jad Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 To be fair, I'd be SHOCKED if any were 82.5kg. Nathan might have been at the time of his #4 cert but according to Chris James is 230ish now and CCSing #4's so... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikael Siversson Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 Well as I said I 'think' that it is an advantage but I am essentially speculating here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikael Siversson Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 Combining right and left it would most likely be between Martin and Nathan (for the #1 spot). There is a video of Martin closing a #4 with his right and getting it down to about 1mm with his left. Martin's hands are short, not sure about Nathan's. I also think that smaller hands represent an advantage in grippers with a MMS. Would have to strongly disagree with you here. I would think the set alone is much easier and that's huge. There will be exceptions like Mark Felix who are truly at somewhat of a disadvantage but Rob V's hands are over 9" and he still sets it right to parallel. Chad's are 9" and he does too. Of the top crush guys below how many have sub-8" hands? Paul Knight Gabriel Sum Nathan Holle (maybe?) Mobster Chad Heath Dave Morton Shane The Show Larsen J. Vogt Kevin Bussi (maybe ?) Rich Williams Tex Martin A (yes) Teemu (yes) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Lipinski Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 I think MMS certainly levels the playing field more, but like Josh wrote, the ease of setting the big grippers for big hand guys would seem to make up for it. I would think the data would support this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikael Siversson Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 Competion and MM ladder data would probably indicate a stronger correlation between bodyweight (eg above or below 82.5k) and gripper strength than hand size/gripper strength. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Lipinski Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 A straight up bodyweight/gripper strength correlation would not be very strong based on a quick look at the MM page. If you set a dividing line at 82.5 kg sure, but you could also set the hand size division at 7.5" inches or less and get close to the same results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikael Siversson Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 Odd comparison given that hand size divisions have centered around 8'' (this is the cut-off used by Jedd). Look at 82.5k vs 8'' and get back to me. A straight up bodyweight/gripper strength correlation would not be very strong based on a quick look at the MM page. If you set a dividing line at 82.5 kg sure, but you could also set the hand size division at 7.5" inches or less and get close to the same results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Rinderle Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 An 8" hand is not an average hand. The average hand length of a male is 189mm or 7.44". So if you are going to use 82.5KG as representing the average weight then 7.5" for a line of deliniation would be more appropriate than an artificially high measurement like 8". I also don't believe Jedder has used 8" as a cutoff. So, as you suggested, look at 82.5k vs. 7.5" and get back to Bob. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikael Siversson Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 (edited) Can't be bothered. I just like to argue. Edited July 15, 2011 by Mikael Siversson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Rinderle Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 Can't be bothered. I just like to argue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
odin Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 I'm quite sure Jedd used 7 and 3/4 as the line of demarcation between "small" and "large" and size divisions ~four years ago (last time it was used at GGC). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedd Johnson Posted July 18, 2011 Author Share Posted July 18, 2011 We used 7.75 inches for the hand size division. This was based on Smitty asking the entire board for their hand length measurement to be posted on the board. He then took an average and it came out to 7.75 inches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cannon Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 Competion and MM ladder data would probably indicate a stronger correlation between bodyweight (eg above or below 82.5k) and gripper strength than hand size/gripper strength. I had done this analysis of the MM ladder for another thread: For the 70 people certified at Level 1: 3 people were less than or equal to 182lbs (Peter Kerr 182, Derek Graybill 172, Matt Cannon 160) 11 people were 183-200lbs (and most of these guys were 190-200) 38 people were 201-250lbs 18 people were 251lbs or more Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedd Johnson Posted July 18, 2011 Author Share Posted July 18, 2011 Is hand size listed in their bio? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Rinderle Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 Is hand size listed in their bio? That's the key. Usually bigger bodies come with bigger hands. Usually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikael Siversson Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 So if hand size represents a better division in grippers (than a 82.5k class) then we will see less than three people with hands below 7 3/4'' in the MM ladder. Do you really believe that? The hand size/82.5k class in the Europinch is already a lost battle (for the hand size advocates) and you know that. We had two people in the 82.5k class in the last comp. and they averaged 79k and both pulled more than their bodyweight. I predicted that the average in the top 10 in the 2HP will be in the low 80-ies or less by October and you better believe it. Right now, with four competitors it is about 81k. All four of them are quite strong for their bodyweight. The average of the top 10 in the 2HP in the WSH 2010 was about 105k (all were above 82.5k). Is hand size listed in their bio? That's the key. Usually bigger bodies come with bigger hands. Usually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Lipinski Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 You are stuck on the 82.5kg division, which is as arbitrary as anything. Your argument makes no sense. You compare one arbitrary dividing line against another. If you want to do a real analysis do it, you are wasting time with anything else. The 7.75" was an average of handsize measurements- What do you thing the average bodyweight of those same people would be? Usually your arguments make sense, but this one isn't going anywhere. You like the 82.5 class, we get it. You are not using any data in your argument other than what fits your arbitrary guidelines. If you really know statistics, do a proper correlation. I think you are avoiding this. If I picked a 220 weight division, and 7.25 handsize division, I would obviously conclude that only handsize matters. In other words, do this right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikael Siversson Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Bob, The 7 3/4'' hand size division was introduced by someone other than me (Jedd J.). The 82.5k class was introduced by someone other than me (David H.). The bottom line is that a lightweight class is generating considerable interest amongst grip strength athletes with a high strength/bodyweight ratio (e.g. climbers). Unsurprisingly the concept of having a lightweight class is resisted by heavier competitors who's performance may now look less than stellar by comparison. The 82.5k class is not arbitrarily picked and neither was Jedd's hand size limit. David Horne gave it considerable thought and presented his argument. Show him some respect by at least reading through his arguments. Bob if you organise a competition you can, needless to say, pick any body weight class, hand size class or whatever. I have said this before that we can all pick our own body weight and hand class divisions. That way we can all be champions. You are stuck on the 82.5kg division, which is as arbitrary as anything. Your argument makes no sense. You compare one arbitrary dividing line against another. If you want to do a real analysis do it, you are wasting time with anything else. The 7.75" was an average of handsize measurements- What do you thing the average bodyweight of those same people would be? Usually your arguments make sense, but this one isn't going anywhere. You like the 82.5 class, we get it. You are not using any data in your argument other than what fits your arbitrary guidelines. If you really know statistics, do a proper correlation. I think you are avoiding this. If I picked a 220 weight division, and 7.25 handsize division, I would obviously conclude that only handsize matters. In other words, do this right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Lipinski Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Oh Michael. I will run with whatever is picked, and I will respect whatever is picked by top organizers. Your efforts to prove something by these divisions are pointless though. I don't want a lightweight class with 5 people in the world competing. I am willing to wait it out. Horne had his reasons, and I respect those. I also respect Jedd and his divisions. Again, they are arbitrary and both were chosen by different standards. I am not judging whether those standards are right or wrong. Chris Rice also chose his own class which was based on standards similar to Jedd's. By arbitrary I mean that they are artificial dividing lines; I am not judging the reasoning behind these dividing lines. Regardless, you are trying to prove some overall point regarding two arbitrary divisions. You are not making a logical or statistical argument. I have organized plenty of my own competitions, and have respected the standards that exist. Again, do a proper correlation or your argument is baseless. You have suggested to others that they get an education in statistics, so let's use the education some of us here have! I don't give a darn by this point if I am right or wrong, just stack up the pinch numbers by bodyweight and handsize and pull up a correlation. If no one else bothers, I can retread the stat classes I had ten plus years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikael Siversson Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 (edited) If you look at olympic lifting you will notice that virtually all competitors, except for the heavyweight class, have a lean, athletic build. If every grip athlete was equally lean there would be a lot more people competing in the 82.5k class. The 82.5k class will demonstrate, if nothing else, that unless you have a lean body, you will not compete for the top spot. It will encourage people to get fit. I don't want a lightweight class with 5 people in the world competing. Edited July 19, 2011 by Mikael Siversson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Rinderle Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Again with the generalizations. Out of the 15 competitors at Nationals, not one person there (other than myself - and my pinch was horrible) wasn't lean and athletic. I'm not sure what your picture of American grip athletes is, but I can tell you after competing on Saturday, it is wrong. I don't think there was anybody there who could have made the 82.5K class (who wasn't already in it) without losing considerable muscle mass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikael Siversson Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Maybe most of you are rather tall then or carry muscle not needed in a grip competition. Why would little guys show up anyway as the outcome is pretty much a given with no weight classes? Again with the generalizations. Out of the 15 competitors at Nationals, not one person there (other than myself - and my pinch was horrible) wasn't lean and athletic. I'm not sure what your picture of American grip athletes is, but I can tell you after competing on Saturday, it is wrong. I don't think there was anybody there who could have made the 82.5K class (who wasn't already in it) without losing considerable muscle mass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cannon Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Maybe most of you are rather tall then or carry muscle not needed in a grip competition. Why would little guys show up anyway as the outcome is pretty much a given with no weight classes? I went because I qualified and wanted to compete. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Styles Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 A grip contest is also a social event. It's fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jad Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 A grip contest is also a social event. It's fun. Yep, it's not everything but a big part of it. The night before the contest Adam Glass and Chris Rice were discussing training philosophies, I got to pick Jedd's brain on tendon strength, and then Adam put us all through some warm-ups and this is exactly why I still go to grip contests even though I've transitioned to AW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.