GripBoard Rule #4

[Bill Piche]

Some seem to take offense to Rule #4. Others embrace it.

What do you think?

[Guest gripmaster316]

We live in a tough world, but the restrictions are necessary.

[Guest gripmaster316]

The rules are good Wanna, I think most (if not all) of the gripboard repects this infamous rule. Without it, there would be anarchy

Seriously though, if you have a serious recod, get some serious proof.

[gazza]

Once a feat is varified properley with video and the proper witnesses etc,the feat will stand forever

[Matt Van Weele]

I think exceptions should be made. Say Heath Sexton has pictures of himself closing the #4 down to maybe a 1/16 with clips and a witness from the board. Then on a latter date closes the #4 in front of 10 guys from the board but there is no video or pics. I think this would be acceptableworld class feat. So in some cases pics and video would not be needed but I think eventually would be nice. Thanks for being an example Heath.

[Emsquared]

If you are going to do a world class lift or gripper close

get it on video, it is the only way to go, you can enjoy it and

others on the gripboard can enjoy it and, people from future

generations will see what you did.

M2

[MIKE HALEY RILEY CLOE]

Videos + pictures = PROOF. The rule is a good one, and it is what sets this forum apart from the others. I understand where Matt is coming from, but where do you draw the line on what to accept and what not to accept? I dont think you can go wrong with proof to back up a claim. By the way ,THIS is why I like the grip board , everybody can throw out ideas, and be heard. Mike

[Roark]

Doubt is what we are trying to remove. Name the witnesses, show the video,

and put the burden of proof where it belongs- ON THE PERSON MAKING THE CLAIM.

Why should the burden be put on us, and to divide us among believers of a certain feat and non-believers of a certain feat.

How close has Heath been on the 4 for the past couple of years? Within a hair. So

I for one would believe him if he told me he finally got it closed. I think he is a

man of his word, BUT, neither my belief, nor his claim, constitutes proof.

If someone hears of a feat being approved by the Grip Board, it should be

understood that proof exists, not claims among friends.

Woe be the day when the rules change to allow 'being close' on closing a

gripper to count the same as closing the gripper.

[Bearcat 74]

I say it's fine. If it is done once, it can be done again infront of someone with a camera. There should be no exceptions.

[jimwylie1]

I guess it can be uncomfortable at times but I believe the rule should stand going forward. As it stands the rule isn't bent for anyone and that's the way it should be. For what it's worth, the word of most people on this board is good enough for me but I wouldn't expect them to be given anymore slack than the next man.

Getting these feats verified under controlled conditions is what makes them real in the eyes of others. Anything less than is demanded on this board throws in that inkling of doubt. If you want recognition for what you have achieved then be prepared to back it up.

[SqeezeMasterFlash]

I agree with Heath. If you can do it once, find a way to document it and do it again.

[Jedd Johnson]

I have a hard time believing there are people who don't have friends, colleagues or acquaintances with cameras.

If there are, I say this:

A video tape costs roughly a dollar. Carry your gripper or whatever grip feat implement with you and hunt for somebody with a camera. Put an add in the paper. Go onto forums on the internet and look for somebody in your area, whatever needs to be done. Then when you find them, have them pop the tape into their camera, do your feat, and get the proof done.

There are too many people who make outlandish claims and then when the time comes to step up to the plate, they bomb out. And it is more than just stage fright or performance anxiety in many cases. It's lying.

I support the rule and will until the end.

-Napalm Jedd-

[OldGuy]

We need to avoid any mystery and doubt. Sometimes even basic info is not provided.

[EricMilfeld]

I believe even more important than video is a competent, honest witness. You can't inspect the equipment on a video. But I agree that for a world class feat, a video is really essential these days.

[CMunger]

I'm a little bit torn on the rule. I think the rule has the right idea. I get a bit concerned about the stigma that it generates, however. I mean locking a thread talking about something gives a STRONG inference of "Liar, Liar, Pants On Fire". Even though that's not the intent. Sure, i think that evidence should be provided, and I'll be sure to remind anybody trying anything interesting to get it on video lest they catch some serious shit.

The only time I think it gets silly is when we can't even discuss the feat in question. Sward carried the inches over 70 feet (EDIT: calling it 'the 70' cuz I can't remember exactly what they measured, more than 70 feet, but too lazy to look) with a turn on Saturday. We have video proof of him carrying them for 48 feet. Ok, now lacking video proof for the 70, the 48 is still the official record. But I don't necessariuly see why the 70+ walk can't be discussed. This week we moved some crap out of his way so he didn't have to stop. There wasn't much of any fanfare this time, cuz it had already been done. I don't think someone should have to hide something just because there's no video proof. I guess I wouldn't have minded Dave Morton saying "I got the #4! Gonna call Strossen and try to get certified soon." Under the rules, the thread would have been locked down, with the LIAR stigma attached, which I think is not right.

Did Sybersnott suggest that the thread be closed because he felt there was a wrong being committed, or was he being a cynical over the Holle thread getting closed? It seemed to me like the latter. And that's the kind of negativity I don't think we want.

I like the idea of requiring evidence, but as I said before, I don't like the excessivley negative connotation of locking the thread. I might suggest adding *UNOFFICIAL* to the subject line or something vs. flat out locking. Don't accept it as an official record without the proof, but I think it's near silly to have to pretend something never happened.

2nd Edit: I voted that the current standards for proof are fine, but I do think that the word of the rule is a bit harsh. ie: Label the thread *UNOFFICIAL* if it lacks the video proof, don't lock it down.

Edited November 2, 2003 by CMunger

[Roark]

I tend to agree that if someone (Sward) has established the record with proof,

then it is reasonable to assume that on the second time in his life that he tried

for a record, he DIFW 50% farther. It is resonable, and I believe it, but again,

belief is not what sets the standard.

For the better part of a century people believed Inch was capable of wondrous

feats with his 172 bell.

Many people still believe that Anderson holds the record in the backlift.

We now know both those beliefs were not based on fact, and that both involved

implements found to weigh considerably less than publicized.

If the Grip Board is to believe something, let it be based on fact, and not on

widespread belief. Please.

[suterp]

Requiring proof to be listed on the records board makes sense. Requiring proof just to talk about something you did or saw seems silly.

The other day my nephew claimed that a guy in his high school power cleaned 560 pounds. I said that's not possible, but he insisted it happened, so I let it go. It would have been kind of anal of me to say "I refuse to discuss world class feats unless their is proper proof such as video and a credible witness".

[Tom of Iowa2]

48 ft or 70ft.Swards walk with the two INCHEs is the feat of the year.Period?I know that isn't the purpose of this thread but I think the feat hasn't recieved adequate recognition.

Bissonette doing 20ft(another thread) is crazy too.

I realize to Sward and/or Bissontte these feats actually aren't a big deal...as they came relatively easy...but i am suprised at the reaction of others.HHHMMMMMM? "Too much?Too soon?"..."Nobody roots of Goliath?""The new kid on the block is too big and strong to play ball with?""Complete unknown is too mindblowing?"

Interesting.

Edited November 2, 2003 by Tom of Iowa2

[OldGuy]

Requiring proof to be listed on the records board makes sense. Requiring proof just to talk about something you did or saw seems silly.

The other day my nephew claimed that a guy in his high school power cleaned 560 pounds. I said that's not possible, but he insisted it happened, so I let it go. It would have been kind of anal of me to say "I refuse to discuss world class feats unless their is proper proof such as video and a credible witness".

So it should be ok to express our doubts and disbeliefs without people being offended. This way is better, or it would quickly turn ugly as it has in the past. There are good reasons for having rules around here.

[Bearcat 74]

So it should be ok to express our doubts and disbeliefs without people being offended. This way is better, or it would quickly turn ugly as it has in the past. There are good reasons for having rules around here.

I never saw a locked thread as calling someone a liar, truthfully when Chris James posted that he didn't appreciate being called a liar by having his thread locked was the first time it ever hit me. It hit me as being crazy. Having a thread locked is not calling someone a liar, it is holding the thread for a civil discussion at a later date. Like OldGuy said, you can either have you thread locked and provide proof so everyone can pat you on the back later, or you can post, have some pats, then have people who think you are full of shit post and then the fight is on. I guess that is the thing to do, get rid of the rule so people will be happy that they can post, then Bill can get flooded with pm's because they don't like what the nay-sayers have posted. I say keep the rule.

[Bill Piche]

I say keep the rule because another good reason is what Heath mentions with the people being offended when someone throws up the "bullshit" card.

Actually, thinking back, I believe that's how the rule got started in the first place! Someone help me here. But, I am pretty sure that's how that rule got started.

[OldGuy]

The rule helps to keep the peace. We are better off with it. As I said, things used to turn ugly before the rule, and disrupt the board for days. Of course people are still free to challenge things, but the rule seems to deter this.

[Bill Piche]

The rule helps to keep the peace. We are better off with it. As I said, things used to turn ugly before the rule, and disrupt the board for days. Of course people are still free to challenge things, but the rule seems to deter this.

I was pretty sure that's a BIG reason the rule was introduced.

[CMunger]

I say keep the rule because another good reason is what Heath mentions with the people being offended when someone throws up the "bullshit" card.

Actually, thinking back, I believe that's how the rule got started in the first place! Someone help me here. But, I am pretty sure that's how that rule got started.

That makes sense. I run a board and can commiserate with the difficulty of keeping things happy and sane. I can certainly see things getting a lot uglier with people crying bullshit. perhaps a brief explanation by the rule might help people understand. Because while it might be to prevent chais from questions, criticism and doubt, I think it also runs the risk of alienating people who misunderstand the purpose of the rule when it's applied to them.

[Rob Vigeant]

I'm a little bit torn on the rule. I think the rule has the right idea. I get a bit concerned about the stigma that it generates, however. I mean locking a thread talking about something gives a STRONG inference of "Liar, Liar, Pants On Fire". Even though that's not the intent. Sure, i think that evidence should be provided, and I'll be sure to remind anybody trying anything interesting to get it on video lest they catch some serious shit.

The only time I think it gets silly is when we can't even discuss the feat in question. Sward carried the inches over 70 feet (EDIT: calling it 'the 70' cuz I can't remember exactly what they measured, more than 70 feet, but too lazy to look) with a turn on Saturday. We have video proof of him carrying them for 48 feet. Ok, now lacking video proof for the 70, the 48 is still the official record. But I don't necessariuly see why the 70+ walk can't be discussed. This week we moved some crap out of his way so he didn't have to stop. There wasn't much of any fanfare this time, cuz it had already been done. I don't think someone should have to hide something just because there's no video proof. I guess I wouldn't have minded Dave Morton saying "I got the #4! Gonna call Strossen and try to get certified soon." Under the rules, the thread would have been locked down, with the LIAR stigma attached, which I think is not right.

Did Sybersnott suggest that the thread be closed because he felt there was a wrong being committed, or was he being a cynical over the Holle thread getting closed? It seemed to me like the latter. And that's the kind of negativity I don't think we want.

I like the idea of requiring evidence, but as I said before, I don't like the excessivley negative connotation of locking the thread. I might suggest adding *UNOFFICIAL* to the subject line or something vs. flat out locking. Don't accept it as an official record without the proof, but I think it's near silly to have to pretend something never happened.

2nd Edit: I voted that the current standards for proof are fine, but I do think that the word of the rule is a bit harsh. ie: Label the thread *UNOFFICIAL* if it lacks the video proof, don't lock it down.

I agree but.............You do need to show proof within reasonable time.