Question for Joe Roark

[Tom Black]

Mr. Roark,

       While re-reading Bill Hinbern’s reprint of  “Developing The Grip and Forearm” by Thomas Inch I had a bit of a revelation while reading your account of the Inch Challenge Dumbbell in the back of the book (page 13).  You wrote:

  “…Many amateur and professional strongmen had a go at lifting the bell.  Here are some of the famous strongmen who tried and failed; Edward Aston, Maurice Deriaz, Wilf Diamond, Maxick, Reg Park, Monte Saldo, Eugen Sandow, The Saxon Brothers, and Harold Wood. Inch boasted that, sure they had lifted the bell, but not in the proper manner as described above.”  You described above that Inch considered the “proper manner” as a one hand clean to the shoulder, and then one hand overhead.  

      I had always assumed that when Inch says that Arthur Saxon and others failed to lift the bell, they failed to pick it up off the floor, even to the deadlift position.  And yet, the above seems to imply that maybe they lifted the bell, but failed to clean it.  Merely lifting the bell from the floor in my mind is a significant feat, but Inch, by his explanations and definitions seems to have disguised whether Saxon and others accomplished at least this part of the lift.  I’d like to know if you think my interpretation here is correct.   If I am correct it would also clear up another problem I have considering Arthur Saxon’s failure to lift the bell.  In the last few years we have witnessed many pictures of people deadlifting or at least clearing the bell off the floor.  I have always found it difficult to believe that Arthur Saxon could not lift the bell in light of the successes of modern day strongmen.  It seems to me also, based on Inch’s definition of the lift that all these modern lifts would be failures, except that performed my Kazmaier.  

[Roark]

My ignorance now haunts me. When I wrote that,

I believed it. Now that I have spent the past few

months cross-referencing everything I have about

Inch, I no longer think it is accurate.

As a matter of fact, and please understand that this

is an opinion, not knowledge, based on my recent,

very intensive studies of Inch and his bells; my

opinion is that Saxon never laid a hand on the 172

lb Inch bell. Never tried to lift, so by definition, did

not in fact lift it, which is certainly different than

implying that Saxon failed to lift the bell, after having

tried to.

Some of what I wrote about Inch in my (former) news-

letter MuscleSearch, I now consider to be inaccurate,

but it was based on what I knew at the time. More

than once I have come to a cross-road: Do I not write

about something until I have exhausted every reference

that is available; or, do I write cautiously based upon

a large amount of study thus putting some current

conclusions out there for others to bat around and

hopefully show us a new road or refute or confirm

what I have written. The latter road seems to me to

be the most rewarding even if a tinge of embarrass-

ment comes along with it occasionally, such as that

reference you offered in Hinbern's piece.

Certainly ALL of what has been written to assert

that Saxon tried and failed to lift the 172, is easily

refutable, at least all arguments I have seen, and

most of those arguments seem to have been written

with the same zeal, but by misinformed students who

have copied my error of not knowing enough before writing.

Nonetheless, these same debates are what propels

someone to insert a new piece of evidence for the

board to pursue. So, though it is embarrassing to

know that my mistake is open for public viewing, so

be it. I was wrong. Now I believe Saxon never tried

to lift the 172. I am not sure whether he tried to lift

the other Inch bells; so far as I can recall Inch never

mentioned Saxon in relation to any of the other bells.

Which was smart on Inch's part, because would any of us have accepted that Saxon could not lift the 140?

I am after the truth, and if that means my ego gets

trampled on in the stampede toward it, so be it.

I now, with reddened face, take my leave; with an

Inch replica in each hand, I walk away...

[Tom Black]

Sorry Joe,

    I did not mean to expose your error.   I really enjoy that section of the booklet, when I bought it years ago it was the first time I read about all the different Inch dumbbells.   You were simply reporting what Inch wrote in earlier articles, so you can only be as factual as Inch was.  You are in good company with this error, since Willoughby was led mislead by Inch as well.  I have a feeling we will never know.   If you can, I’d like to know the actual words Inch used when describing Saxon’s failure.  Was this originally reported in Heath and Strength?  

    I think maybe Inch was telling the truth, but in a round-about way.  Please excuse me while I also take my leave, with an Inch dumbbell replica cleaned gently to each shoulder.  

[Roark]

Tom,

H&S Nov 26, 1921 Inch wrote after referring to John Gruhn Marx, then turning to Arthur Saxon in regard

to the Inch bell: "But, on the other hand, Saxon was

even stronger than Marx, and had a huge hand and

was also used to lifting thick bars; and, as he could do

nothing with my dumb-bell, I fail to see where Marx's

chance came in." As I interpret this text, Inch is saying

that Saxon could not lift the Inch bell even clear of the

floor ('do nothing with' it). Well we know that Marx

one hand deadlifted 226 lbs on a 2.36" bar, and Inch

acknowledges Saxon's greater strength, so one must

conclude that Arthur could have also lifted that weight,

which was on a 2.36" bar rather than the 2.38" Inch

bar, but was 54 lbs HEAVIER!

HS Jan 21, 1922 Inch wrote: "It was Arthur Saxon's

great ambition to lift the bell, but though he often

practised with it he never succeeded."

HS Dec 20, 1956 Inch wrote: "During the long period

when I personally challenged with the bell no one

ever moved it single handed, and that includes such

strong men as the late Arthur Saxon..."

Strength & Health May 1939: Inch wrote "For about

15 years the late Arthur Saxon practiced with my bell

whenever he came to my place and that was pretty

frequently. Also his two brothers Herman (sic) and

Kurt.

"But none of them lifted the bell although they were

accustomed to thick handles and once had a bell made

after the style of my own and went around making

their offers to anyone to lift their thick handled dumbell.

"When they returned to my gymnasium after their

tour they one and all called for my dumbell to be brought

out, with many winks and expressions in German as

to whatthey would do with it now that they had had

a little practice. But again they failed and it was rather

amusing to watch their downcast faces after their failures."

So, are we to believe that their replica was made

early on, and then Arthur after a total of 15 years

still couldn't lift the Inch bell. Hogwash.

Tom, there may be more, but this shows my point.

I now pinch grip the bell of the Inch replica and

toss it aside.

[BarBender]

Is there any record of what Arthur Saxon had to say about his alleged failure to lift the (in)famous bell ?

I, in turn, swing the Inch replica overhead as I patiently await a response.

[Tom Black]

Great post Joe, this one’s going in my paper archive.  

[Roark]

BarBender,

The absence of any reply from Saxon in regard to

this matter is what prompted me to look at the

chronology of the matter. On any other lift which

Saxon was able to perform, he would certainly do

so. The fact that I can find no such reference

DURING ARTHUR'S LIFETIME, but only after his passing,

gave me the uneasy suspicion of wondering if there

had ever been a claim by Inch while Arthur was living

that Arthur failed to lift the bell. And why would not

Arthur have replied? I spoke to David Webster recently

about this theory and it perked his interest, and as he

has many more copies of H&S from the relevant time

period than I have, he wanted to search for an earlier

reference as he had time. So far he has not told me he

has found one. It is my guess that such a reference

does not exist, and the claim was made only after

(very soon after) Arthur died. I'll let the board know

if David finds a printed version of this while Arthur

was living.

I now snap the Inch replica in half at the handle,

and juggle the two bells.

[BarBender]

I didn't have to hold that Inch replica overhead for very long. Satisfied with your quick and detailed response, I do not merely walk away, but rather goose-step with an Inch replica balanced on the instep of each foot.

Tom forgot to mention that he was balancing an Inch replica on his chin as he scrolled a grade 5 bolt into a cobra.

[Guest Luke Reimer]

This is really interesting about Saxon and Inch. I'm not sure what to make of a guy that keeps multiple dumbbells that look identical but weigh differently. Roark, do you think there is any chance that Inch had a fourth dumbbell--also appearing identical--much heavier than the 172 pounder? A dumbbell that neither he nor any living human could break from the ground one handed? Or would this wouldn't be possible without increasing the dimentions of the globes in an obvious way?

[Roark]

Luke,

So far as I know, Inch had four bells:

75, 140, 153, 172. Aston mentioned

one which weighed about 180, but this

must surely have been the 172; Aston

also mentioned one with a hollow handle.

This is the only reference I have seen to this,

and it puzzles me.

You are correct, the larger diameter bell would be

obvious on a bell that weighed considerably more

than the 172-UNLESS- the 172 had a hollow spot,

which it does not so far as I know.

Years ago Tom Fenton of England owned the 153

lb bell, but so far its current location is not known.

What a thrill to locate that one!

I am now off the to basketball court to slam dunk

my replica.

[mobsterone]

You are all but children as I slip a chain around 3 of my many Inch db replicas and attach the chain to my Prince Albert ring

[mobsterone]

Just had another read re dimnsiosn etc. When Alan R designed our db both he and the foundry spent a great deal of time on the calculations. Metal has a lbs per cubed inch weight and using spheres only added to the work they needed to do. Sufficent to say that the Inch db weighs 172 and is solid. There is no way that the dimensions could remain the same and weigh 180. Hope this helps

[Roark]

mobsterone,

You win. Prince Albert ring indeed.

Just a question (you need not provide

photographic proof).

When the trio is attached, do you then

perform a no-hand swing?

[mobsterone]

its more of a jerking movement he he

[BarBender]

The possibility still exists for a hollow bell filled with a denser material such as lead. Such a dumbbell with a core of lead would be much heavier than 172 pounds.

With a thunderous roar I put an Inch replica into low orbit. It later lands beside me. Air friction reduced its weight to 153 pounds.

[OldGuy]

Did Inch not pull the dumbbell to his shoulder and then bentpress it ? He was known as a great bentpresser .

[mobsterone]

Not while its still attached! Ouch that hurts - that to both Tom and Old Guy. By the way old guy d'uh (now how did that feel).

I take it that you have either a) just not bothered looking at other posts or b) just discovered the Iron Game. We had gone past the 'how was it supposed to have been done' and got on to 'was it done at all'.

The answer therefore is yes (but not until I undid the chain from the Prince Albert )

[Roark]

How Inch got the bell overhead with one hand

is beyond me- I have not seen it explained. He

was the first British man to put 300 lbs overhead

with one hand, and that feat he accomplished

thru the bent press, but how he cleaned the Inch

bell with one hand (perhaps he used the Continental,

and not the clean?) and how he put the bell overhead

once it was at the shoulder is vague.

As a matter of fact, one sees the explanation that

the bell must be lifted 'in the manner prescribed by

Inch' but that manner is a description I have never

encountered in my reading. The bent press is a

logical guess.

There is a rare photo, which the caption explains

has never been shown before, demonstrating how

Inch got heavy dumbells to the shoulder, and that

photo shows him performing a Continental.

For those who may not know, the clean meant the bell

was brought to the shoulder 'cleanly', that is, with the bell not touching the body; the Continental meant that

body contact was allowed, and some lifters would

stop at the abdominal area and rest the bell on the

upper thigh or abs region. (with a barbell they would

set the bell onto a huge belt buckle, and Inch, once

using this method came up under the bottom of the

buckle, thus turning the top of the buckle into his

body with painful force)

To use the term Continental clean is doublespeak

and as meaningLESS as saying a clean Continental.

But if anyone has a reference to how Inch got the bell

overhead, please share it. Of course, in my opinion,

he never got it overhead, but what description was claimed?

[OldGuy]

It is my understanding that the most efficient way to get a heavy weight overhead using one hand is the bentpress .Surely Inch would have got the weight to the shoulder continental style and then bentpressed it .

[BarBender]

Shouldering a large dumbbell can be done in a similar fashion as shouldering a barrel. Place one end above the knee and squat deep to receive it on the shoulder. Once the dumbbell is in position, bent pressing it is a casual exercise for Thomas Inch.

[Roark]

Inch said his challenge was to lift the bell one hand

all the way. Perhaps he used the method you mention,

BarBender, but his wording: " The full feat, of course,

is one hand to the shoulder and then put the bell

overhead" leads me to think it was some sort of

clean or Continental. but I certainly don't know that.

Your barrel analogy would require two hands, right?

[BarBender]

The barrel shouldering analogy was borrowed from Jowett's _Molding a Mighty Grip_ in which a lifter is depicted holding a barrel with one hand on the top most chine and bottom part of the barrel is supported just above the knee. Placement of the barrel onto the knee would likely require two hands. A dumbbell that can be lifted to knee level with one hand can be positioned in a similar fashion for shouldering. This is easier said than done of course. So the sequence would be thus: deadlift DB with one hand to knee, squat down to receive DB to shoulder, stand up, make necessary adjustment for bent press, bent press DB overhead. Assuming that the lifter has the ability to bent press the Inch dumbbell, the critical element is to deadlift the dumbbell one-handed to the necessary height for shouldering. This is conjecture because it is not clear if shoulding the dumbbell in this manner is allowed in Inch's challenge.

[Roark]

What a pity that all this discussion did not begin

in 1920, when stagehands who worked the shows

could tell us how many bells Inch had backstage,

and whether he had wooden boxes to transport

each bell in, or if only the 172 bell was boxed.

Also Aston could be interviewed about his employ-

ment with Inch, and how many bells were lined up

in Inch's training room.

A pity that apparently no photo was taken of all

four bells side-by-side on the floor.

But when deception is the game, secrecy must be

the game plan.

[mobsterone]

Here's the promised article by A. D. Campbell

The answer to the question posed by Joe Roark is that it appears that Arthur Saxon may have tried and failed.

According to statements made by Inch an others - no one  - other than Inch successfully lifted this dumbbell during the 40 odd years of his challenge. Indeed it was not until 1956 that the aura of invincibility was damaged.

However, in answering that question we raise another. Inch was a friend as well as an admirer of Saxon and not being a man to risk losing money had asked Arthur to test his dumbbell. Saxon is said to have failed and this gave our Tom the confidence to raise the prize money from £100.00 from £200.00.

If Arthur did fail, why did Inch, who certainly encouraged the mystique that grew up around the dumbbell, not use this failure to his own advantage and appears to have made no mention of it until after Arthur's death in 1921? The answer might simply have been that Arthur was a friend and that there was no direct competition between them. Inch on numerous occasions said that Arthur was without equal as a strongman and presumably he was including himself. Any challenge to the Saxon's would have undoubtedly lead to a counter-challenge on a number of lifts which Inch realistically could not expect to win.

Ripley's 'Believe It or Not' featured Inch's challenge '10,000 strongmen have failed to lift this dumbbell, but Inch lifted it a 1000 times! What is the secret?'

Putting aside the numbers, to be fair to Inch there was no secret, no trick. The poundage and thickness of the handle were what had to be overcome. The application of an immensely strong grip and brute power combined with the correct technique was clearly what was needed.

It is unlikely that Saxon could have resisted attempting to lift this dumbbell. But as with the challenge dumbbell of American Strongman, John Y. Smith, he may well have failed.

Among the strongmen would did try were: -

Maurice Deriaz

Swiss born Maurice of the Deriaz brothers who, while only 5' 6" tall, weighed 200 pounds and had an 18-inch upper arm and a 14-inch forearm. He failed and unfortunately older brother Emil, who was stronger, never tried.

Strongfort

The Norwegian, not Lionel Strongfort the American, who was capable of cleaning 340 pounds without moving his feet also failed. Inch credited him with the best attempt to date. Strongfort had come to London to enter the 1908 Olympics but found there was to be no Weightlifting competition and so short of cash he took up the challenge.

Harold Wood

The Battersea strongman and one of Britain's strongest ever men also tried and failed.

During the wrestling world championships at Heglers Circus the dumbbell was on display as a challenge to all the wrestlers including Ivan Padoubney, the great Russian who was one of the strongest men in the world. When Inch returned accompanied by Arthur Saxon, he found that no one had been able to lift it and that many were of the opinion that it was impossible. Inch's answer was to pick up the dumbbell and carry it out of the arena.

 

There is also another question. How many Inch Dumbbells were there?

Edward Aston, who later defeat Inch for his title tried on several occasions and once shouted to Inch 'and which dumbbell is it today Mr. Inch?' to which Inch quickly replied 'it is the one I am lifting tonight!'

John valentine of Leeds, a very strong man and a competent performer known in America as the Michigan Hercules had been a former pupil of Inch's. His attempt also failed, for despite having been told the weight of the dumbbell and precise dimensions of the handle he found that it was beyond him. indeed, valentine was capable of pressing a 200 pound dumbbell. John said in a letter that he was now certain that Inch had at least 3 challenge dumbbells possibly a fourth.

Maxick, while preparing to accept the challenge, was uncertain as to which bell he would be lifting and called off the attempt.

Reg Park Mr. U and worlds best developed man also tried and having easily stretched Inch's Super Expander and closed Inch's grip machine further than anyone had done before, then found that he too would fail to lift the unliftable dumbbell. Thomas Inch, then aged 68, demonstrated that no tricks were involved by performing all three feats including the lifting of the dumbbell - this reported in both the Evening Standard and Daily Mail of 27th October 1949.

In 1957 a contest in London featured another dumbbell this one having a 2.5-inch handle and weighing 153 pounds.

As to any dumbbell being so-called 'unliftable' there are other factors involved other than just the weight. These must include dimensions. In particular the diameter and width of the handle. It is perhaps interesting to speculate on the likelihood of the success of such as John Grunn, Vansittart, Louis Uni (Apollon) or Louis Cyr who all could surely have toyed with the reputed weight of such dumbbells.

So we are left with the unknown factor, including just how many dumbbells were there? Aston's one, two, three or even possibly four…

The skeptical will of course say 'well where are these dumbbells now?' We know was owned by Reg Park, later by Dave Prowse and sold again onto Kim Woods. The others,  if they existed, have probably ended up in some scrap-yard, possibly to lay alongside Apollon's wheels or Saxons Barbells.

Then again they may still be around, unknown and unrecognized, awaiting someone who will discover them, dream improbable dreams and lift unliftable dumbbells.

We can hope can't we?

[Roark]

Mobsterone,

I have addressed most of the points you mention in

my previous posts, but I will acknowledge that the

1949 incident involving Reg Park has me puzzled,

simply because it flies in the face of EVERYTHING

else I know about Inch and his (in my view) four

dumbells. I suspect, and I emphacize suspect, that it

was not the 172 that Park tried. Indeed, Aston, who

worked for Inch could not tell the bells apart 'Which bell

is it, Mr. Inch' so how could audience members sitting

yards or dozens of yards away, distinguish? Or how

could Park who may have been seeing the bell (which

bell) for the first time? Aston said the bell weighed 180.

You know, of course, that Inch took immediate steps

when his bell was deadlifted, to point out that it was

NOT the 172 but the 153. The men lifting it did not

know this. How do you give a prize for 'best effort'

when the bell does not leave the floor? Best appearance

of exertion? Best grimace? Also, Inch did acknowledge

that two men had lifted it a few inches off the floor, then

he later never mentioned them again, but reverted to

saying no one had done so.

He said Saxon tried for 15 years to lift the bell. When

I told David Webster about this, his first statement was

basically, when were those two men in each other's

company for 15 years?; their chronologies do not line up

that way. And I hasten to add that if you try to lift

a weight, and then try again next year, it is a misuse

of our language for me to say you have been trying

for two years. Two days, would be more accurate.

Inch lost the ability to lift the 172 circa 1911 (without

checking my files), talked about retiring the bell circa 1913,

took hours circa 1931 to lift it a second time (this after

hundreds of previous successful lifts based on his high

concenrtartion and max effort focused to the moment

idea- a technique he apparently lost by 1931). Then 18

years later he lifted it overhead? Don't believe it, per-

sonally.

Regarding Saxon/Hengler's etc, I previously posted

regarding when Padoubny appeared there with Apollon

and how Apollon dropped out of the wrestling tournament

briefly, thus giving Inch a window in which to bring the

bell by Hengler's for one day, one week, two weeks (I

have seen all those references).

The one certain thing is that Inch remained vague. He

said Saxon had a similar bell made, mastered it, but

could not lift Inch's? Silliness.

Yes, Saxon failed with Smith's dumbell; the one time

he had occasion to try it. I suspect after 15 years

of trying, especially if he had a similar bell made, Saxon

would have mastered it. But all that begs the point:

whatever else Saxon failed to do, does not address

whether he failed with Inch's bell. He also failed in a

sack lift, you'll remember, but once he was shown the

manner in which to do it (which differed from his own

flour sack) I feel he probably would have succeeded.

(My flour sack has self-rising flour, and no one has

yet failed with it)

I have been thinking about writing my conclusions in

extreme detail, with references, which will be a very

lengthy piece, but will show why I conclude what I

conclude.

Sorry if I sound excited, but I have literally spent more

time studying Inch and his bells, than frankly, anyone

else that I am aware of, which does not mean I am

right, but I am confident. Remember, as with Paul

Anderson, I began studying this to prove that it did

in fact happen; both situations have lead me to conclude

otherwise.

But I sincerely appreciate your arguments and your

thirst for an answer.