Dear Abbey

[John Szimanski]

Many of you know we have been 'fixing' grippers as best we can and openly sharing our progress as well as concerns and setbacks. More than any other issue, the torsion spring gripper has forced nearly daily reality checks. PDA has no illusion of being 'IT' in any way. We do have a mission, goals and ethics that provide our impetus and course of direction aimed at continuous improvement. In the course of our work we have realized and shared with many of you personally, and in several posts, that despite what we have done with grippers, they simply will never be as accurate as machines can be. Wannagrip and Bearcat recently swapped some SOS grippers for comparison. The results illustrated what we have been trying to emphasize. Several of you have adjusted to the same 'reality' we have. We offer this portion of our correspondence for your consideration. As usual, we welcome your input.

John

"Hello, Heath and Bill

Thanks for the test!

I don't think there is anything 'amiss', per se. The fact is IP is just not the singular definition of what makes a gripper harder than another, even with identical IPs.

Closing position IP is set for every seasoned gripper. But I have noticed some higher IPs that feel 'squishy' compared to lower IPs. And other differences in feel despite the numbers. The dogleg is another issue since it can make it more difficult to close (since the spring cannot be simply wound up) yet still hold true on the IP. Though we have been trying to reasonably control all possible factors, there are still variations we cannot (or cannot afford) to control. Now we have the ‘coil wind tightness’ issue.

We have been looking for the magic IP number to be the absolute definition of gripper difficulty. With all we've been through to date, I think we must realize this perspective is like tilting at windmills - it's not valid. And, no one can do it.

Here's where we were. All we had were IM grippers with imaginary ratings, vague model numbers, sweeping variations in IP and wire sizes and dimensions, weakening over time, and huge jumps preventing systematic progression. We built the Atlas to help conquer the grippers, documented its performance electronically, then looked at the grippers and started to unravel their story. The Atlas is a fixed machine with virtually no variation, so the performance verification was straightforward. Add weight, the IP changes accordingly. The results are the same for all Atlas machines.

Deluded with the same ‘machine’ mindset, we charged the grippers, trying to ‘straighten them out’. And, we uncovered problem after problem. We tried to tackle each one, took each as an opportunity instead of a setback, eating up precious time and doing things that no one else dares. Now we’ve all seen enough we ought to be able to get a realistic grip on the facts.

First, we got control of seasoning. So the weakening issue was immediately eliminated and we have the first improvement.

Next, we’ve demonstrated we can measure IP consistently and validly. So, the next improvement is valid labeling. We are light years closer to reality by tagging a gripper by the IP instead of the model number. This also solved the wire size problem because it is no longer relevant. And the gripper has a distinct tag.

Next, we got control over the critical dimensions. We now have an ‘every mans’ gripper’. It fits in anyone’s hand reasonably well without making it ‘easy’. There is no effort required to make a gripper tough to close – simply build it wide, make the handles cockeyed and different lengths, and kink the heck out of the dogleg. A few knowledgeable tweaks and we could make that spring feel like a rock. On the other hand, it requires considerable effort to achieve uniformity. And that only after you study the situation well enough to decide what the dimensions should be. After all, it is quite apparent that nobody else uses dimensions other than with respect to the handle diameter. The SOS dimensions are more or less averaging the variations found in the other grippers – in the same overall ranges and with far smaller differences.

Varying the wire sizes allowed us to fill in the gaps for IP ranges. So the next improvement was the potential for progressive tools.

So, we essentially solved all of the obvious problems, except our mindset is still wrong. Grippers are not machines. They are not fixed structures composed of virtually identical components subject to duplicate results. The IP is not the be all and end all. The IP is the measure of the pressure required at the close. The IP is not the definitive factor a gripper’s overall degree of difficulty. IP is a discernable, concrete characteristic and a useful tag. However, the tag is not a consummate definition. All of the gripper characteristics, regardless of how minor they vary, define the difficulty.

For your testing in this case, we have the 420 and 461 (within 10%) seeming equally difficult (closeable), and the 432 harder (very close, but not closeable) .  From the improvements above, what are the implications? 1. We can clearly identify each gripper. 2. We know the IPs. 3. The IP variability is at least 700% better than known 3s (292 to 504). 4. We know the dimensional characteristics are reasonably consistent and not drastically different between grippers. 5. We know there are other variations contributing to the degrees of difficulty. 6. We know which order to use them for progressive training. And all of this belies the fact that we are implying that human measurements are as valid, repeatable, and equivalent for all people as machine measurements.

All are positive steps of improvement over the way things were. So what’s wrong? We can’t live with the fact that grippers still vary despite the IP. Too bad for us logic-hunting mortals because they do.

Here’s the best analogy I can offer. Mark the front wheels L and R and take them off your car. Inflate them both to 50 psi; drop them side by side from a 10’ ledge. Do they bounce to the same height? Not likely. But they have the same pressure, and same wheels, and same tires! How do we resolve this? We don’t. We understand there are other subtle differences between them and if we need one that bounces higher, we use the one with that performance. Likewise for different tire pressures - the one with the most rebound is the one with the most rebound, period.

And how does this apply to the grip community? What are the implications if Bill closes a 429 and Heath closes a 461? The obvious, undeniable fact is that Heath closed a gripper with a higher closing pressure. Period. But, which gripper is more difficult, thereby indicating who of you is stronger? The undeniable fact is you can only validate that by side-by-side comparison. We must remember that grippers are not and cannot be fixed, duplicate devices. That scenario is only possible with quality machines. Quality grippers, at best, provide accurate, identifiable, progressive, inexpensive, portable tools that can pinpoint who closes the higher IP. With grippers, only side-by-side competitions can determine who can close the gripper with the highest degree of difficulty.

The bottom line is I think we’re doing everything humanly possible to sort this out. And, no one else cares. Until someone else steps up to the plate with some valid work and serious effort, our only viable course is to continue doing what we are doing and educating as best we can. If PDA can’t build an affordable gripper with zero-tolerance accuracy, no one else can. And we’ve sure taken things out of the dark ages. Even IM has been improved by feeling obligated to acknowledge in the current catalog that their product is uncalibrated. There simply will never be dead nuts accurate and 100% consistent, definable and explainable grippers – that can only happen for machines.

The absolute best anyone can do is make the grippers with reasonably uniform dimensions, season them, calibrate the closing IP, and recommend you then rank them and use them according to the degree of difficulty you feel they are. That’s a long way from, and a lot better than, trying to step up from a 2 to a 3.

This is the best I can do to make sense of the situation. I am at a loss as to what else to do. There are several reasons to be stymied. One is the money already spent on research. Then, the fact that no one else is lifting a finger in the same direction. We’ve had two record sales days so far this year – business is so heavy in all areas that getting bogged down with unknowns penalizes all of our customers with delays. We did experience more than 30% growth this past recession year. But I’m sure this could have been higher with a narrower focus. The Gripanator, the rack, the thick grip wrist rollers, have all been delayed by taking time with unending gripper issues. The fact that the schedules are sliding for those items means we get daily requests for status. That means more lost time diverted from primary functions only to answer ‘not yet’.

I see at least four possible reasonable courses of action:

1. Stress that we are doing the best job out there, explaining things as well as we understand them, and keep rolling. This would mean we would continue to strive for engineering excellence, logical improvement, balanced cost, and a healthy dose of common sense.

2. Build a sophisticated press that will output gripper performance in a curve for the full path of the sweep. Minimally the press would cost $10M (for PDA since we have in-house engineering; closer to $50M for anyone else) and gripper cost would be sky high. All other projects would stop immediately and for an unknown period. Building such a press would probably still not be the final word on grippers.

3. Take the IM approach and stick our heads in the sand, slap model numbers on them, and ship ‘em out without explanation or concern.

4. Drop the grippers.

Suggestions? Comments?

John"

[terminator]

Excellent post!  Maybe now coming straight from the horse's mouth so to speak, everyone will drop the arbitrary references to IP as the single defining factor in a grippers relative difficulty.  I applaud the forthcoming information sharing.

[David Horne]

John,

I 've just received my SoS grippers 10 minutes ago, and all I can say is you are doing a terrific job. I think they are excellant, I'm very impressed with the quality. The increment jump between 475 and 520 is nice. God knows what my #4 is because I got the SoS 520 down to a quarter of an inch out of the bag with no chalk. My #4 is still light years away, I still only get it to an inch. As you know my interest lies in an all round ability in grip strength, and I feel sometimes people get too bogged down with the grippers, but I have to say these are a nice product.

Well done John, keep up the good work!

David

[Roark]

John,

Do not drop the grippers. Perfection is out of reach,

but certainly the research, and even the questions

that research has uncovered, while frustrating, and

no doubt costly for all the discarded prototypes, are

what will lead to the best solution when the dust

settles.

At the very worse, you are offering smaller incremental

steps that were not available before. What if with free

weights we were forced to use 60 or 80 pound jumps

for curls? What you did with fractional plates you are

now working on for grippers. If you stop research at

this very moment, we are much further ahead than at

the point your research began. Thank you for that.

Your analogy with the inflated tires is good; your ooponents

would offer the analogy with a tractor tire and a wheelbarrow

tire, and offer that the comparison is valid within the range.

You know better. Before you came along with calibration,

as imperfect as it is, all we had was such a comparison, and

a deflated reality regarding requirements.

[paul valpreda]

John,

I love the SOS grippers and the progress that is being made with them. I hope this continues. I also believe in training for an all round grip, and I think grippers are an important part of this. Even if there was a way to make grippers exactly the same, people will still experience differences due to genetics, hand size, positioning, etc. The grippers are the best they've ever been, thanks to PDA, and we should be grateful for this and continue squeezing the #### out of them and worry less about trivialities!

paul

[AnimalCage]

Not being a bodybuilder, I am going way out on a limb.....

I generally see many lifts accredited to individuals, with the stats including bodyweight.  Compare a 250 lb person to a 250 lb person.  Do we expect they should lift the same amount of weight?  What if one has larger bones?  Then he must have less muscle to maintain the equal bodyweight.  Or more fat?  Again, less muscle.  A bigger head?  Trivial, yes, but a difference none-the-less.  How about lung capacity?  Heart size?  Do we examine the length of their fingers, or torso, or legs?  Should we determine all the differences, and adjust the lifted weight accordingly?  That would be impossible.  

There comes a point where research passes what is economically feasible.  PDA is the only one out there doing this research, and there is only one authority to determine where that line is drawn, and that would be PDA.  If another finds the economic feasibility to continue, so be it.  If the point of "best-we-can-do-for-now" has been reached, so be it.   At least we are blessed with a superior product, and a much-enhanced sport.

The grippers have come a long way.  Thanks to John, we are not blind to the differences, nor the possibilities.  But market pressures are an enormous weight.  And we can rely too heavily on one source to do all the work.  Eventually, that source will dry up.  

I think we should be concerned about the trivialities, but not place unreasonable expectations on others to solve them for us.  If John believes this is the best he can do at this time, that is not for us to argue. John has raised the production of grippers to a very high standard.  He has openly shared his research, results, questions, and criticisms, something he didn't have to do, and something others aren't doing.  

If John can do this for the gripper world, how will his time and effort affect the other ventures under his purview?

And yes, let's keep squeezing the #### out of them!

[blueshadow]

John,

What more can a reasonable person expect you to do?! Your accomplishments with the grippers are way   "above and beyond the call of duty" so to speak and I and many others on this board thank you! The only viable alternative course of action is #1. Please don't let production and quality suffer while attempting to do the impossible! And please don't stop production of your grippers!

                              best of Luck,

                                JJ

[Guest baldy]

John, option #1 is my vote.  No one disputes that you have done the most for the situation.  I love my SOS gripper and look forward to buying more.  However, you need time for the other projects so we can have *more* toys to use.  It seems like you come up with a new item that we all "must have" 3 - 4 times a year (Atlas, SOS grippers, Inch DB handle, gripanator) nowadays...  Great projects like that take time, so rest easy knowing that the handgripper situation is light years ahead of this time last year.

BTW David Horne, really glad to see you back and posting.

[Roark]

David Horne got his new 520 gripper to within a

quarter of an inch, cold, first try. Bearcat's #4 is

listed at 522 in the calibration posts. So when

David conquers his 520, as I suspect he will, is

the distinction that it is not a #4 relevant just because

at that point he will still not be able to squeeze his

other #4 (based on what he revealed about being

light years away)?

Not in my Book of Respect. The 520 has more basis

in reality than the #4 marking.

Let us know when you get it, David!

[Guest baldy]

I totally agree with Joe about the "520 inch-lbs" having meaning and the "4" stamp being somewhat arbitrary.  

Strange that so many people seem to feel differently now.  Last summer the battle cry from many on here was an angry "we should be measuring in inch-lbs, not numbers".  There was almost a feeling of animosity towards IronMind for attributing value to the stamps on the handles.  Now that you guys have convinced me that inch-lbs is what matters regarding handgrippers, you stay quiet and leave Joe alone to argue the worth of quantifying achievements.  Has everyone that was lobbying for this changed their mind?

[Bill Piche]

I agree Joe. Everyone here knows a 500 IP rated gripper, even with variation is a BEAST!  No doubt about it!

[Guest DavidHW]

I just ordered an SOS gripper from PDA. I did so because I needed an incremental IP. Was it my first choice? No. My first choice was and is the Gripanator. :-) But a gripper is (1) available and (2) relatively inexpensive, two things the Gripanator isn't.

If by getting out of the gripper business PDA could then make a cheaper Gripanator (say, $150), I'd be all for it. A machine establishes an invariable standard; whoever locks out the heaviest set of plates wins.

FWIW.

David

[Tou]

I ordered a 335 SOS gripper and I'm pretty sure it'll be the tool I need to close the gap on the III. I'm sure it will be a great product. After all, is there a PDA costumer who is not satisfied by the products ?

Keep producing the grippers John. What you have done for us, crushaholics, is a giant step forward. Your grippers will surely become THE standard for major grip comps around the world.

[terminator]

There is no way outside of a side to side comparison (John S. said that himself) to compare a 520 PDA gripper with a 522 IM gripper.  Totally different animals.  

Undoubtedly the PDA grippers can prove valuable training tools to those that choose to use them.  If someone closes a 520 PDA gripper (formidable, no doubt) that does not mean they can close a #4.

I respect David Horne's accomplishments tremendously, and I firmly believe that if grippers were his focus he would reel in that monster #4 he owns.  (does anyone know of any #4's that aren't monsters?) But if someone else legitimately closes an IM #4, don't cheapen their accomplishment by saying, well I'm sure this is about the same, let's give him credit for it.  

That is no different than inflating old-time weightlifting records by some factor to take into account bumper plates, Eleiko bars etc.  or adding homeruns to old time ballplayers totals to acocunt for 162 games.  Not valid, no way no how!  Knowing David's reputation, I don't believe he would want that anyway.

Leave some mystique to the #3 and #4 rating system, it has and will stand the test of time.  What's next, chipping away the manhood stones to get a consistent shape?  I think not.

[Roark]

terminator,

I respect your position, but mystery of achievement

holds no allure for me.

Instead of asking whether a man who can close a

520 could also close a #4, perhaps we should ask

if a man who can close a #4 can close a 560, since

some #4's are less than 560. Then the next logical

question is can someone who closes a 522 also close

a 560, both of which are in the #4 range?

But I will yield on this point: Years ago there were

bench press tee-shirts: 300 pound club, 400 pound

club, etc. If you wore a 300 pound club, and deserved to

be wearing it, then your bench press was at least 300

but perhaps 399. I suspect if two men were that far

apart but were wearing the same tee-shirt designation,

there was a feeling that something wasn't quite being

represented accurately.

Those of you who can accept that

span can apparently accept the spans of the grippers.

[Guest Luke Reimer]

John (Szimanski), I am still seeing possibilities for option #1 (that you suggested on the first page of this this thread.)  Personally, all I've ever wanted for grippers is smaller difficulty increments. Having a way of quantifying these difficulty increments would have been a bonus, but the main thing for me would be just to have them so that I can train by way of progressive intensity, instead of by way of progressive range of motion (a fundamentally flawed approach, I think).  I don't mind if the only numbers that I shall ever have for my grippers (IP numbers) are not perfectly relative to their respective difficulties.

On the other hand, this means it won't be quite as easy to acquire the gripper of precisely the difficulty desired, since there are no labels for this property.  How can we do it?  Ideally we could show up at PDA when our hands were fresh, and just start trying a bunch of grippers in the likely IP ranges.  I wish South Carolina weren't so far from BC!  So much for trying them first.  Since IP ratings are all we have to go on, and since there is at least a limited correspondence between them and actual difficutlies, it seems that buying a custom gripper will mean guessing on the basis of IPs.  It looks like we may have to buy a few more grippers than we actually want, to get the one (or ones) that feels just right.

This might not be so bad though. Getting a gripper that feels too hard for training now would possibly mean one less puchase later.  On the other hand, getting a gripper that feels too easy for training now would be somewhat more disappointing to me. Such a gripper might still be useful for warmups, "light" days, or my "off" hand. Perhaps the least desirable contingincy would be receiving a gripper that feels identical in difficulty to a gripper one already had. What then? Maybe there would be some trading possibilities, among members from this forum. As far as I can see, if you've got two grippers that are the same, the odds are that anything you get back in exchange for one will be more useful than what you had.  Shipping costs aren't delightful, but still cheaper than buying another gripper.

Okay, I'll start.  I have an IronMind #3 with half an inch cut off the ends that feels to me almost identical in difficulty to the easier of my two Elites (the one rated at 423 inch-pounds). Accordingly, since I like the more standard shape of the Elite better, I've not been using the modified IronMind #3 in ages, and wouldn't really miss it. If someone (preferably in North America! ) is curious what it feels like, I'll ship it to him.  In return, I wouldn't mind receiving back another gripper in this order of preference:

1. SOS, anywhere from 450 to 520 ip.  (a wild guess at my PDA range for present and future training increments)

2. SOS, from  350 or under; or IronMind #2 or under, or BB Master or under (I have nothing lighter than IronMind #3 for early warmup, active rest, or possibly rehab).

3. IronMind #3 (I already have one so there's the danger of getting another one just like it--amazingly I've had three before that I couldn't tell apart--but you never know).

4. Something different from grippers altogether (I'll consider suggestions).

5. The same gripper back (If nothing else, I don't mind someone trying it and sending it back eventually).

I've got nothing much to loose except nostalgic value *LOL* and postage, so I'll ship/mail first. Whoever's receiving can wait until the package arrives before they send back anything. Any takers? (By the way, I'm in BC, Canada).

Cheers,

Luke

[terminator]

Roark,

Ditto, I certainly respect your opinion.  The only problem that keeps gnawing at me is the fact that the number assigned to a gripper does not accurately and completely reflect its closing difficulty.  This is a fact stated by John S. and backed up by research (ie:  some extremely strong people comparing numerous calibrated grippers).  The fact that a gripper marked 433 can be uncloseable while a 460 gripper is routinely closed by the same person indicates that the IP numbering scheme is flawed.  There are numerous other examples of this.  This invalidates any reliance on the numbering system for any rating of athletes IMHO.  Probably the best scenario for a rating system (if that is really what everyone wants, I don't see the need although I would certainly try to crush whatever came my way) is to have a set of standard grippers that can be sent around to an approved delegate of IGC or whatever for local grip contestants to try.  This way there is no tampering, no questions, people are using the same grippers.

I like Luke's idea for a gripper exchange program, maybe Bill can facilitate this by having people post what they're willing to exchange on the equipment section.

[Roark]

terminator,

Sounds good to me.

This is why Inch closely guarded (except in the case of Deriaz)

the weight of the 172 dumbell. So long as everyone tried

THAT dumbell, it's weight was not important.

[Guest StrongerthanArne]

My best guess is that those with an explosive initial sweep are more likely to experience unexplainable (based on ip ratings) results with grippers (eg be able to close a 461 but not 433). We who slowly struggle trough the first 90 per cent of the closing path until we hit our "sweet spot" and nail it are perhaps less likely to be affected that much by irregularities in the torque curve.

[Guest]

The sweep may be harder on the 433, but the amount of force it takes to hold the gripper closed is definetely more for the 460.  So we at least know relatively precise number for that area.

Know what I've been thinking though?  The strength that you get from holding a gripper closed doesn't really transfer over to anything else in life.  That specific range of motion isn't often used.

Lets say we have a guy who can close a #3, but gets a #4 down to parallel.  Then we have a guy who cannot close a #3 all the way, but can get a #4 a little bit past parallel.  I would say the second man would have a stronger handshake, and stronger grip.

Maybe machines are the only way to go.  Also, has anyone noticed that closing a gripper upside down is more like grabbing someones hands?

Just some thoughts,

Michael Falkov

[terminator]

What good is a number that only indicates torque at one tiny spot (end of close)?  It's not that point that dictates whether you'll close it, it's the journey through the entire range of motion.  The number means nothing!!!  

I like the guy who called these the "ultimate put up or shut up devices".  If you can't close it you can't close it period, work harder, squeeze harder.

That's all they are, if they're good enough for WSM competitiors, they're good enough for us.  I never heard Svend Karlsen making excuses why he couldn't close a gripper, I guess his self esteem would survive that small blow.  BTW, I'd gladly trade my COC status for a WSM title!!

[Guest StrongerthanArne]

Arne, a board member, asked Svend Karlsen if he could close a #3. His reply was very short. He said:No. As I have stated in an earlier posting, Svend can however get a #4 to within 10 mm from closing. I am sure he has a very powerful handshake.

[Michael Schmitt]

It seems that what everybody wants is a true standard of comparison.  While a machine (atlas, gripinator, etc.) is neither as cheap or portable as a gripper, neither is a Squat rack, Bench, or Olympic bar.

I really think that the issue is that Iron Mind has “certified” folks and put the list out there, therefore giving people a solid goal to strive for.  If that is the fact, why couldn’t PDA make available a Gripinator or Atlas at various events and allow folk to be “rated” at a certain IP.  Don’t bother spending 10M on developing the perfect machine, but use what is available.  Pretty soon a Closure Pressure  of 280Lbs has the same bragging rights as a #3.

Wouldn’t this address all these issues that are impossible to resolve with a device like a spring gripper?

[David Horne]

I had a go at the 520 lb SoS gripper today with chalk on my hands and closed it, albeit I had to steady my wrist, so it is not official. But I know that it will be closed properly in the next few weeks.

I like the handle spread on these grippers, it's far easier to get yourself positioned on them.

Re. Ratings. Personally I don't think that the different types of grippers should be mixed for ratings, and that Iron Mind should carry on with their CoC listing, and PDA could/should have a poundage listing of their grippers. This would alieviat all the size differenciations, and give people two options to go at. I have a large collection of grippers (some 70 or so), and they all have different feels. Just maybe we can't compare Iron Mind to PDA, or Iron Man to Jubinville. I will certainly be getting another gripper from PDA.

David

[Guest StrongerthanArne]

David,

You are a monster. How did the 520 ip gripper feel compared to the other one (was it 470 ip), i.e did the 470 feel 10 per cent easier to close? Moreover, was the 470 more difficult to close than your 420-something IM #3?