JeffPeterson Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 People will have to do the MM1 before they are even allowed to try the MM2 right. So someone like Nathan Holle will have to work his way up right not just skip to the hardest one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Piche Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 You bet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffPeterson Posted February 4, 2004 Author Share Posted February 4, 2004 That's a wise way to do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngun Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 The reason why it is necessary to certify on a MM 1 in order to certify on a MM 2 or higher seems to elude me. To me it just seems a little odd for a guy like Clay to certify on a MM 1 when, considering his recent close of a #4, even a MM 2 would be a piece of cake for him. I guess climbing up the MM pyramid makes the top closes more legit, but why? It's practically impossible to fake a MM cert, so why can't someone skip to their current level of crushing instead of dinking around with grippers that they can rep or do strap holds with? I'm not trying to argue, I'm just looking for an honest explanation. Maybe I'm just a little dense...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffPeterson Posted February 20, 2004 Author Share Posted February 20, 2004 I like this way because everyone has then shut the exact same grippers to get to the higher levels of the pyramid. You're definatly right that Clay could jump a couple of levels right off the bat. I guess I just like it because then no one gets special treatment. I don't know if this is exactly why Bill does it this way, but I would do it this way too. On a sidenote you should get in on this thing, I know for a fact based on my grippers that you've closed you're good for the MM2. Good luck with training. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Piche Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 Everyone is on the same playing field. This is not a given thing even for COC's. For example, there has been two misses already. And, as Rick points out, it's not some easy thing even at the MMG1 level. Plus, no one gets special treatment as Jeff points out. You have to PAY your dues. I think the MMG2 is going to start separating the pack pretty quickly. Also... An analogy for you. The current 100 meter World Record holder. Should they just get an automatic berth in the finals of the World Championships or Olympics? No, they don't. They have to qualify first at their Nationals with heats and a final and then the same in the World's or Olympics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Van Weele Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 I think starting from the bottom is a good way of doing it. People should not get to go too whatever level they want on pure speculation. Although I see what your saying Jeese. There are a few guys on the list that could probably close a MM3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clay Edgin Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 While I think I can close the MM1 and MM2, I still like playing the game like this, even if it means I only close a MM gripper once every 3-4 months due to scheduling. I'm in no hurry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngun Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 (edited) I guess I always thought contests were set up that way to make sure that the best competitors were at the competition. Taking your analogy farther and comparing it to the MM certification, each of the sprinters would run their race independently, on their chosen field, at their chosen date, and would report back with irrefutable proof of their times to determine the winner. The only way someone misses out on their chance to compete with the MMs is if there is an instance where there aren't enough grippers to go around in the allotted time, and I hadn't thought of that because it hasn't happened yet. If there was a scheduling conflict then I could see where the person who had already certified on a lower level should get the advantage. They've proven what level they're at and the other person's level is based on their word or proven demonstration on a known but uncertified gripper. But as long as it isn't creating a problem, and as long as the person feels confident they are at that level (because most people aren't going to get everything set up if they don't think they can do it), then I don't see a problem with letting a person save some time and money. A person who has closed the MM 1 is at the same risk of failing as a person who hasn't but knows what to expect from an MM 2 and feels that they are up to it. It wouldn't be special treatment if everyone had the option. Paying your dues comes in training and that is verified by the outcome of your certification, not by closing a weaker gripper. I'm probably just being impatient, but it would take a lot longer to sort out who's the best if we had to wait for a guy to certify on 4 or 5 MMs before he could have a chance at being the best, when he could just save months of waiting and many meetings, by just going up to his true playing field. I just think that as long as nobody is missing out on an opportunity it doesn't really matter. I'm not trying to be a pain, but sometimes I don't feel like wasting the freedoms and privileges that living in a democracy brings. Edited February 20, 2004 by youngun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clay Edgin Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 Bill, besides Pat, who was the other person who missed the MM? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Piche Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 Bill, besides Pat, who was the other person who missed the MM? Clay: Rob W Both had the same exact name of course so it was not as well advertised specifically. Jesse: " but knows what to expect from an MM 2" And, there's the kicker. They won't necessarily know. They won't have their own gripper to certify with. I doubt we'll have to go much higher than 3-5 levels. Most will drop out at the MM2. Many with the exception of few at MM 3. And, finally MM 4. Yes, it's by coincidence it's probably going to shake out at 4-5 levels. Besides, what guy in their right mind is going to NOT go thru all levels at what the prizes are now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Van Weele Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 Bill I don't mean to sound like a smart ass but they have different names. Rob W. was the one who closed it and Rob F. was the one who missed it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AP Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 yeah but I thought their screen names where the same? Anyway, I would be in favor of anyone that has certified as having closed a #4 being given a pass to try the MM2. At that point (if they succeed on the MM2) they could get the shirt and be given credit for the MM1. I think the MM2 is a good point because even with gripper variability, any #4 out there is still harder than the MM1 - I believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffPeterson Posted February 20, 2004 Author Share Posted February 20, 2004 So Rob F. didn't take an official attempt at it then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Piche Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 So Rob F. didn't take an official attempt at it then. Yes he did. I guess it was my fault it was not advertised properly. It was weird because Rob F sorta talks for Rob W since Rob W doesn't have a computer. Plus, they have the same name except the middle initial. So, it was an official attempt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffPeterson Posted February 20, 2004 Author Share Posted February 20, 2004 Thanks for clearing that up Bill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikael Siversson Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 (edited) On the required video, it would perhaps be a good rule to require a good view of the set depth. Setting a gripper beyond an inch or even beyond parallell is common practise and makes the closing far easier for many. It is pointless (well almost) having a rule (not to go beyond one inch) if it is not enforced or rather visibly (by all of us) enforced. I can close considerably harder grippers if I set them beyond an inch or beyond parallell (especially with my left hand). Some of you guys who can close very hard grippers with a very deep set may not be able to do so with a set wider than parallell or especially one inch. We know Heath can close hard grippers according to the rules because he did it clearly in view of the camera. In some video photages the aiding hand blocks the view of the set depth completely, after which we are presented by an already closed gripper or, at best, we can see the last 1/4'' or so of the close. Edited February 21, 2004 by Mikael Siversson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jad Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 On the required video, it would perhaps be a good rule to require a good view of the set depth. Setting a gripper beyond an inch or even beyond parallell is common practise and makes the closing far easier for many. It is pointless (well almost) having a rule (not to go beyond one inch) if it is not enforced or rather visibly (by all of us) enforced. I can close considerably harder grippers if I set them beyond an inch or beyond parallell (especially with my left hand). Some of you guys who can close very hard grippers with a very deep set may not be able to do so with a set wider than parallell or especially one inch. We know Heath can close hard grippers according to the rules because he did it clearly in view of the camera. In some video photages the aiding hand blocks the view of the set depth completely, after which we are presented by an already closed gripper or, at best, we can see the last 1/4'' or so of the close. 4. The gripper can be set with the opposite hand - but not to closer than 1 inch between the handles. The setting hand must be clearly removed for the witness to observe the close. No "hocus pocus" allowed which means turning the body away from the witness or bending over to hide the gripping hand. You are allowed to set it past an inch per the rules but the last inch has to be visible. In other words if the gripper has a 3 inch spread you can push the handles in 2 inches and still be legal. Maybe I misunderstood your post, if so then my appologies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikael Siversson Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 Have a look at the MM videos or any video of a gripper being closed and determine the percentage of these video photages in which you can clearly see at least one inch of un-aided (by the the non-gripper closing hand) close. In a large percentage of the photages the set seem to be either beyond an inch or totally blocked by the aiding hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGuy Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 It seems to me that setting is being abused. It is being used to help make closing a gripper easier, and not just to poestion it in the hand prior to closing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Van Weele Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 It seems to me that setting is being abused. It is being used to help make closing a gripper easier, and not just to poestion it in the hand prior to closing. Don't worry OldGuy. Warren Tetting is coming out with a cert where no set of chalk is aloud. The grippers spread will be according your hand size to make it fair to those who have a smaller hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGuy Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 Now we are talking! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Piche Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 It seems to me that setting is being abused. It is being used to help make closing a gripper easier, and not just to poestion it in the hand prior to closing. Don't worry OldGuy. Warren Tetting is coming out with a cert where no set of chalk is aloud. The grippers spread will be according your hand size to make it fair to those who have a smaller hand. So, how is this going to happen? Even just a little bit of distance can give someone an advantage closing in a no set fashion. How much can the fingers be wrapped? How much can one wiggle the gripper into place? And, probably more.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Van Weele Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 You can do what you want with one hand. The above post should read "where no set or chalk is aloud." It just has to be one handed all the way. Picked up and closed all with the use of one hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patrick Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 If people with say hands at 7inches to 73/4 inches all have to use a gripper at 2 1/2 inch spread that would still be unfair for the person with the larger hand. That little bit of a difference can be huge. Unless he plans on making a gripper for every 1/4 inch in hand size. 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.