Scales of justice

[Roark]

Just a reminder. Still no calibration of Joe

Kinney's #4? Still (probably) the greatest

squeeze ever? Better than Sorin's 621?

We may never know. At least Richard Sorin

had his gripper calibrated, and certainly Mr.

Kinney is under no requirement to have his

#4 calibrated, but so long as it remains

a mystery we cannot rank it properly.

2002 may be the year that more grip masters

make the handles of a #4 kiss. Let's hope

those grippers get calibrated. But if those

grippers also remain uncalibrated, then we will

be left with the foggiest of descriptions for

what happened: a #4 was closed. Incredible!

How much pressure did that require? Uh, oh,

I dunno.

Not the best scenario.

[Guest Jeff Roark]

Joe,

I see your point for this. My personal take and this is only me and I am not trying to persuade anyone on this, but I hope he doesn't get it calibrated. I like the mystique of it... a common man in Tennesse worked so hard that his fingers bled and smashed a monster. It gives us a legend, a dream. I don't want to know of someone closing a #2 that tests higher than Joes #4. It will be a set back. It took Ted Arcidi to break the 700 barrier, it took Joe to smash the #4 barrier. He could be to gripping what Saxon was to bent pressing, untouchable.

[Guest kINGPIN]

I am with Jeff on that one.  For now, I too like the mystery.  It does make one #### of a legend.

[Guest baldy]

I think that truth is more important personally.  Heath just posted the range of closing ip's on all calibrated #4's in another thread.  I had averaged all of them myself a couple of days ago.  The range is 487 to 621 inch lbs (out of 17 tested).  PDA's calibration is accurate within 1 inch lb.  We have picture documentation (and witnesses here in Scott Clayton) of Heath closing a 479 in-lb gripper owned by one of the moderators.  If I remember he closed it twice.  He is closer than 10 in-lbs away from the easiest #4 calibrated.  What if that was the one that had been sent to his house?  What if he got the one that is even easier that someone else has now (not yet calibrated)?  Instead, he got sent a 522 and a 587 according to the calibration thread.

I am not trying to rain on anyone's parade but there must be a way to quantify results.  You mention Arcidi breaking the 700 plateau, what if that wasn't "first guy to bench 700" but was instead "first guy to bench what looked like a whole lot of weight" because we didn't have numbers on the plates?

Regarding Richard Sorin: if you go to www.sorinex.com and hit the "living strong" link you will see many photos of Richard performing some amazing feats of strength.  He has witnesses and photographs showing his accomplishments.  He set the bar for a lot of feats that people are still chasing (plate pinching, anvil lifts, 621 ip gripper, inch dumbell lift).  John Brookfield has witnessed him closing a #3 with just index and middle fingers.  He is an all around grip freak and he has *proof*, not just stories.  I understand that Mr Sorin offered a large sum of money for anyone who could come in his office and close a #4 in his presence.  I really don't think it is fair to him for us to keep comparing him to someone who is not interested in stepping up to the plate.  

Roark, when you posted earlier in another thread about "grandfathering in" and people who would not have grippers calibrated being at the bottom of the IGC lists, I could not agree more.

That is just my $1.25, plus some lurker's $.02

[Roark]

Well, I must say I have no interest in legend

for the sake of legend, in any field, and in

particular not the field I have spent my life

studying. If others do, then I wish them well,

and I mean that. But I certainly do not under-

stand them.

Bodybuilding is a very subjective sport; lifting

should not be.

Truth cannot destroy a legend. Truth will

lead us to the ones who are deserving of

being called legends, based on measureable

performance. Perhaps that top spot will go

to Joe Kinney. It's really up to him at this

point.

We know the weights of the Dinnie stones-

why do we bother with that? Why not just say

we all try to lift big rocks? Strongmen are

drawn to these particular stones because of

the proven fact that others have lifted them.

In that regard, so long as we all lift the same rock,

in one sense it does not matter what it weighs,

but because many of us cannot travel the earth

to lift specific objects, we have replicas (Inch) made,

or we weigh stones and search for comparable

stones in our neighborhoods.

The #4 has such a varied range of ip requirement

that we either all need to squeeze the same # 4

(or 3 or 2 or whatever), or have the grippers already

calibrated, in the same way barbell plates come pretty

close to what they should weigh, and very close if

certain brands are bought.

Frankly, we have enough legend- Angus MacAskill's

anchor lifting, Louie Cyr's 28" calves, bodybuilders

claiming 23" arms when their arms are probably no

larger than 20 or 21 (still huge). It just gets silly.

And so avoidable, at least in our day. I now take my

29" biceps (don't laugh, that size has been claimed by

a bodybuilder) and take my leave, the stuff of legends...

[blueshadow]

Roark, you oughtta see my 16.5" forearms,29" waist, and 52" chest!!! :0    

[terminator]

Bottom line, Kinney's got proof.  Anyone who doubts the strength of him or his gripper should take a look at the video and photographic proof.  Look at his hand ready to explode when the #4 is closed.  Look at the way he manhandles it.  All you naysayers, try putting 20 lbs. on a Titan's Telegraph Key, then imagine having 100lbs plus on it like Kinney did.  Drop an Inch dumbell from one hand to the other like Joe did (if you can even lift it).  You'll believe it then.  

About Mr. Sorin.  I have the utmost respect for him.  He's got many feats to his credit that may never be duplicated.  He is a gripmaster of the highest order.  He has incredible photos of many accomplishments, including the #3 closing.  He went through the trouble of getting certified for the #3, and when the Phantom 4 closes "happened" I believe that would have made him the first to close a #4.  Why not document it the same way everything else was documented?  Doesn't make sense.  I hope he is training for a shot at closing the #4 now to end the speculation, personally I would love to see him do it.  

As for Joe sending in his #4 for calibration.  He shouldn't do it.  There are too many other variables (other than IP rating taken at a fixed distance from the center coil) to effectively categorize a gripper's difficulty.  Anyone close enough to the situation knows what I'm saying is true.  I realize I run the risk of angering some people by (as Heath said a long while ago) questioning the master, or questioning someone's product, but there has sure been a heck of a lot of that going on the other way lately.  

I could just see it now, people who are struggling to close a #2 saying Joe had an easy #4.  That would bother the heck out of me.  I'm sure he sleeps well at night, with no doubts about his accomplishments.  Everyone else should focus more on why they can't close a #4 instead of trying to cheapen this man's reputation.  When you've trained "till you fingernails bled" or "till you're foaming at the mouth" like Joe did, maybe you'd think before questioning the man.

Please don't take anything I said personally, I wish everyone luck in attaining their personal goals.

[blueshadow]

Regardless of the outcome of this ongoing debate, Joe Kinney and Richard Sorin will always be the "best" as they were the "first" true pioneers! Whatever either decides to do will not diminish or lessen their feats in my eyes!!

[Roark]

Just to be clear, I believe Joe Kinney has closed

his #4's (the lost one and his current one) a

total of 40 to 50 times, as he told me he did. I

fully believe that. The lost one may be harder than

his current one; we will never know since neither

has been calibrated.

But as the range of #4's ip vary so much- the

ones that have been calibrated- I was curious

if Joe was at the top, middle, or bottom of that

range. I don't have a vested interest in the

outcome of the measurement.

Sorin says he closed a 621, frankly I believe

that too.

Whether those of us questioning the calibration

of his #4, can ourselves close the trainer or a

#3 is not relevant to the truth of HIS #4's

calibration. Can only another person who has closed

a #4 offer a question? Then no one can speak to

the matter, unless perhaps it is Sorin, and I think

it is safe to assert that he would prefer to know

Joe's #4 calibration as well.

I am having a difficult time understanding the position

of those who do not want measurements/weighing of

implements in the grip field. We treat only the grippers

this way. Rolling Thunder, pinching, thick bar cleans etc

are always reported with a weight; otherwise what

exactly is there TO report? The grippers have a range

so automatically a range is being reported when some-

one closes a #1 or #3 etc.

The original pressures required to close the grippers-

again I ask, were they measured by Ironmind? If so

on what type machine. First though, were they even

claimed to have been measured?

[terminator]

Roark,

All good points.  If the calibration was as cut and dry as the weight of a barbell I would wholeheartedly agree.  I re-iterate, there are still way too many variables that are not understood.  Branding a gripper with an IP rating does not guarantee that it is harder or weaker than a corresponding gripper that it is being compared to.  Sorry but that is the truth.

[Roark]

I acknowledge that I do not fully understand all

the variables involved- but are you saying that

because it is complicated by variables that an

unknown quantity is preferable to a known quantity

(as best it can be known by current measuring tools)?

It is difficult for me to understand that having a

gripper marked #3 is closer to reality than the same

gripper marked 420 ip, or whatever. But it may be that

my ignorance, and this is not sarcastic, is stopping

me from understanding the variables you refer to.

[Guest StrongerthanArne]

Before I and Arne had our #3's calibrated we knew that mine was a little easier to close than his. It turned out mine had a 5 percent lower ip (adjusted for handle length) than his, very much in line with our own estimates. Having grippers calibrated (and adjusted for differences in handle length) is a huge improvemet to the IM rating situation. At this point, I have no reason to believe that grippers with the same ip value (and the same handle lengths) differs anywhere near as much in difficulty as IM grippers with the same number stamped on the handle. Sure, there are variables unaccounted for, but I doubt they are many. Soon many of us will have access to SOS grippers and we will quickly get a good idea just how well the ip ratings mirrors the difficulty of a gripper. Until then it seems premature to dismiss the whole idea of calibrating a gripper.

[Bill Piche]

but are you saying that

because it is complicated by variables that an

unknown quantity is preferable to a known quantity

(as best it can be known by current measuring tools)?

This is a key point. PDA has corrected a lot of problems with the grippers.  They never claimed to correct ALL of them nor can they.  I suppose we can just go back to making it all a myth and throw out anything we do know and not correct variances that are known and controllable.

[Guest Jeff Roark]

Why doesn't PDA just manufacture 5 grippers equal to the claimed resistance of the COC? If the gripper doesn't meet the poundage requirement it doesn't ship. I like the COC grippers, period. Now if Sorin did close a 621 in-lb gripper why isn't he certified as a #4 crusher? Well why doesn't someone send that 487in-lb to Sorin and we'll have our second #4 closer? Terminator made the best point. The bottom line is that Kinney is the only man who could step up and make the handles with the #4 on them click. Not you, not me, just Joe Kinney.

[Guest Jeff Roark]

By the way what inch-lbs correspond to the numbers on the COC? 280=? 365=? Guys, can I explain something that has bothered me a bit. I don't want to offend anyone, and I like all here, and I have learned a ton, and I get to rub elbows with Certifed Captains of Crush, people who can pinch your head off, people who could pick me up on the end of a weaver stick. I remember the first time I got that Ironmind catalog and looking at those names Kinney, Sorin, Brookfield, Saylor and the whole lot of them and I tried to squeeze that #3 out of the bag and couldn't even budge it... it was magical and fun. I want to be on that list, thats all. When you get too technical it takes the fun away for some, and I feel can push us away from each other than bring us together. What happened to all the old posters, regulars like McKinless, Horne, Sorin, Gorilla Hands... the legends have traveled to the west....and will there remain, legends...

[terminator]

Richard Sorin owns the 487, go figure.  It is still possible that in spite of the 487 IP rating, it could even be harder than his 621 (I'm not saying it is but it could be).  I know of a 295 gripper that would stop many COC's.  As Mikael states, "IP rating, corrected for handle length".  None of the numbers stamped on these grippers is corrected for handle length (and other factors not discussed).  Why should Kinney risk getting a low number branded on his gripper?  He shouldn't.  The #3 and #4 designations are RANGES.  So far only Joe had the ability to mash something in the #4 RANGE.  If there were that many  "easy" #4's, certainly more people would have mashed it by now.

Exaggerated example:

gripper marked 621 IP, handle length 12"

gripper marked 295 IP, handle length  3"

Which one's harder?  I think that's obvious.  But, inevitably someone will say this guy can close a 621, and that guy can't even close a 295.

The calibration process should be valid for a particular make of gripper, held to very tight tolerances, to establish a progression.  

I had more fun as a lurker, I think I'm going back there!!! :crazy

[Roark]

Jeff,

Pick you up on the end of a Weaver stick! Wonderful

line!

Unfortunately, technicalities are what separate

achievements. The young man at the gym this

morning came so slose on his first try to shutting

a #2. Did not close it technically. But close. There

is the distinction. I could have written that he did

close it, and who would have been the wiser?

I leave this topic with this final thought:

There are six barbells loaded in stages from 300 to

360 pounds, resting on six bench uprights. A range

of 60 pounds. Does it matter that you bench the

360 and I the 300? Not if we stamp each barbell with a

same, certain #, I guess.

Anyway, Jeff, you'll get the #3; keep at it!

[Guest Jeff Roark]

Ok Joe, here is one for you! has someone training with you ever loaded a big attempt up for you and told you it was 305 while it was 315? And you make the lift, thinking it was only 305. This happened to me and I got a 15lb Pr instead of a 5 lb.

[Roark]

Jeff,

How did you know it was 315? Did you add up

the known plates? Measuring?

The psychological situation you mention has

happened to me, though not with those numbers,

but the reverse situation has also happened: A

lighter weight 'feels' much heavier on some days.

This reveals my body's varying strength, not the

variance of the items lifted, or squeezed, don't

you think?

[Guest Jeff Roark]

I can't win this one, you shrewd debater! so what you are saying Joe is that we have no COC here? I mean if there is such a variance in ip strengths why do they carry that little "Certified Captains of Crush" under their name? They may have shut a #3 weaker than my #1. Is this what you are saying... I think it is. If going by the "scales of justice" we have no COC.

[terminator]

Don't go there.  You will anger many people who worked very hard for their accomplishments.  Keep working hard and you will also succeed with the #3.

[Guest Jeff Roark]

Bingo Terminator! that is the point I was getting at. All this IP crap takes away from the accomplishments of  our true COC. COC is our history, don't destroy it. Even John from PDA said that this IP isn't the end all for gripper ratings. Yes it is nice I guess to have logical steps, but did Sorin and Brookfeild have all these 1 lbs jumps? no. They busted their rear ends. I want to be a COC and feel all this calibration takes away the glory of being a COC. Terminator, I think you read my last post wrong, I wasn't saying what you think I did.

[Roark]

Jeff,

You fellas from Kentucky know how to set

traps, probably uncalibrated traps though.

Of course there are COC's here and yonder

because they met the standards set by

Ironmind, and I hasten to add I respect each

person for doing so. I suspect each man who is

a COC knows he falls within a range of accomplish-

ment, and each must decide for himself if he wishes

to get more specific than that.

A bell is rigged to a bathroom scale, so that after

200 pounds pressure is applied the  bell sounds.

Would you care to know if you actually squeezed

300, or are you content to have rung the bell?

You have switched standards on me, Jeff. The COC

standard requires a #3 to be shut, whatever in fact

the pressure required, which we all know varies, and

we all know that even the 'easiest' 3 is a monster to

shut. So, no, your trap is still awaiting it's victim. I

respect all who are certified CofC's, but I also wonder

if they wonder how they stack up against the others

who have closed a #3.

Imagine this: Ten #3's are on a table, with certification

judges present. Ten men qualify by closing one of the

#3's. But there is a certain #3 that only one man can

close, and the other nine fail with that one. They are

all certified, and deserve to be under the established

standards. An imperfect system.

[Guest Jeff Roark]

It is perfect Joe.  They are all certified. Well his strength might be better in a certain range than theirs, They might actually be able to close a higher IP at closure than he but his sweep is stronger. This is a dead horse. I win. Why? Because Vinnie told you so, John too. Only a machine is the accurate test, for exact numbers. I and many more here(secretly) just want to be in the #3 RANGE, no I want to be a COC that closed my #3.

[Guest StrongerthanArne]

Unfortunately, IM's gripper differs a lot in required closing torque. With one #2 I use, I can do about 4-5 reps with (after five sets of strapholds) using my weaker left hand. With another #2 I can do 10-12 under the same conditions. I can almost guarantee that my #2 is easier to close than the toughest #1 out there. Another guy I know can close a 390 ip #3 but is about 7-8 mm away from closing another uncalibrated #3. My long term goal is not to close a #4 of unknown closing torque but to close a 500 ip gripper. When I first read about ip this and ip that, I just thought that it was solely a way of getting market share. Then I handed my #2 to a guy who had previously done 2 reps on another #2. He did 10 with mine. That totally destroyed my confidence in IM's rating of their grippers.