripper and 2- many small increments is always nice to help climb up the ladder. It may have draw backs as the sport grows and grows, as the demand for a cert gripper may lead to long waits. But this doesn't appear to become a major problem anytime here soon.

Anyway, my main question is- what will be done in the case of a lost, or damaged MM cert gripper (Im almost surprised this hasn't happened yet with all the shipping over the years) I thought I recall something about identical grippers made as backups- but I could be thinking of another issue... (and even identical spec grippers could of course vary)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bob Lipinski
JAD

I'm not joshing you, .

Anyone else laugh at that?

For the most part I agree with Josh's point of view, but I'm not gonna argue it anymore. Many if Dr. Strossen comes to Michigan some day and he has a few drinks with Don and I, we can argue in between the stories and have fun with it, Don always said he never heard of that set stuff, but we always get along and he supports us in whatever way we compete with the grippers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Randall Strossen

For all your wordiness and editorial asides, why didn't you mention that the length of the stroke on a parallel set depends on the geometry of the gripper?

Because I didn't realize we were talking about IM gripper variation?

Ha ha, but that wasn't the right answer.

Let's talk about gripper variation—IronMind's especially—if you'd like to, though.

Nope, not really interested -- gripper variation (IM or otherwise) is another topic that has been beaten to death.

I'll be the first to admit that tone doesn't always come through clearly on the internet, so I may have misunderstood you. I thought you were serious when you said "why didn't you mention that the length of the stroke on a parallel set depends on the geometry of the gripper?", and it seemed obvious -- without needless "wordiness" -- that your question leads directly to gripper variation. And since we're in a thread talking about closing an IM #4 ...

Just to make sure we're talking about the same thing, I'm going to assume that you use the phrase "length of the stroke" to refer to the distance between the bottom of the handles at the starting point.

So yes, the length of the stroke on a parallel set depends on the geometry of the gripper -- if we're talking about different grippers.

If we're talking about one specific gripper used by everyone certifying (i.e. any of the cert MM grippers, not replicas) the length of the stroke does not change unless you alter the gripper (e.g. shaved handles, altered spring, etc.).

However, since we're talking about closing the IM #4 in this thread, we are talking about different grippers made to similar specifications. If I take at face value that "[you] have never found a Captains of Crush Hand Gripper to be outside its narrow tolerances," then those specifications are pretty tight. So the difference in "the length of the stroke on a parallel set" between one IM #4 and another should be insignificant.

To put it more plainly: yes, your question ("why didn't you mention that the length of the stroke on a parallel set depends on the geometry of the gripper?") is a fair one, but only if you assume that there is a significant difference in the geometry between one IM #4 and another. That's why it reads (to me) like you're leading this discussion into the topic of gripper variation.

It's really not that tangled: a parallel set does not define a fixed ROM across grippers.

Some popcorn?

I find it AMAZING that Randy has taken ALL THIS TIME to debate Josh but refuses to

answer some PM's I've sent him numerous times. And No, the PM's are not about this

thread.

Others have complained that Randy ignores their PM's as well.

Sorry for being off-topic here but jeez! Randy could have wrote a book with all his wranglings

with Josh but can't respond to a simple yes or no PM!

WOW!!!

Ignores your PMs? Big Deal. If I were to belly ache on this forum about different people ignoring PMs, I would be considered a whiny, belly-aching crybaby. Don't Complain, Don't Explain.

You entirely missed the point HG!

And yes, this was a BIG DEAL! You spout off without knowing facts.

The ad hominems don't bother me at all. Try, try again!

Don't explain! Please!

Easy guys—save that energy for a PR attempt.

JAD

I'm not joshing you, .

Anyone else laugh at that?

For the most part I agree with Josh's point of view, but I'm not gonna argue it anymore. Many if Dr. Strossen comes to Michigan some day and he has a few drinks with Don and I, we can argue in between the stories and have fun with it, Don always said he never heard of that set stuff, but we always get along and he supports us in whatever way we compete with the grippers.

Bob -

Absolutely would enjoy it and most guys here might not know that Bill pays Josh and me to bicker because it boosts the traffic over here. :grin:

Link to post
Share on other sites
bencrush

Bob -

Absolutely would enjoy it and most guys here might not know that Bill pays Josh and me to bicker because it boosts the traffic over here. :grin:

I knew it!!! :grin: I'm still waiting for the announcement that you and Josh are fighting in a cage match. The cage will of course be made out of Apollon's Axles stood vertically, side-by-side, looped together with Super Squats Hip Belts.

  • Like 1
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.