Juha Harju Posted December 27, 2015 Share Posted December 27, 2015 These are just my thoughts but is it possible to use same judging protokol as at mash monster certs? Three judges and private video. Sometimes seems that to some feats are very hard to get enough voters. Also interpretation of rules is confusing to people. Maybe then it would not be so personal and it would be nicer to everyone. What do you think? Which is the best way? Thanks, Juha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwwm Posted December 27, 2015 Share Posted December 27, 2015 Let me just mention, I love Bob's lifts. I was just trying to adhere to the rules. Also, I stand by any vote I make, pass or fail and have no qualms about discussing my votes. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anwnate Posted December 27, 2015 Share Posted December 27, 2015 These are just my thoughts but is it possible to use same judging protokol as at mash monster certs? Three judges and private video. Sometimes seems that to some feats are very hard to get enough voters. Also interpretation of rules is confusing to people. Maybe then it would not be so personal and it would be nicer to everyone. What do you think? Which is the best way? Thanks, Juha For the lifter, it will always be personal Juha.There is a thread somewhere about why we have the current process. It was pointed out to me that it is the transparency of the public judging that people appreciate. I think that disagreements (polite) only help refine the process we use...and that they are healthy for the growth of gripsport. As you know, the IGC do not always agree on things. Discussion creates an atmosphere for learning and should be encouraged. People won't see eye to eye 100% of the time, but say in this recent case, the vast majority of people thought Bob's feat followed the spirit of the lift, if not the letter of the law. Myself, I still don't see a clear drop of the plates, but I still haven't done a frame for frame. Regardless, I think the system in place has done an excellent job so far. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juha Harju Posted December 27, 2015 Author Share Posted December 27, 2015 These are just my thoughts but is it possible to use same judging protokol as at mash monster certs? Three judges and private video. Sometimes seems that to some feats are very hard to get enough voters. Also interpretation of rules is confusing to people. Maybe then it would not be so personal and it would be nicer to everyone. What do you think? Which is the best way? Thanks, Juha For the lifter, it will always be personal Juha.There is a thread somewhere about why we have the current process. It was pointed out to me that it is the transparency of the public judging that people appreciate. I think that disagreements (polite) only help refine the process we use...and that they are healthy for the growth of gripsport. As you know, the IGC do not always agree on things. Discussion creates an atmosphere for learning and should be encouraged. People won't see eye to eye 100% of the time, but say in this recent case, the vast majority of people thought Bob's feat followed the spirit of the lift, if not the letter of the law. Myself, I still don't see a clear drop of the plates, but I still haven't done a frame for frame. Regardless, I think the system in place has done an excellent job so far. Yes, I agree that it´s always personal for lifters. I remember also time when moderators showed all voters to puplic, also they who voted failed. I think that was reason because people didn´t like negative votes or how to judge correct? I don´t want to talk about Bob´s lift in this thread, only judging prosess. If we don´t have mash monster style judging, that´s fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jared Goguen Posted December 27, 2015 Share Posted December 27, 2015 I know there is an option/plug-in for the this forum software to make it so the fail votes require you to fill out a reason in a box before submitting and I would like the vote to be public. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucasraymond Posted December 27, 2015 Share Posted December 27, 2015 We ran into an issue with my 75# hub lift which I pulled it lockout then lowered it without a pause; despite the rules not stating a pause at the top! I think the only way to make it fair is to clarify the rules in the situations where there is confusion! No matter the result there is no perfect way to do judging as there is positive and negative to any judging means! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Sharkey Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 You can never legislate common sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
odin Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 These are just my thoughts but is it possible to use same judging protokol as at mash monster certs? Three judges and private video. Sometimes seems that to some feats are very hard to get enough voters. Also interpretation of rules is confusing to people. Maybe then it would not be so personal and it would be nicer to everyone. What do you think? Which is the best way? Thanks, Juha For the lifter, it will always be personal Juha.There is a thread somewhere about why we have the current process. It was pointed out to me that it is the transparency of the public judging that people appreciate. I think that disagreements (polite) only help refine the process we use...and that they are healthy for the growth of gripsport. As you know, the IGC do not always agree on things. Discussion creates an atmosphere for learning and should be encouraged. People won't see eye to eye 100% of the time, but say in this recent case, the vast majority of people thought Bob's feat followed the spirit of the lift, if not the letter of the law. Myself, I still don't see a clear drop of the plates, but I still haven't done a frame for frame. Regardless, I think the system in place has done an excellent job so far. I'm proud of the lift and was always told at contests that after hitting the standard or achieving lockout to "just follow it down" even if it starts to slip and it will pass. Re-watched the video one frame at a time (uggh) and didn't see a gap between my fingers and plates, like you would in an obvious drop. No need to add my name to any list for the lift; I'll re-do it and just not embellish the lockout too much and it should be no problem. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juha Harju Posted December 28, 2015 Author Share Posted December 28, 2015 These are just my thoughts but is it possible to use same judging protokol as at mash monster certs? Three judges and private video. Sometimes seems that to some feats are very hard to get enough voters. Also interpretation of rules is confusing to people. Maybe then it would not be so personal and it would be nicer to everyone. What do you think? Which is the best way? Thanks, Juha For the lifter, it will always be personal Juha.There is a thread somewhere about why we have the current process. It was pointed out to me that it is the transparency of the public judging that people appreciate. I think that disagreements (polite) only help refine the process we use...and that they are healthy for the growth of gripsport. As you know, the IGC do not always agree on things. Discussion creates an atmosphere for learning and should be encouraged. People won't see eye to eye 100% of the time, but say in this recent case, the vast majority of people thought Bob's feat followed the spirit of the lift, if not the letter of the law. Myself, I still don't see a clear drop of the plates, but I still haven't done a frame for frame. Regardless, I think the system in place has done an excellent job so far. I'm proud of the lift and was always told at contests that after hitting the standard or achieving lockout to "just follow it down" even if it starts to slip and it will pass. Re-watched the video one frame at a time (uggh) and didn't see a gap between my fingers and plates, like you would in an obvious drop. No need to add my name to any list for the lift; I'll re-do it and just not embellish the lockout too much and it should be no problem. Don´t waste your time with that lift anymore Bob. Voting is over and it passed. It is strong lift with strong hold. Term "followed" causes easily confusion. Example this lift has same rule "Lift must be followed down" and it was failed lift. http://www.gripboard.com/index.php?showtopic=43628 Mine lift was as poor as Luke´s lift but it passed? http://www.gripboard.com/index.php?showtopic=43334 Tuomo Anttila and double 2x20 clean and press? http://www.gripboard.com/index.php?showtopic=43375 Judging those lifts isn´t easy. Your next goal will be 2x25kg double lift Bob! http://www.gripboard.com/index.php?showtopic=43628 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juha Harju Posted December 28, 2015 Author Share Posted December 28, 2015 (edited) This comment is very important: "I don't know about this one, the rules say they "Lift must be followed down" and when you watch the video in HD, and in slow-mo it looks like the plates are dropped from about 6 inchs from the ground but followed down, so does that mean they need to be held and set down or just held on to until they are near the ground? I'm not voting on this cause I have no idea." Comment is from Anttila's hub lift Edited December 28, 2015 by Juha Harju Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grind Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 I'm sorry for all the commotion but this was indeed why I clicked on fail. I judged it as a deadlift and if you drop a bar just before it's on the ground it's not a good lift in powerlifting. Next time I will place a comment. But there was only 1 fail in the poll so it's a good lift, no harm done. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikael Siversson Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 Given the (still) often highly questionable judging in competition in the DO axle dealift (super fast down signal) we are really splitting hairs here (referring to Bob's lift). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedd Johnson Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 My family and I have been sick for several days, so I'm just now seeing this. I think the problem is more the specificity of the rules, versus the voting process, personally. It was a lot easier to have clear-cut rules when only 2 people were judging, but if the rules are made more clear, it seems to me that we could continue with the voting by the community. But, even if we detailed out every single rule, I guarantee you someone will fail a lift at some point, because it wasn't good enough in their opinion. Especially, since voting is anonymous and there is no required ownership of failed votes. I do think that if you're gonna fail someone, you should say why you did so. I just watched Bob's video. I would have passed that lift, since it is for these lists. It didn't look to me like he dropped them due to a loss of grip or control. It looked like he opened his hand preemptively in order to avoid hurting his thumb on the bounce-back, when the plates hit the ground. i do that kind of thing all the time in Grip Rushes, because you can hurt yourself bad if the plates or blob or other item bounces up wrong and jams a thumb. Keep in mind, control to the ground wasn't even required for these lists up until roughly a year ago. Emphasis was always put on getting to lockout. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fist of Fury Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 I don't understand why you need to hold it to the ground? Grip is about gripping something and pick it up, you should be allowed to drop it after that IMO. This rule only makes it more difficult to judge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwwm Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 Jedd brings up a good point about bounce back. Especially on wooden platforms or against a rubber floor, that bounce back can definitely cause some pain. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonotto Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 If there is a noticeable pause at the top (as was shown in Bob's video) it undoubtedly shows pinch mastery in this lift. There was zero evidence of momentum pulling the weights up, but of superior pinch strength. I like the voting system as is, but would require failed votes to include a comment in reasoning behind the fail. If we are to be a grip community, these comments will add clarity to the vote as well as possible tips/suggestions for lifters to improve on the next attempt. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juha Harju Posted December 28, 2015 Author Share Posted December 28, 2015 I don't understand why you need to hold it to the ground? Grip is about gripping something and pick it up, you should be allowed to drop it after that IMO. This rule only makes it more difficult to judge. If we think about lat rows with inch or doing reps with blobs. It you drop those things down without control between every reps then it´s easier than with controlled negative parts. Ironmind axle is good example too. Yes, it´s more difficult to judge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cannon Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 I don't understand why you need to hold it to the ground? Grip is about gripping something and pick it up, you should be allowed to drop it after that IMO. This rule only makes it more difficult to judge. I think the issue is "did you lose it?" The idea may have crept over from a long history of 2HP in grip contests where you are not allowed to "lose it" even after achieveing the required lift height. Edit: Just wanted to mention that I'm not advocating either way for any change. This is just my impression of the reason for any requirement to set something down under control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wobbler Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 3rd option for voting. Pass, fail, and "pass 100% by the book." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fist of Fury Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 (edited) I don't understand why you need to hold it to the ground? Grip is about gripping something and pick it up, you should be allowed to drop it after that IMO. This rule only makes it more difficult to judge. If we think about lat rows with inch or doing reps with blobs. It you drop those things down without control between every reps then it´s easier than with controlled negative parts. Ironmind axle is good example too. Yes, it´s more difficult to judge. I don't understand why you need to hold it to the ground? Grip is about gripping something and pick it up, you should be allowed to drop it after that IMO. This rule only makes it more difficult to judge. I think the issue is "did you lose it?" The idea may have crept over from a long history of 2HP in grip contests where you are not allowed to "lose it" even after achieveing the required lift height. Edit: Just wanted to mention that I'm not advocating either way for any change. This is just my impression of the reason for any requirement to set something down under control. That makes complete sense, I understand that but here we're actually looking for grip only. I completely understand why you'd want it to be like this in a full body strength feat like a deadlift, or back exersizes like rows and also for the grip if you're doing reps. Let's face it if you pinch some plates or a blob your core and leg strength is not going to be a limiting factor, it's not an important factor for the feat. Unless there's an extra skill moment involved with lowering the plates/blob to the ground that I'm not aware of, other than holding it for a marginally longer time. A comment for failed votes would be a good idea. The athlete deserves to know why it was voted down. Edited December 28, 2015 by Fist of Fury 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikael Siversson Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 (edited) This whole discussion baffles me given Bob's imo very solid lift. Just like Jedd said he open the hand the moment the plates hits the ground. It looks very different when you 'drop' the weights as the hands accelerate upwards relative to the plates and there was none of that. Removing the requirement of lowering the weights under control (excluding lifts over your head) would turn impressive 'feats' into a loud, metal slamming display of lack of strength. Based on the voting result Bob's achievement in relation to the rules was almost as clear cut as it can get. Edited December 29, 2015 by Mikael Siversson 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Piche Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 The reason we have TWENTY voter is to get rid of the "noise" in the voting. And, from what I have seen it does a pretty darn good job. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwwm Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 I agree with Bill. 20 is a pretty good number. I haven't seen any feats passed that weren't up to snuff. 1 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.