Wider spring = Higher RGC?

[AdriaanRobert96]

20 minutes ago, Fist of Fury said:

I think the #2.5 I sent you is probably around 132 RGC if I would take a guess. So maybe slightly over average. I also noticed it was a bit harder than usual but I was very weak when I trained with it as well.

It's nowhere near the hardest #2.5 I've tried though. They have one at a gym in my town which is at least 140. That's a brick of a #2.5.

Haha, jesus christ man.. I never thought 130 rgc could feel that hard

dang a #2.5 at 140 is literally mad

 

[EmilBB]

2 hours ago, AdriaanRobert96 said:

I’ve been working with an average #3 for a while now and I can do 7 wide reps on a good day

 

1 hour ago, AdriaanRobert96 said:

Also the #2.5 you sent me is mad toughI started using it recently and compared to my #2.5 yours a brick!

Can do wide reps with mine but only 7-8 with yours.

Something doesn't add up, if you're only doing 7-8 wide reps with a 132RGC #2.5. Then you're not doing 7 wide reps with an average #3, it must be a very easy #3 then. Unless I'm misunderstanding something of course.

[AdriaanRobert96]

14 minutes ago, EmilBB said:

 

Something doesn't add up, if you're only doing 7-8 wide reps with a 132RGC #2.5. Then you're not doing 7 wide reps with an average #3, it must be a very easy #3 then. Unless I'm misunderstanding something of course.

Haha, yeah sorry for the confusion.. that’s after my main working set with the #3, then I back down a set to my #2.5 for additional volume if I feel more is needed

I laid it out poorly..

[Fist of Fury]

2 hours ago, AdriaanRobert96 said:

Haha, jesus christ man.. I never thought 130 rgc could feel that hard

dang a #2.5 at 140 is literally mad

 

It could be as high as 135, it's hard for me to guess more accurately because I was very sick when I had it and I was dying (literally).

But it's true it's definitely a harder than average #2.5. I noticed that as well.

Edited May 19, 2023 by Fist of Fury

[AdriaanRobert96]

4 minutes ago, Fist of Fury said:

It could be as high as 135, it's hard for me to guess more accurately because I was very sick when I had it and I was dying (literally).

But it's true it's definitely a harder than average #2.5. I noticed that as well.

Dang man, glad you’re better now

[Fist of Fury]

3 minutes ago, AdriaanRobert96 said:

Dang man, glad you’re better now

Me too, it's fun to train again and growing muscles instead of losing them  

[AdriaanRobert96]

11 minutes ago, Fist of Fury said:

Me too, it's fun to train again and growing muscles instead of losing them  

Amen to that brother, wish you long and healthy life with lots of gains

[Cannon]

6 hours ago, Fist of Fury said:

I'm just saying, strictly out of a technical standpoint that the handle mounts is more important.

You do have a point. It’s an interesting topic. If you’re in a position of creating the gripper from scratch and can set the mount then you do have a LOT of control over the strength in that scenario. 

On the other hand, when we are digging through production grippers of any brand, spread is the thing that varies enough to make a difference. The brands from China have more extreme differences in mount but I really cannot recall a time…ever…where I rated a wide gripper and it was an easy example of that level. It could happen with a crazy mount I guess. 

[AdriaanRobert96]

2 minutes ago, Cannon said:

You do have a point. It’s an interesting topic. If you’re in a position of creating the gripper from scratch and can set the mount then you do have a LOT of control over the strength in that scenario. 

On the other hand, when we are digging through production grippers of any brand, spread is the thing that varies enough to make a difference. The brands from China have more extreme differences in mount but I really cannot recall a time…ever…where I rated a wide gripper and it was an easy example of that level. It could happen with a crazy mount I guess. 

Interesting topic for sure!

[Fist of Fury]

Of all the TSG's I've ever owned, around 100 in total. Only 2 have had 80 mm spread or more, one of them is the gripper Adriaan has now and the other was a handmade FBBC gripper.

The only other gripper I can think of that I think might have 80 mm or wider spread is that #2.5 gripper I mentioned. It has a really crazy spread as well, since it's not my gripper I have not checked but just eyballing, it looks like it could be around there. Next time I go there I will bring my caliper and check it.

 

[Cannon]

4 hours ago, Fist of Fury said:

Don't know what he's talking about to be honest. 80 mm spread is not average at all. That's why you don't have any other gripper that wide.

Lately it’s hard to find a #3 that starts under 3”. I just grabbed random #3s and these were the spreads:

83, 76, 76, 78, 80, 80, 85, 75, 81, 82..

80 is common. And for example the 83 mm rated 154. Not 160+. Mount is practically flush. In the overall scheme of things, that is a damn hard #3. 160+ is so incredibly rare. 

EDIT: I do want to reiterate I'm talking about #3s here as that is the unrated gripper in question. Overall, at almost any other level, 80 is uncommon. 

[AdriaanRobert96]

11 minutes ago, Fist of Fury said:

Of all the TSG's I've ever owned, around 100 in total. Only 2 have had 80 mm spread or more, one of them is the gripper Adriaan has now and the other was a handmade FBBC gripper.

The only other gripper I can think of that I think might have 80 mm or wider spread is that #2.5 gripper I mentioned. It has a really crazy spread as well, since it's not my gripper I have not checked but just eyballing, it looks like it could be around there. Next time I go there I will bring my caliper and check it.

 

Sam man, all my grippers are below 80mm oddly:/ 

Only the #3 you sent me is 80 and I think my #4 aswell.

[AdriaanRobert96]

8 minutes ago, Cannon said:

Lately it’s hard to find a #3 that starts under 3”. I just grabbed random #3s and these were the spreads:

83, 76, 76, 78, 80, 80, 85, 75, 81, 82..

80 is common. And for example the 83 mm rated 154. Not 160+. Mount is practically flush. In the overall scheme of things, that is a damn hard #3. 160+ is so incredibly rare. 

Hah, that’s crazy man.. one could say you are a lucky manAll mine are below 80mm besides that #3 and my #4, hence me thinking it’s rare..

About that #3 that I assumed is 160+ we’ll see, I’ll make sure to get it rated.. I am as intrigued as you are

[AdriaanRobert96]

@Cannon Whatever it might be it’s a dang brick for some reason, as I said I can do wide reps with my average #3 but only 2 with this #3.

Nonetheless it’ll help me progress

[Fist of Fury]

That has clearly changed over time in that case, it certainly has not been like that in the past. I've had so many #3's and only encountered one with that spread.

Not even the hardest rated #3 I've had (158) had that wide spread.

This particular gripper we're talking about felt harder than that 158 rated gripper as well. But it could be that the extra wide spread is making it feel harder as well, I'm sure it will rate very close to 160 regardless though.

Edited May 19, 2023 by Fist of Fury

[Cannon]

6 minutes ago, AdriaanRobert96 said:

Hah, that’s crazy man.. one could say you are a lucky man

No, but that's my point here. It's not luck, it's inventory. Maybe you have a 165 #3. But it should mean something that we've rated over 1000 #3s and never hit that number. Not even close. Never hit 164. Never hit 163. Never hit 162. Two ever at 161. 

[Cannon]

20 minutes ago, Fist of Fury said:

Not even the hardest rated #3 I've had (158) had that wide spread.

We did not rate that, right? Maybe we did, but I'm trying to be clear that my information is based on what CPW has rated. And back to what this thread is about, I would absolutely expect a 158 to be wide. 

In general, our figures are lower than what other people get. We have been sent "hard" examples in the past to cross-rate and found the difference to be considerably lower. That does not mean the higher figure was wrong, but it exposes some kind of major difference in the methodology. 

I have posted about this before, but anyone rating grippers should aim to be internally consistent. If you can rate a gripper 5 times and get the same number +/- 1 pound that is pretty good. That will allow you to meaningfully organize your collection with a high degree of reliability. And your resulting numbers are not better or worse than anybody else. They are a function of your methodology. The value in a CPW rating is that we have rated so many grippers as to make comparison more ubiquitous. If we found a 158 #3 then that would be in the top 1.7% of all #3s we've ever rated. Our sample size is large enough for that to really mean something based on our methodology. We had to rate 1036 #3s to find 18 that were 158 or harder. That's not luck, it's brute force.  

[Fist of Fury]

3 minutes ago, Cannon said:

We did not rate that, right? Maybe we did, but I'm trying to be clear that my information is based on what CPW has rated. And back to what this thread is about, I would absolutely expect a 158 to be wide. 

In general, our figures are lower than what other people get. We have been sent "hard" examples in the past to cross-rate and found the difference to be considerably lower. That does not mean the higher figure was wrong, but it exposes some kind of major difference in the methodology. 

I have posted about this before, but anyone rating grippers should aim to be internally consistent. If you can rate a gripper 5 times and get the same number +/- 1 pound that is pretty good. That will allow you to meaningfully organize your collection with a high degree of reliability. And your resulting numbers are not better or worse than anybody else. They are a function of your methodology. The value in a CPW rating is that we have rated so many grippers as to make comparison more ubiquitous. If we found a 158 #3 then that would be in the top 1.7% of all #3s we've ever rated. Our sample size is large enough for that to really mean something based on our methodology. We had to rate 1036 #3s to find 18 that were 158 or harder. That's not luck, it's brute force.  

I bought it from another gripboard member and it had a CPW tag so I assume you rated it. 

Spread was 77-78 around there.

Edited May 19, 2023 by Fist of Fury

[Cannon]

Just now, Fist of Fury said:

I bought it from another gripboard memeber and it had a CPW tag so I assume you rated it.

Fair enough! It's one of the hardest #3s we have ever rated. 

[AdriaanRobert96]

26 minutes ago, Fist of Fury said:

That has clearly changed over time in that case, it certainly has not been like that in the past. I've had so many #3's and only encountered one with that spread.

Not even the hardest rated #3 I've had (158) had that wide spread.

This particular gripper we're talking about felt harder than that 158 rated gripper as well. But it could be that the extra wide spread is making it feel harder as well, I'm sure it will rate very close to 160 regardless though.

I am even more excited to rate it now

[AdriaanRobert96]

24 minutes ago, Cannon said:

No, but that's my point here. It's not luck, it's inventory. Maybe you have a 165 #3. But it should mean something that we've rated over 1000 #3s and never hit that number. Not even close. Never hit 164. Never hit 163. Never hit 162. Two ever at 161. 

Rare indeed, and again I only assume it’s around that based on my experience with other grippers, feel and information I’ve got

[dubyagrip]

I swore the #3 I trained with was significantly harder than the one Ironmind sent me to certify on.  I was convinced it was a very difficult #3.  I got them rated after I certified.

My #3 - 148 RGC 75mm

Cert #3 - 151 RGC 81mm

Your mind and your thoughts are incredibly powerful.  I talk about mental limitations all the time when using categories, labels, and rankings.  We should also include the power of assumption in that mix.

Edited May 19, 2023 by dubyagrip

[AdriaanRobert96]

13 minutes ago, Cannon said:

We did not rate that, right? Maybe we did, but I'm trying to be clear that my information is based on what CPW has rated. And back to what this thread is about, I would absolutely expect a 158 to be wide. 

In general, our figures are lower than what other people get. We have been sent "hard" examples in the past to cross-rate and found the difference to be considerably lower. That does not mean the higher figure was wrong, but it exposes some kind of major difference in the methodology. 

I have posted about this before, but anyone rating grippers should aim to be internally consistent. If you can rate a gripper 5 times and get the same number +/- 1 pound that is pretty good. That will allow you to meaningfully organize your collection with a high degree of reliability. And your resulting numbers are not better or worse than anybody else. They are a function of your methodology. The value in a CPW rating is that we have rated so many grippers as to make comparison more ubiquitous. If we found a 158 #3 then that would be in the top 1.7% of all #3s we've ever rated. Our sample size is large enough for that to really mean something based on our methodology. We had to rate 1036 #3s to find 18 that were 158 or harder. That's not luck, it's brute force.  

Amen to this, without a doubt it says something and I do not disagree with you since my experience is not at that lvl..

just my assumption based on different factors which could without a doubt be off..

let’s just say feeling wise it’s around 160 atleast.. if not then atleast it’ll help me progress further

In a couple of months this gripper won’t be needed too much anyways

[AdriaanRobert96]

5 minutes ago, dubyagrip said:

I swore the #3 I trained with was significantly harder than the one Ironmind sent me to certify on.  I was convinced it was a very difficult #3.  I got them rated after I certified.

My #3 - 148 RGC 75mm

Cert #3 - 151 RGC 81mm

Your mind and your thoughts are incredibly powerful.  I talk about mental limitations all the time when using categories, labels, and rankings.  We should also include the power of assumption in that mix.

Yeah that’s very true, since I never had something at 80mm that made me think even bigger number probably

[Fist of Fury]

1 minute ago, AdriaanRobert96 said:

Amen to this, without a doubt it says something and I do not disagree with you since my experience is not at that lvl..

just my assumption based on different factors which could without a doubt be off..

let’s just say feeling wise it’s around 160 atleast.. if not then atleast it’ll help me progress further

In a couple of months this gripper won’t be needed too much anyways

As already discussed. Feeling and actually rating is not the same thing. Decrease the spread from 80 mm to 25 mm and the same rating are two different worlds. Same with knurling, put on some handles with shiny handles without knurling and you will lose a lot of closing power.