Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Alawadhi

Who can close a #3 Ronnie Coleman style?

Recommended Posts

Alawadhi
11 hours ago, king crusher said:

Is this an acceptable Ronnie close?

Made sure the gripper was out in front of me, the pinky fully on the gripper and my thumb just out there lol.

I actually did it twice as the first one I instinctively used my thumb at the end haha.

Oh and it's a #2. 

Also tried a times hold with my 156 #3 after this and got 20sec.

I have not used my grippers in a month or so and it hurts letting go haha

Maybe I should just not let go like Kinney? Lol

 

 

 

 

Not close to Ronnie set :turn The #3 close was weak. Why was your hands shaking all the time? Kinney could do it to a #4, grind it and talk without shaking. Joking aside, very strong :rock 

11 hours ago, Joseph Sullivan said:

This style of closing, from what I’ve heard, should only be done for very high reps at a very light gripper. The disadvantage placed on the grip due to the bent wrist is phenomenal. I’ve tried it a few times and my wrist did not like it at all. Proceed with caution. Some arm wrestlers do this with very light, like a trainer or a guide for high reps. 

Yes. John himself seems to be using a very easy gripper here too. You could seriously get hurt on a big gripper.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
1 hour ago, Alawadhi said:

Not close to Ronnie set :turn The #3 close was weak. Why was your hands shaking all the time? Kinney could do it to a #4, grind it and talk without shaking. Joking aside, very strong :rock 

Yes. John himself seems to be using a very easy gripper here too. You could seriously get hurt on a big gripper.

This is true, did I miss something @king crusher ? John Brzenk is using a light gripper, it appears, with his wrist bent . This is a dangerous move, and is to be done very light. I’ve actually had this specific conversation with a big name AW, coincidentally. 

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Rinderle

0 8180a12bf55f4d78c6fcf204e4ec00db.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
David_wigren
1 hour ago, Mike Rinderle said:

0 8180a12bf55f4d78c6fcf204e4ec00db.jpg

This seems like a simple thing to understand but it’s actually quite difficult considering how many struggle with it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
3 minutes ago, David_wigren said:

This seems like a simple thing to understand but it’s actually quite difficult considering how many struggle with it.

Yes, especially with some scientists who try to convince us of theories as being facts, when in all actuality, they don’t know much at all and are only guessing as to what they think/want to be true. At the end of the day, in a nutshell, they really don’t know much at all and a theory is just that ..... but teach things as word, and no one questions it. Very interesting how so many just smile and nod and don’t think about what they are told. Mr. Sagan should listen to his own advice! 😉

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Rinderle
1 minute ago, Joseph Sullivan said:

Yes, especially with some scientists who try to convince us of theories as being facts, when in all actuality, they don’t know much at all and are only guessing as to what they think/want to be true. At the end of the day, in a nutshell, they really don’t know much at all and a theory is just that ..... but teach things as word, and no one questions it. Very interesting how so many just smile and nod and don’t think about what they are told. Mr. Sagan should listen to his own advice! 😉

That would be tough.  He's dead.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
2 minutes ago, Mike Rinderle said:

That would be tough.  He's dead.  

I meant when he was alive.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
David_wigren
2 hours ago, Joseph Sullivan said:

Yes, especially with some scientists who try to convince us of theories as being facts, when in all actuality, they don’t know much at all and are only guessing as to what they think/want to be true. At the end of the day, in a nutshell, they really don’t know much at all and a theory is just that ..... but teach things as word, and no one questions it. Very interesting how so many just smile and nod and don’t think about what they are told. Mr. Sagan should listen to his own advice! 😉

What theories are you talking about? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
21 minutes ago, David_wigren said:

What theories are you talking about? 

You are a scientist, right? How many theories are out there? Quite a few. Take your pick of the usual suspects that are taught as fact. Could be here all day. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Rinderle

The one about women being able to resist me is HIGHLY suspect.

Edited by Mike Rinderle
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
21 minutes ago, Mike Rinderle said:

The one about women being able to resist me is HIGHLY suspect.

Love it!!! Although more believable than some of the Disney Magic we are expected to believe. I’m going with your theory, Rindo! Especially when wearing your KILT! 🤡🤡🤡🤡

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hopefully

Everything's a theory 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
2 minutes ago, Hopefully said:

Everything's a theory 

No... 1 plus 1 is 2. That is a fact. Water is wet, that’s a fact. What goes up, must come down, that’s a fact. There are constants and things that do not change in this world and can be seen as fact. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hopefully
22 minutes ago, Joseph Sullivan said:

No... 1 plus 1 is 2. That is a fact. Water is wet, that’s a fact. What goes up, must come down, that’s a fact. There are constants and things that do not change in this world and can be seen as fact. 

I disagree. 

I think everything can and should be questioned, by accepting something as absolute truth you imprison your mind. I prefer being free and not bound. Although my mind still is bound in many ways, seeing as we aren't all that complicated as we'd like to think sometimes. Which actually is even more reason to not accept things as absolute truth. 

I do not wish for debate though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
5 minutes ago, Hopefully said:

I disagree. 

I think everything can and should be questioned, by accepting something as absolute truth you imprison your mind. I prefer being free and not bound. Although my mind still is bound in many ways, seeing as we aren't all that complicated as we'd like to think sometimes. Which actually is even more reason to not accept things as absolute truth. 

I do not wish for debate though. 

No debate, but, how is water anything but wet? And 1 plus 1  equals 2 .... how is that possibly not true? There is absolute truth with things. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shoggoth

Theories aren’t guesses

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Viceversus
7 hours ago, Mike Rinderle said:

0 8180a12bf55f4d78c6fcf204e4ec00db.jpg

Thats an awesome set of words.       

In one way, numbers are a man made systematic language to describe the physical world. In reality you cant truly measure an object because it can be broken down to a more ''zoomed'' in detailed measure. More of an estimation not fact. A whole number has an infinite unmeasurable amount of numbers between them. To describe an objects measurment as 2 when in fact it is 2.0000115 etc infinite amount of digits etc.    

Edited by Viceversus
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
David_wigren
1 hour ago, Joseph Sullivan said:

No... 1 plus 1 is 2. That is a fact. Water is wet, that’s a fact. What goes up, must come down, that’s a fact. There are constants and things that do not change in this world and can be seen as fact. 

The fact that something falls is explained by the theory of gravity. So, it’s still just a theory. Scientific theories are basically a body of work which have been formed to explain a large set of many different facts. Which then lets us be able to predict other research. For instance, the theory of gravity explains that things with mass are attracted to each other. This knowledge lets us predict that if you throw something in the air, it will not only fall, but actually accelerate with a speed of 9.82 meters per seconds (at least until the air resistance is equal to the acceleration).

I’m not going to go any deeper than this. It’s true that science is often abused for political and religious arguments. It’s not uncommon to see people say something like “because the fact A is true, it means that B and C is false”. And that’s simply not how science works. Sure, like I said, science can be used to ”predict” things. But they are still just predictions, they could still be wrong. And when they are, it means that the theory was not completely accurate and needs to be changed in order to explain any new findings that the old theory wasn’t able to predict. A good example of this is the atomic model which have changed several times over the past few hundred years as new things have been discovered. Funny fact is that the atomic model that is taught in school is actually an oversimplification of an old model, it’s actually known with 100 % certainty that it is incorrect. But the model is sufficient enough to explain most things, and the newest atomic model is too complicated for new students to learn. So they get taught the easier incorrect version 😂

BTW, I’m no scientist. In Sweden “scientist” is a protected title which basically requires you to be at least post-doc. Which I’m not. But I do work with scientific research.

Edited by David_wigren
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
30 minutes ago, David_wigren said:

The fact that something falls is explained by the theory of gravity. So, it’s still just a theory. Scientific theories are basically a body of work which have been formed to explain a large set of many different facts. Which then lets us be able to predict other research. For instance, the theory of gravity explains that things with mass are attracted to each other. This knowledge lets us predict that if you throw something in the air, it will not only fall, but actually accelerate with a speed of 9.82 meters per seconds (at least until the air resistance is equal to the acceleration).

I’m not going to go any deeper than this. It’s true that science is often abused for political and religious arguments. It’s not uncommon to see people say something like “because the fact A is true, it means that B and C is false”. And that’s simply not how science works. Sure, like I said, science can be used to ”predict” things. But they are still just predictions, they could still be wrong. And when they are, it means that the theory was not completely accurate and needs to be changed in order to explain any new findings that the old theory wasn’t able to predict. A good example of this is the atomic model which have changed several times over the past few hundred years as new things have been discovered. Funny fact is that the atomic model that is taught in school is actually an oversimplification of an old model, it’s actually known with 100 % certainty that it is incorrect. But the model is sufficient enough to explain most things, and the newest atomic model is too complicated for new students to learn. So they get taught the easier incorrect version 😂

BTW, I’m no scientist. In Sweden “scientist” is a protected title which basically requires you to be at least post-doc. Which I’m not. But I do work with scientific research.

No matter how you want to slice it... theory is a thought or an idea of how someone THINKS things are.... it is not fact... otherwise it would be called scientific fact and not theory. Neil Degrasse Tyson Himself stated “ we do not know what gravity is”... so it is a theory. It’s some “magical force”.... I don’t think so.... they have no idea what it really is, just like all the other theories they have. The “Big Bang “ is another huge example of  theory. That we buy as word...they have zero way of proving, measuring, testing or observing, and where did the supposed “nothing” that exploded into all we see come from?? Nothing means nothing, and scientists today cannot make something fr nothing, only from existing materials. Where did the first “nothing” appear from and how did it explode? So, no matter what they tell us... they don’t know jack. They weren’t there, and there is only pseudo scientific proof. That’s why it’s not called fact.....anyway..: moving on... sorry for opening a can of worms.... back to the theory of Joe Kinney or the original title of the thread!! 🤡

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Rinderle
55 minutes ago, Joseph Sullivan said:

No debate, but, how is water anything but wet? And 1 plus 1  equals 2 .... how is that possibly not true? There is absolute truth with things. 

Water is not wet when it is a solid (ice) or gas (steam)

I couldn't resist.  😈

Edited by Mike Rinderle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
3 minutes ago, Mike Rinderle said:

Water is not wet when it is a solid (ice) or gas (steam)

It is one of the 3.... but yes, it is still “wet” Rindo.... it is made up of H2O so it still has moisture.... moisture is wet....  you just described water (wet) in its 3 states. Can’t have ice or steam without wet water..

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Rinderle
11 minutes ago, Joseph Sullivan said:

It is one of the 3.... but yes, it is still “wet” Rindo.... it is made up of H2O so it still has moisture.... moisture is wet....  you just described water (wet) in its 3 states. Can’t have ice or steam without wet water..

Nope.  Only in liquid form.  

Everything is wet in liquid form.  Molten steel is "wet."  Being made up of an oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms doesn't make something magically wet.  It is a solid in its ice form and is not "wet."

But how bout that Ronnie Coleman!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
1 hour ago, Shoggoth said:

Theories aren’t guesses

Definition of theory is  a supposition or series of ideas.... intended to explain something. A supposition is an uncertain belief, the definition of an uncertain belief is that they don’t really know ... the theory  is having faith in that belief or idea, such as the Big Bang. They come up with educated guesses as to what and why things are. I stand by my original statement that they are just guessing and proven wrong quite often and have no way of proving half of what they say .... I’m sorry I mentioned this.... Daves meme intrigued me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
David_wigren
15 minutes ago, Joseph Sullivan said:

No matter how you want to slice it... theory is a thought or an idea of how someone THINKS things are.... it is not fact... otherwise it would be called scientific fact and not theory. Neil Degrasse Tyson Himself stated “ we do not know what gravity is”... so it is a theory. It’s some “magical force”.... I don’t think so.... they have no idea what it really is, just like all the other theories they have. The “Big Bang “ is another huge example of  theory. That we buy as word...they have zero way of proving, measuring, testing or observing, and where did the supposed “nothing” that exploded into all we see come from?? Nothing means nothing, and scientists today cannot make something fr nothing, only from existing materials. Where did the first “nothing” appear from and how did it explode? So, no matter what they tell us... they don’t know jack. They weren’t there, and there is only pseudo scientific proof. That’s why it’s not called fact.....anyway..: moving on

I’m far from an expert on astrophysics. And yes, the theory of the big bang is perhaps not one of the most solid theories out there. But it did predict the background radiation levels many decades before it was discovered, with pretty good accuracy. It’s also been pretty good at explaining the rate at which the observable universe is expanding and probably a whole bunch of things that I don’t know about.

You are incorrect. Researchers have created matter and antimatter from nothing. It’s been proven with the work made in the large Hadron collider. Tiny particles of matter and antimatter pop in and out of existence all the time, everywhere.

I respect you Joe. It’s good to be skeptical. But you seem to be overly skeptical. Almost to the point where you seem to actually be choosing to believe in some statements over others to confirm your own bias. You seem quick to dismiss so many things when you don’t even have a layman’s understanding of it. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
3 minutes ago, Mike Rinderle said:

Nope.  Only in liquid form.  

Everything is wet in liquid form.  Molten steel is "wet."  Being made up of an oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms doesn't make something magically wet.  It is a solid in its ice form and is not "wet."

But how bout that Ronnie Coleman!

Yea.... how bout em...🤡🤡🤡  ️  💧 🥶

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy policies.