80mm CoC #3 153rgc

[martincerven]

1 minute ago, C8Myotome said:

No I'm going past what we talked about and probably into unnecessary territory, there is much more to difficulty than just rgc and just spread...with those factors the same an 18 or 20 mm handle will have a difference in difficulty depending on what people are better at.

There are people way stronger than me that cannot close a double-filed coc 3 like I can because they cannot close as deep as I can..I'm just saying if you really wanted to describe WHERE in space and time the difficulty of each gripper comes from then the handle width of both handles and the final close position is very important

Just for an obnoxious example, something that is only 100 rgc that had 25 mm handles would be super difficult because you would be holding 50 mm at the final close which is quite wide

Just focusing on internal handle spread and rgc ignores all these factors

But I agree if your job is just to sell grippers or rated grippers then this is going way into the deep end of information...but are still factors that exist and are important 

Sure that is a thing, but that is not math or physics related as you cannot quantify it   if you have small 6in hands and 8in hands, the handle width will feel more easy or difficult depending on each person, also knurling etc. But even when filled, it has an RGC and spread so total work to close can be calculated. 

[Scottex92]

1 hour ago, C8Myotome said:

No I'm going past what we talked about and probably into unnecessary territory, there is much more to difficulty than just rgc and just spread...with those factors the same an 18 or 20 mm handle will have a difference in difficulty depending on what people are better at.

There are people way stronger than me that cannot close a double-filed coc 3 like I can because they cannot close as deep as I can..I'm just saying if you really wanted to describe WHERE in space and time the difficulty of each gripper comes from then the handle width of both handles and the final close position is very important

Just for an obnoxious example, something that is only 100 rgc that had 25 mm handles would be super difficult because you would be holding 50 mm at the final close which is quite wide

Just focusing on internal handle spread and rgc ignores all these factors

But I agree if your job is just to sell grippers or rated grippers then this is going way into the deep end of information...but are still factors that exist and are important 

how is it harder to close a gripper with 50mm total width at close than one with 30mm?

it should be like a partial or a box squat right?

sorry if I skipped some post where you explained this

Edited October 18, 2023 by Scottex92

[C8Myotome]

37 minutes ago, Scottex92 said:

how is it harder to close a gripper with 50mm total width at close than one with 30mm?

it should be like a partial or a box squat right?

sorry if I skipped some post where you explained this

Because if spread distance is the same for example 75 mm and you just keep increasing the diameter of the handles, (we normally use 19 mm) and obviously nobody uses 25 mm handles except for maybe some of the not as good crush machines, doing your entire crush in a more and more open-handed position is going to be more difficult, at some point the handles will be too thick to even hold them

2 19 mm handles of 38 mm width total seems like a good average that works for everybody, i am just making points that once we start to go much less than that, or much more than that (robert baraban etc) is where these mechanics will now only cater to a specific population with favorable anatomy towards the dimensions of said gripper

Uh to compare to a box squat....if the box was taller than your hip height, how will you ever sit on it? That doesn't really make sense but box squats aren't really what we're talking about here

Yes the actual poundage required (rgc alone) might be the "same" on paper to close an 18 mm handle gripper and a 20 mm handle gripper, but there are obvious differences in the difficulty of grippers with the same interior handle spread and the same rgc value on paper because of the different starting and finishing actual hand position, when different handle diameters and/or filing is combined into the equation...I guess people can choose to ignore that if they really want to

You can also just ignore the math and say "yeah this one has x handle or is y amount filed" and let people figure it out for themselves too.

But if we can graph the RGC increase from 75 mm spread to 0 mm spread, then we can also graph the same RGC increase from 113 mm to 38 mm to show the actual hand position change required

The first graph only accounts for what is happening between the handles and nothing outside the handles.

Tracking the hand position change required to close a gripper tells you a lot more about the human-level difficulty of closing the gripper, rather than just poundage required to get the inside of the handles to touch.

"0 mm" at full closed is totally different depending on gripper brand and amount of filing. The earlier graphs posted don't reflect that

Similarly, an 80 mm spread means a lot of different things when this 80 mm could be followed by different handle thicknesses that will result in a different start to finish close position. Was the 80 mm travel from really wide to a moderate position, or from a moderate position to a really deep position? See, not all 80 mm spreads are the same.

We are not pulling the inside of the handles together so it seems silly to only track what's going on to get the inside of the handles to touch.

Whether RGC or by hand, we apply force to the outside of the handles only, to get the outside of each handle closer to each other, until the inside of each handle touches, so it would make more sense to track the outside of each handle as reference points, since this is where force is being applied on both sides.

This is definitely quantifiable, but if you don't care about this information then it doesn't matter. But it is interesting if you are interested in how grippers vary on a deeper level. I pay attention to this stuff and my training is going quite well.

Edited October 18, 2023 by C8Myotome

[Scottex92]

20 minutes ago, C8Myotome said:

Because if spread distance is the same for example 75 mm and you just keep increasing the diameter of the handles, (we normally use 19 mm) and obviously nobody uses 25 mm handles except for maybe some of the not as good crush machines, doing your entire crush in a more and more open-handed position is going to be more difficult, at some point the handles will be too thick to even hold them

2 19 mm handles of 38 mm width total seems like a good average that works for everybody, i am just making points that once we start to go much less than that, or much more than that (robert baraban etc) is where these mechanics will now only cater to a specific population with favorable anatomy towards the dimensions of said gripper

Uh to compare to a box squat....if the box was taller than your hip height, how will you ever sit on it? That doesn't really make sense but box squats aren't really what we're talking about here

Yes the actual poundage required (rgc alone) might be the "same" on paper to close an 18 mm handle gripper and a 20 mm handle gripper, but there are obvious differences in the difficulty of grippers with the same interior handle spread and the same rgc value on paper because of the different starting and finishing actual hand position, when different handle diameters and/or filing is combined into the equation...I guess people can choose to ignore that if they really want to

You can also just ignore the math and say "yeah this one has x handle or is y amount filed" and let people figure it out for themselves too.

how easy would it be if only 19mm handles grippers existed haha

my point about the box squats is that with 20mm handles you are stopping the crush 2mm earlier and in doing so it could be considered a partial BUT it does not account for the 2mm extra of outside spread (which could make the start harder)

this could be implemented into training and treat 20mm handle grippers as a trainer for a weak start or weak set and 18mm as kind of a filled gripper to do beyond the range training

[C8Myotome]

10 minutes ago, Scottex92 said:

how easy would it be if only 19mm handles grippers existed haha

my point about the box squats is that with 20mm handles you are stopping the crush 2mm earlier and in doing so it could be considered a partial BUT it does not account for the 2mm extra of outside spread (which could make the start harder)

this could be implemented into training and treat 20mm handle grippers as a trainer for a weak start or weak set and 18mm as kind of a filled gripper to do beyond the range training

Well if only 19 mm handles existed and nobody filed a gripper ever, then you're correct, spread and RGC would be the only differences to account for

At this point I probably own more filed grippers than regular grippers and use them regularly so these differences are very clear to me...i.e. how different 170ish feels on CoC, on grip genie, on a lighter gripper filed into 170, on a gripper bumped to 170 etc..

But even when you talk about 20 mm handles resulting in a crush that stops sooner (you are correct) you are still not accounting for a wider start position, for any set size...a 38 mm block in between 20 mm handles requires a wider hand position to start, than a 38 mm block in between 19 mm handles which I would think would be obvious.

I don't consider 18 mm handles equivalent to filing at all. It's only 2 mm deeper, but the 18 mm handles also allow you to start in a more closed-hand position as well, which can then offset really any added difficulty you thought that you had by going 2 mm deeper.

The only way to truly get the benefit of "filed" while keeping the starting position the same is to do just that, keep the starting position the same and use the same size handles you would normally use. Otherwise you are just making the starting position easier, to trick yourself into thinking you are really getting that much more difficult of an ending position. Otherwise you are changing 2 things at a time, when you only meant to change 1 thing.

The fact that grip genie tries to sell 18 mm handle grippers as being superior because they close deeper is laughable when you can just take a normal gripper and file it much deeper and get a better result, while not compromising the start position to make it a million times easier

Edited October 18, 2023 by C8Myotome

[Scottex92]

3 minutes ago, C8Myotome said:

Well if only 19 mm handles existed and nobody filed a gripper ever, then you're correct, spread and RGC would be the only differences to account for

At this point I probably own more filed grippers than regular grippers and use them regularly so these differences are very clear to me...i.e. how different 170ish feels on CoC, on grip genie, on a lighter gripper filed into 170, on a gripper bumped to 170 etc..

But even when you talk about 20 mm handles resulting in a crush that stops sooner (you are correct) you are still not accounting for a wider start position, for any set size...a 38 mm block in between 20 mm handles requires a wider hand position to start, than a 38 mm block in between 19 mm handles which I would think would be obvious.

I don't consider 18 mm handles equivalent to filing at all. It's only 2 mm deeper, but the 18 mm handles also allow you to start in a more closed-hand position as well, which can then offset really any added difficulty you thought that you had by going 2 mm deeper.

The only way to truly get the benefit of "filed" while keeping the starting position the same is to do just that, keep the starting position the same and use the same size handles you would normally use. Otherwise you are just making the starting position easier, to trick yourself into thinking you are really getting that much more difficult of an ending position. Otherwise you are changing 2 things at a time, when you only meant to change 1 thing.

The fact that grip genie tries to sell 18 mm handle grippers as being superior because they close deeper is laughable when you can just take a normal gripper and file it much deeper and get a better result 

maybe extreme filing (double filing even) 18mm grippers could be a solution to give them usability?

but then closing may be imposible because the anatomy of the hand

[C8Myotome]

Just now, Scottex92 said:

maybe extreme filing (double filing even) 18mm grippers could be a solution to give them usability?

but then closing may be imposible because the anatomy of the hand

No the issue with 18 mm grippers is the start position is so much easier...again, a 38 mm block between 18 mm handles is a narrower and easier start position than a 38 mm block between 19 or 20 mm handles. I'm not calling them useless completely but it is definitely a major drawback

I actually have a grip genie 5 filed almost 5 mm and have closed it, it's not impossible but the skinny handle size can be uncomfortable because of less surface area, all the force is distributed into a smaller area of your hand

Grip genie acting like 18 mm grippers are better for a deeper close is like saying to train for a 100 m race by running 125 mm, but starting at the 50 m line.

[Scottex92]

9 minutes ago, C8Myotome said:

No the issue with 18 mm grippers is the start position is so much easier...again, a 38 mm block between 18 mm handles is a narrower and easier start position than a 38 mm block between 19 or 20 mm handles. I'm not calling them useless completely but it is definitely a major drawback

now I get it, even if you file super deep 38mm block will be 2mm deeper on the outside for 18mm handles

[Cannon]

87 mm old single-stamped Trainer. This is wiiiiiide. Maintained the width after reps. 

[Jared P]

2 hours ago, Cannon said:

87 mm old single-stamped Trainer. This is wiiiiiide. Maintained the width after reps. 

Is that the widest gripper you've come across?

[Anemptybox]

That's crazy spread for a Trainer. IIRC, Nathan H wrote/said he's got an old No. 4 with 89 mm spread, that seems pretty wide to me but I'm not sure how other No. 4 compares. I wonder what the widest 4 measure.

[Cannon]

5 hours ago, Jared P said:

Is that the widest gripper you've come across?

It has to be one of them yes. 

[Cannon]

3 hours ago, Anemptybox said:

That's crazy spread for a Trainer. IIRC, Nathan H wrote/said he's got an old No. 4 with 89 mm spread, that seems pretty wide to me but I'm not sure how other No. 4 compares. I wonder what the widest 4 measure.

That is INSANELY wide. Like, defective. 

[Jermiah Merciconah]

5 hours ago, Anemptybox said:

That's crazy spread for a Trainer. IIRC, Nathan H wrote/said he's got an old No. 4 with 89 mm spread, that seems pretty wide to me but I'm not sure how other No. 4 compares. I wonder what the widest 4 measure.

Yeah definitely good luck trying to credit card set that mf

[Mashmonster268]

That is crazy wide!