A little emotional but sincere about Tiziano, Carl and trust and respect in our inner circle

[Cannon]

16 minutes ago, Londonjoseph said:

Having in person witness was a HUGE part of the certification process ironmind had. They only changed that when the pandemic hit. If there was no pandemic, judges would still be a requirement

It's a fair point. You're probably right about this.   

[Jared P]

1 minute ago, Londonjoseph said:

Again, like I said earlier in this thread, I'm not saying he isn't legitimate. 

 

I'm just saying video only isn't proof. 

That's fair.

But I'd surmise that enough safeguards could be put in place to guarantee the authenticity of a video certification, so much so that perfectly manipulating a video or gripper itself without detection would become next to impossible.

[Cannon]

8 minutes ago, Londonjoseph said:

Again, like I said earlier in this thread, I'm not saying he isn't legitimate. 

 

I'm just saying video only isn't proof. 

I do feel like you have been clear about that. I thought you were making commentary on Tiziano, but really your point is more like "video ain't all that." It's just one piece but is better when supported by other things as well. Right?   

[Londonjoseph]

4 minutes ago, Cannon said:

I do feel like you have been clear about that. I thought you were making commentary on Tiziano, but really your point is more like "video ain't all that." It's just one piece but is better when supported by other things as well. Right?   

Video is just one piece. When supported by competition results, in person witnesses, etc, it really becomes whole. 

[Jared P]

5 minutes ago, Londonjoseph said:

Video is just one piece. When supported by competition results, in person witnesses, etc, it really becomes whole. 

Would each certification and close need a corresponding in-person witness to it in your opinion to be validated, or would it be a one-time thing? For instance, with Carl, who already has support of in-person witnesses and competition results.

[Mashmonster268]

17 hours ago, Jared P said:

Would each certification and close need a corresponding in-person witness to it in your opinion to be validated, or would it be a one-time thing? For instance, with Carl, who already has support of in-person witnesses and competition results.

I know you're not asking me, but I wanted to respond anyway.  I'm not saying he's a fraud for not having witnesses.  Just that it looks a bit sketchy, IMO.  The guy has $200K worth of grippers and grip equipment (exaggeration, maybe slightly), but does not meet up with other well known gripper guys.  Or take @Alawadhi up on his insanely cool offer to travel and then get compensated for it after basically proving his strength.  I can say that Alawadhi is one of the last people on this earth I'd try to fool with a strength feat or strength ability.  So maybe that says something...or maybe not.

 

[Jared P]

2 minutes ago, Mashmonster268 said:

I know you're not asking me, but I wanted to respond anyway.  I'm not saying he's a fraud for not having witnesses.  Just that it looks a bit sketchy, IMO.  The guy has $200K worth of grippers and grip equipment (exaggeration, maybe slightly), but does not meet up with other well known gripper guys.  Or take @Alawadhi up on his insanely cool offer to travel and then get compensated for it after basically proving his strength.  I can say that Alawadhi is one of the last people on this earth I'd try to fool with a strength feat or strength ability.  So maybe that says something...or maybe not.

 

With my question, I was more asking about future of certifications in general and how we establish trust going forward, rather than about a specific person. With Carl, or Ivan, for instance, or any other respected person here - would they need a judge or witness present at each certification, or just once to establish trust?

[Londonjoseph]

41 minutes ago, Jared P said:

With my question, I was more asking about future of certifications in general and how we establish trust going forward, rather than about a specific person. With Carl, or Ivan, for instance, or any other respected person here - would they need a judge or witness present at each certification, or just once to establish trust?

It should be of note, both have been to competitions, and both have performed closes in front of legit witnesses 

[Londonjoseph]

Disregard my earlier comment, it doesn't answer exactly what you were just asking 

[Mashmonster268]

2 hours ago, Jared P said:

With my question, I was more asking about future of certifications in general and how we establish trust going forward, rather than about a specific person. With Carl, or Ivan, for instance, or any other respected person here - would they need a judge or witness present at each certification, or just once to establish trust?

That is a good question.  Respected person I feel would need one at least COC #3 level cert feat witness.  Then, after that, video would be fine IMO.  

[Jared P]

4 hours ago, Mashmonster268 said:

That is a good question.  Respected person I feel would need one at least COC #3 level cert feat witness.  Then, after that, video would be fine IMO.  

Perhaps that is a possible safeguard for a future Mash Monster or equivalent certification. As an example, the first certification a person attempts above a certain threshold - say 160 or 190 lbs rgc - would require a qualified judge or witness present, among other factors, before said certification is validated. Then, subsequent certifications from that same person at higher levels wouldn't require a judge, so long as trustworthiness has been established, but still could be requested at the organizers' discretion.

[Cannon]

6 minutes ago, Jared P said:

Perhaps that is a possible safeguard for a future Mash Monster or equivalent certification. As an example, the first certification a person attempts above a certain threshold - say 160 or 190 lbs rgc - would require a qualified judge or witness present, among other factors, before said certification is validated. Then, subsequent certifications from that same person at higher levels wouldn't require a judge, so long as trustworthiness has been established, but still could be requested at the organizers' discretion.

We will be doing video. But the gripper comes back and can be scrutinized. If people can trick us with video editing or AI or whatever, they will be on the list. There will be certain safeguards. But I’d rather do a parallel zoom call than deal with organizing witnesses.