rbrown Posted August 26, 2003 Share Posted August 26, 2003 I gained some insight this past weekend as to the answer I was seeking a while back about why some of the guys in the pro circuit are not doing more on rolling thunder than they are. As some may remember, I stated that my rolling thunder (or whatever it is) is made completely of steel. I got it from a friend who bought it at a Boston strongman contest thinking it was an Ironmind Rolling Thunder. In that post I learned that Ironmind rolling Thunders are made of plastic; this was later confirmed to me by Randy Strossen. I tried a plastic one this weekend and it was substantially harder; not because of any difference in diameter or roll, but simply because of the lack of friction on the plastic surface. While I have lifted 263 on mine, I barely levitate 230 on the plastic one. Based on a strong successful lift of 205, I'm guessing I'd be good for about 215 to 220. Hard to tell exactly because I had smoked my grip trying to squeeze a 4 without much luck. Not bad, but no where near my 264. I can only imagine how hard it would be if the handle was sweaty or something. To further add to this story, I was talking with Warren Tetting today and asked him about my implement after he told me he was the originator of many of the items in the Ironmind catalog. When I said that Stossen had told me they had always been made of plastic, he said that in fact Rolling Thunders were made from all steel years ago--like 10 years ago. He said, however, that he had not supplied anyone in Boston to sell at that show. After examining the real rolling thunder, I am quite sure mine must be one of these old ones; the construction and dimensions are identical except the revolving part is not plastic. However God only knows how it was sold at the Boston show. BTW, when I asked Tetting about his new certification idea discussed on this board a while back, it seemed that it would only be a matter of time before it came into existence. It was very clear that he is opposed to the setting of grippers and that any new certification procedure would not permit the other hand to be used at all. It was also clear that he would prefer that the "list" only contain a very few names; not over 100. He suggested that perhaps different width grippers would be used depending on hand size to even things out for the small handed people. I said I can't wait; not that I can do it, but I think it is a cool idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricMilfeld Posted August 26, 2003 Share Posted August 26, 2003 Thanks for the updates. I'm glad to hear about different width grippers being available. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Piche Posted August 26, 2003 Share Posted August 26, 2003 Not allowing the other hand would cause bias against those with small hands and also an advantage for those with big hands who basically can "set" the gripper anyway without using the other hand due to hand size. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Van Weele Posted August 26, 2003 Share Posted August 26, 2003 Not allowing the other hand would cause bias against those with small hands and also an advantage for those with big hands who basically can "set" the gripper anyway without using the other hand due to hand size. I beleive he told me that anyone with under 7.5 inch hands will use a gripper with a 2.5 inch spread. Over 7.5 will use one spread to 3 inches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSW Posted August 26, 2003 Share Posted August 26, 2003 Why not let anyone use a 2.5" spread gripper? I think it will favor the smaller handed man anyway. Also, if he wants to keep the list down, make it a no-set close with the BB Super Elite. That will be a short list Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Piche Posted August 26, 2003 Share Posted August 26, 2003 All he has to do is start setting the gripper handles higher and keep the spread out towards 3 inch (assuming a .283 spring). There won't be too many 3 closers on those. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricMilfeld Posted August 26, 2003 Share Posted August 26, 2003 I think prohibiting a set is a step in the wrong direction. Like Wanna says, it would be biased towards the larger handed guy. I think the list should be kept short due to the strength of the gripper, and not due to one's hand size. You also wouldn't be able to objectively compare this new list to Iron Mind's, in terms of significance of accomplishment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AP Posted August 26, 2003 Share Posted August 26, 2003 (edited) Why not just have a cert process for the elite? That's tougher than a #3 right? About .293 wiresize... It should decrease the number of people on a list and would help Mr. Tetting 'one up' Randy by having a tougher (yet Reachable) grip goal. Oh, also, I case you didn't read my other post I am Against No-Set rules for Certification! Even a 2.5" wide gripper would be somewhat uncomfortable... Plus the narrower width would probably make the gripper easier compared to 3"ers...I don't want to be lumped into some weaker-gripper list. Edited August 26, 2003 by AP 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.