anyone closing in on the #4?

[Guest 115-1005574997]

I remember seeing a post last month hinting that two people are close to shutting the #4 and wondered if that had managed to do it yet?

[Guest]

Heath?  How's it goin'?

[Guest StrongerthanArne]

Håkan Petschler, Swedish representative for the IFSA, told a friend of mine that he had witnessed Magnus Samuelsson have a go at his #4 just before Christmas and he was about 8 mm away from closing it (they went out to Magnus' shed during a party and Magnus attemted to close it without much warm up). I do not, however, believe that closing the #4 has the highest priority for Magnus, so I doubt that he will be the next. If he competes in one of the upcomming Löddeköpinge Grip Challenge comps. I will give him tips on how to improve on the grippers. I don't think he has done strapholds for example.

[Bearcat 74]

Right now, that proverbial snail has passed the pace of my #4 progression......   ???

[Guest]

Say it ain't so Heath!  So what are you doing to break the plateau?

[Guest Luke Reimer]

Maybe this is where cycling comes in?  I sort of implemented

it accidentally myself. I just can't bring myself to do

something week after week after week, indefinately, without

getting any measurable gains at all, so I scrapped training

with the #4 altogether at least several months ago. Right

now I have no intentions of taking another run at them

directly. I think I would only approach them again, if ever,

through a long progression of intermediate grippers that I

don't yet have. The #4 is pure evil (even the formidable Elites

are a joke by comparison). I can't see that there is any way

to come near the #4s through concentric training until John

S. fills in the range between the Elites and the #4s. (Unless

the Gripanator works just as well?)

[Guest 115-1005574997]

why not do strapholds with the #4?

Jim Wylie and David Horne have suggested rectangles of wood (25mm, 30mm 40mm etc) thick with a small hole drilled in the bottom where you attach a 1.25 or 2.5 kg disk.  Clamp the #4 against the wood, work up to longer hold, use thinner pieces of wood and away you go.

You can train progressivly, accuratly, create cycles and monitor progress.

Scott

P.S  I hope this information wasnt top secret Dave/Jim???

[Guest Luke Reimer]

Scot,

The suggestion is interesting, but raises the question of

whether one would ever be able to progress to a thinner

block for the hold. Suppose you are using a block half an inch

thick, and you are doing holds with a 1.25# plate. I readily

allow the possibility that, over time, you might be able to add

more and more plates. But how much progress of this sort

would it take before you could remove the weight and use a

slightly thinner block? I suspect for some of us, the answer is

that we would have to gain such a disproportionate amount

of isometric strength before we gained any concentric

strength for motion extending even a nanometer beyond the

position of the hold, that we would never increase our range

of motion.  The funny thing is, I find that I can increase reps,

holding time, or volume, over time (lots of it! ) when range of

concentric motion is held constant (e.g. the full squeezing

range, with grippers that I can close).  Also, I have found

that from here, with range of concentric motion still held

constant (i.e. certainly not gaining any, since it's already at

the full range; but possibly loosing a tiny bit)  I can exchange

reps or holding time for slightly more intensity (e.g. grippers

harder by not too many inch-pounds). The one thing I cannot

seem to do is increase range of concentric motion (e.g. from

less partial close to a greater partial close) over time when

intensity is held constant (e.g. a gripper much too hard for

me).  Does anyone else relate to this?  It seems like I build

strength only over the range that my fingers actually move

through, and hardly a nanometer beyond (I'ts exasperating! ).

I've experimented with negatives, but the negatives for me

are almost like isometric holds--they mainly make me stronger

at negatives themselves (e.g. progressively slower, tighter

ones), but don't much seem to help me move the handles the

other way any further than before. I'm intrigued with the

innovations in isometrics and negatives that members of this

board have come up with, but I'm half expecting to see

members report more personal gains now that custom IP

grippers are available (the Gripanator looks promising too). In

any case, regardless of whether this hypothesis holds out, I'll

continue to be interested in reading about actual gains being

made by anyone more than four years into gripper training.

Cheers,

Luke

[Bill Piche]

I've experimented with negatives, but the negatives for me

are almost like isometric holds--they mainly make me stronger

at negatives themselves (e.g. progressively slower, tighter

ones), but don't much seem to help me move the handles the

other way any further than before.

Luke, you can put me down for some massive correlation to your results.  For example, I can get to where I can cheat shut an Elite and not be "phased" by the pressure to do so (and almost hold it closed) and yet it doesn't do crap for my total normal closing strength.  I recently was experimenting with neg's again.  The thing that still BUGS me: Joe Kinney.  Course Snott has had success with them.  Joe had SUPER success.  Everyone else....they get them nowhere. Or, is it some DELAY in response later after the people drop them?