Inch Hole

[Roark]

In the new issue of Milo, Aston is quoted as saying the

Inch bell handle was hollow and that there was/is a

hole drilled into that handle.

The 172 Inch handle most certainly is not hollow, but

does have a hole drilled into it- not cast into it. When

applicants to try to deadlift the 172 planned to bring a

nail to insert into that hole to stop rotation, Inch asserted

that the hole/nail had nothing to do with lifting the bell. But rather than leave the hole and allow use of the nail, thus proving his assertion, he instead had the hole filled in before the men could nail the lift.

The other bell that Aston was aware of at the time he wrote that quoted text apparently did have a hollow handle as well as a hole.

So it appears that Inch used the hole whenever he lifted

each of those two bells. The other two Inch bells have not

been located- nor has the hollow handled bell.

Actually simply inserting the nail between the second and third fingers so that it stuck up enough to brace against the back of the hand, would have stopped rotation.

The hole was not part of the foundry casting process so thus the hole could not have been for venting hot gases-

especially in a solid handle. From where would the gas

find a path to a shallow, externally drilled hole?

[OldGuy]

Inch had a longer career as a strongman than anyone else. No doubt he not only knew every trick in the book, but invented most of them. Of all the places to have a so called vent hole, it happened to be in the center of the handle!

[Roark]

That hole has caused me to vent. Craig Holle, who wrote the piece is more calm than I. He wrote that "Nothing written here is meant in any way to discredit or to be disrepectful to Thomas Inch".

Some ifs:

If the hole was there so Inch could use a nail to stop the

bells rotation, but claimed that was not the case, who is

being disrepectful to history? If that is the case, as it most certainly appears to be, what part of that deception deserves respect ? What credit should be attributed to

such subterfuge?

Any lifter, unknown or famous, weak or worldwide strong,

who misleads regarding his true strength levels deserves

exposure, but not the type that was sought.

[paul valpreda]

Sorry, mistake...

Edited March 4, 2003 by paul valpreda

[mobsterone]

Aston doesn't lift bell - Aston produces sour grapes. Aston old bean - train for it (too late now I know) a few here have and we lifted it!

[Roark]

Aston once visited the Barrow Hematite Steel Works factory and saw men pushing wheelbarrows full of iron ore up a steep incline to dump into the furnaces.

Aston noted that these men were performing a feat he could not duplicate and he questioned why he should be

called stronger than they simply because he could outlift

them in certain, learned, weightlifting moves.

Aston was not a sour grapes person in my opinion. Maybe he just had his absolute fill of the folly.

Aston weighed approx 165 lbs and could one arm clean

250 lbs, even if he could not lift the Inch. He was also one

of the 3 men to bent press around 300 lbs- the others being Inch and Saxon, with Aston being the lightest. He

had no need for sour grapes.

[mobsterone]

Strange then that he should bitch (my words) that the handle was hollow etc when it patently is not. Therefore and based on the info you provided us with to refer to he was producing sour grapes IMO. So what if the handle was hollow? Either you pull it or you don't. We ALL can come up with excuses as to why we cannot do things - sometimes its simply not being strong enough! I, like Aston, could not do what he saw those men doing. But I could, as Aston could, train for it as indeed the men could have trained to do what Aston did. There may have been a man there that could have beaten him. Let history note that he did not lift the bell - anything else is supposition. He did do what he did and Inch could not and he didn't do what Inch could do - just the facts.

[Bill Piche]

Inch was a FRAUD and I am sure if he used fake dumbbells like in that video clip he would have no qualms about putting a nail in a hole of a real dumbbell.

[Roark]

What part of Aston's description of the Inch handle being

hollow do you interpret as bitching? It is a simple description.

The handle of the bell that Aston described probably WAS

hollow. He mentions only two bells, so may have been unaware of the other two bells, or even the fifth bell that

was shown in the film clip (the nutted bell) that Inch claims was the unliftable bell. Now THERE was a hollow

claim.

History has noted that Inch lifted the 172 several hundred times overhead. We study history for the purpose of verifying or exposing it- at least I study with that goal, and if we are going to simply accept what history has noted, some major follies will parade as

truths, such as your statement that Inch could do what he did- if you mean Inch lifted the bell overhead as he

noted.

What puzzles me is that Astom MUST have been aware of at least three bells because he asked on one occasion,

'Which bell is this?'- if he had known of only two bells- the

172 and the hollow handled bell, such a question would have been silly. So a third bell was in his mind- whether

hollow of solid I have no clue, but we can assume the third bell also had a hole- otherwise Aston would have identified it by the absence of the hole.

[mobsterone]

While I agree, based on the evidence you have produced, that Inch was in all likelihood a fraud, why do we then PRESUME, based on Astons own writings, that no sour grapes were involved.

IE: I have seen little or no proof to change my mind or yours (I'll presume), that Inch was anything less than we know of him. I only have your opinion (thus far) that Aston may have not been disappointed. I do, however, accept your premise that he will have been aware of more than one bell.

[ChrisJames]

Wannagrip, how can you call a man who was a professional strongman for about 40 years a fraud ? What about a 300 lb bent press ?

All the pro strongmen used little tricks and sometimes false weights in their acts(perhaps with the exception of Goerner and Saxon ).Even Apollon used " casseroles " as he called them but it doesn,t mean he couldn,t lift the " bonafides " because he did easily.The reason they somtimes usedfalse weights was to give themselves a rest.

I do not know whether Thomas Inch could lift the dumbell or not but neither does anybody else.But he must have been good to have the longevity he had.

[Roark]

Not sure I follow your final paragraph, Mobster.

Inch may not have been any less, or more, than WE

know of him, but the discoveries revealed on this forum

have hardly become public knowledge elsewhere. He

most assurdedly was less than the average person in this

field is aware of- at least in regard to the 172 bell.

Run a search on Inch and his bells and see how much misinformation is still simmering- this may be one of the

very few places where the truth about Inch can be found.

Frankly, the grip board has more accurate info on him and

his bells than any other source I have encountered, and

dare I say, ironhistory.com

Aston (an opinion) probably felt that if he could acknowledge being unable to lift the Inch bells, then perhaps Inch also should acknowledge the same level

of failure instead of using a nail to hammer home a false

reputation.

Perhaps we are using the term sour grapes in different meanings.

[gazza]

Fraud or not,atleast he built his strength to do his other feats naturally.

The world is full of fraudsters and cheats including most of the so called worlds top Athletes in Strongman,powerlifting.

,bodybuilding etc(i appologize to any one not on the Juice)half of the so called modern greats couldn,t even hope to match Inch in strengthwithout there Juice.

[Roark]

If you legitimately can lift 99 of the 100 lifts you claim,

then you are fradulent on the 1, especially if it is THE ONE

that your reputation endures on for DECADES.

You are not fradulent on the 99, but what a void must be inside to prompt such a deception on that one!

All Inch's other lifts have been surpassed, but no one has yet lifted the 172 overhead HUNDREDS of TIMES. Wonder why that is?

It is time to stop defending a man who made fun of those

who trusted his word.

I have written extensively on Inch and have presented what I consider to be a solid case. It is time for those who

choose to believe in him to present a case. Or to be silent.

[mobsterone]

Joe you are able, and have done on many occasions, to present facts to support your premises. I'm suggesting that we should, were possible, not suggest the thought processes of anyone long dead and gone. Unless we are both about to reveal our psyhic (sp) powers. IE: lets not say what we think Aston may have thought.

I still support your factually presented premise regarding I

[mobsterone]

Joe you are able, and have done on many occasions, to present facts to support your premises. I'm suggesting that we should, were possible, not suggest the thought processes of anyone long dead and gone. Unless we are both about to reveal our psyhic (sp) powers. IE: lets not say what we think Aston may have thought.

I still support your factually presented premise regarding Inch but again suggest, and your point regarding this boards access to info doen't mean that one failure on Inch's part makes him weak on all other lifts.

[Roark]

I have never said Inch was weak on other lifts- he was

a certified, official champion lifter. I do not dispute his official records. He would never allow the bell to be weighed or its weight to be reported, because, I suspect

if one bell weighed 172 and another lookalike weighed 75 lbs, people might just become suspicious.

I prefer to place words in my own mouth, and not have others do it for me.

Perhaps you have not seen the Inch material at ironhistory.com? I am not reading Aston's mind, I have read his comments about Inch and the bells, and from

that have drawn conclusions.

I would like to believe that had internet forums been available in his day, some of this blind loyalty to his

unliftable bell could have thwarted, but seeing the reponse here, now, perhaps that would not have been the case.

Believe what you wish about Inch with or without evidence.

[RSW]

So it appears that Inch used the hole whenever he lifted

each of those two bells.

I believe you that Inch sometimes used the hole to lift the 'bell, but I doubt that he never was able to lift it without cheating. If you are going to cheat all of the time, why not make an even heavier 'bell that would be truly unliftable without "some help"? Even Mobster's MDB is liftable, and it is 50lb. heavier.

Robert

[Roark]

If by lift, you mean deadlift, and are referring the to the

172, perhaps.

If you mean clean and overhead, I disagree.

It is the latter he claimed to have done on hundreds of

occasions.

[RSW]

I meant deadlift. He was no Apollon.

[OldGuy]

If Inch used a hole in the dumbbell handle, and this seems to be the case, then lifting it from floor to overhead was a definite possibility for him. He was immensley strong in his younger days before he concentrated on business and making money. In his later life he was just putting on a show and at least appeared to be able to duplicate his old feats. Few were any the wiser.

[mobsterone]

I have never said Inch was weak on other lifts- he was

a certified, official champion lifter. I do not dispute his official records. He would never allow the bell to be weighed or its weight to be reported, because, I suspect

if one bell weighed 172 and another lookalike weighed 75 lbs, people might just become suspicious.

I prefer to place words in my own mouth, and not have others do it for me.

Perhaps you have not seen the Inch material at ironhistory.com? I am not reading Aston's mind, I have read his comments about Inch and the bells, and from

that have drawn conclusions.

I would like to believe that had internet forums been available in his day, some of this blind loyalty to his

unliftable bell could have thwarted, but seeing the reponse here, now, perhaps that would not have been the case.

Believe what you wish about Inch with or without evidence.

If you say 'Aston said' or 'Aston thought' but provide no evidence that he did other than a conclusion you defeat your own aim in life to provide only the truth. If you draw a conclusion, based on what you have, it is, however accurate it might seem, still only that - a conclusion.

I'd ask that someone like yourself, whose factual articles present research other missed, try and not put words or opinions into the mouth of someone long past but merely quote sources, articles or paragraphs to support your view. The ref to 'which bell is it today?' etc is oft quoted as such.

Remember, based on what you have shown us (I am too stingy to have paid for the access to Iron History), I too have drawn the same conclusion reagrding Inch. But I am also able to draw another conclusion. By focussing, perhaps too much (IMO) on his fraud regarding the challenge bells we, you and I, present an image of someone incapable of any feat of strength.

Its been done, you did it - lets move on.

[Roark]

I now understand your uninformed position. $10 per

year gets you cyberpump.com and one small aspect of that is my research, which is where a great deal of my

arguments are made, and perhaps where I should leave these matters. When I say 'Aston said' etc, I provide the

text- I NEVER offer my opinion unless it is identified as my

opinion. No money comes to me or to the other writers.

We freeload off cyberpump here on the grip board.

If $10 per year is too much, then that is your decision.

I apologize to the board for arguing these matters here,

having assumed everyone was up to speed.

It will not happen again.

[terminator]

I always say, "once a fraud, always a fraud". That does not imply that someone is weak, only that the validity and accuracy of every one of that person's claims must be called into question.

[Bill Piche]

I always say, "once a fraud, always a fraud". That does not imply that someone is weak, only that the validity and accuracy of every one of that person's claims must be called into question.

I was going to post the same phrase!

"Once a fraud always a fraud."

I backed down and did not post it. I did now though!