On Setting Grippers

[bseedot]

With the improved technique used in gripper crushing we’ve seen, in just the past several months, Certification rules go from being entirely mute on handle distance at the start of the close to 1”, parallel, 2-1/8”, and no-set. I haven’t decided which I prefer and maybe I never will. Each has their advantages and disadvantages.

When looking at the rapidly growing variety of ‘set’ rules I think of a couple of things.

First, when there were no restrictions regarding how deeply a gripper could be set, part of the rapid influx of Certified COCs certainly has to be attributed to improved technique. With sets becoming deeper and deeper the range of motion decreased. Partial movements are almost always stronger than the full range of the same movement.

The issue for me is should this really be viewed as improved technique and accepted or should it be considered cutting corners? I guess that it could be somewhat analogous to the arch in the bench press. I’m willing to bet that when this technique was first mastered, and used, there were those who viewed it as a natural progression of technique and those who viewed it as cutting corners. [To clarify, I’m NOT talking about bench shirts or drug use so let’s not go there].

Where this analogy goes astray though is that the arch made the beginning of the bench press movement ‘easier’ by cutting out some range of motion from the hardest part of the lift. With grippers, the closer you get to completion of the attempt the harder it gets. So the improved gripper technique reduces the easiest portion of the lift, thereby saving energy and strength for the much needed end of the attempt.

Whether or not this analogy works for you isn’t my concern. The analogy may very well be six of one, half dozen of the other. My point is that the last portion of a gripper close is the most difficult and, for each specific gripper, the actual strength required to close it is not changed. What has happened is that we’ve developed our technique to such an extent that we have maximized on saving energy for the most difficult portion of the crush. Which brings me to my second thought.

Can setting a gripper so deeply in my hand, so much so that I’m only really closing the last 1/4”-1/2”, legitimately even be considered ‘crushing’ anymore? What am I really crushing? It seems that I’m doing little more than a ‘supporting’ hold.

From this viewpoint, Tetting’s proposed no-set rule and now IronMind’s new 2-1/8” rule (I can’t bring myself to say credit card rule) are as close to demonstrating true crushing strength as any Certification. And that’s the spirit of what closing grippers is supposed to demonstrate- crushing strength- the pressure you can apply from open hand to closed hand in one, fluid motion.

Then there’s the part of me that says, “who gives a rat’s ass!”. Close the gripper using any consistent, progressive manner and you’ll be getting stronger.

If you've actually read all of this there is no hope for you... you are a grip addict.

BC.

[Monte Cristo2]

...So the improved gripper technique reduces the easiest portion of the lift, thereby saving energy and strength for the much needed end of the attempt...

I think setting for small handed individuals is less a matter of energy saving than it is getting the gripper in a postion where they can exert maximum force safely. I have seen posts to the effect that while they can no set a lower gripper there is no way they

could do so with a higher one and not have a much higher risk of injury.

[tmmicklabs]

Fantastic post Brian.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

[John Wood]

You make many valid points BC.

The issue for me is should this really be viewed as improved technique and accepted or should it be considered cutting corners?

The solution to this question as I see it is to start awarding some sort of style points rating. A no-set close and a deep set close technically lead to the same outcome i.e. a clsoed gripper yet they are clearly miles apart as far as difficulty. This is never reflected anywhere.

Its like the guy who benches 400 pounds with a high arch and a wide grip and the guy who benches 400 with no arch and in a slow and controlled manner, yeah they both achieved the same poundage but not really.

Can setting a gripper so deeply in my hand, so much so that I’m only really closing the last 1/4”-1/2”, legitimately even be considered ‘crushing’ anymore?QUOTE]

I would say no. The leverage increase with a set allows for certainly a way to demonstrate strength more effectively. Why not allow a complete close so the handles touch with two hands and a hold with one and call that a close since you are holding back a specific force level ?

I dont really understand what you are trying to say Monte. I happen to believe that any hand size can no-set or minimally set a gripper. Getting stronger every workout , training hard and training smart are the keys.

[bseedot]

...So the improved gripper technique reduces the easiest portion of the lift, thereby saving energy and strength for the much needed end of the attempt...

I have seen posts to the effect that while they can no set a lower gripper there is no way they

could do so with a higher one and not have a much higher risk of injury.

I fully expected hand size to enter this conversation and if we're talking about no-set closes in particular then, yes, hand size becomes a factor. But what you're saying is that someone can close a weaker gripper with no-set but can't close a harder gripper with no-set. That simply means they are not strong enough yet to close the harder gripper. Of course they are more prone to injury if they're trying to do something that is well beyond their current capability.

BC.

[Bill Piche]

The interesting thing about the bench press analogy is that long-armed individuals are clearly at a disadvantage. Short armed guys have an advantage.

With the gripper, the larger handed person clearly has an advantage in the no-set verus the short fingered or smaller handed person.

If you don't believe this, watch Wade Gillingham's no set close versus Bob Lipinski's on video. Wade's "no set" due to his hand size allows near perfect hand positioning at the start compared to Bob's.

So, I guess there is always other sports!

[John Wood]

No matter what your natural leverage, the answer is to make up for it by just getting that much stronger.

Wade Gillingham told us that he could not no-set close the #3 that was used at the GNC grip gauntlet in Columbus and you know how big his hands are.

I was able to no-set that gripper easily even though my pinky was no where near reaching the handle.

Do I have stronger hands than Wade Gillingham?

While Wade is so far above me (and just about everyone else) in so many grip areas that its not even funny,relative to that gripper yes I do.

[The Mac]

Very nice post Brian.

Whilst I feel that I was responsible for shovelling my fair share of S**T over this issue, it definitely has "kindled" an interest in an area of grip that was previously closed to me, so for that I am definitely greatful.

I still don't understand why anyone who can close a trainer no-set has hands that are to small to close much harder grippers (normal gripper variances applying, of course) though.

[bseedot]

With the gripper, the larger handed person clearly has an advantage in the no-set verus the short fingered or smaller handed person.

I agree.

When I started thinking about all this I had to remove the hand size factor at first. I came up with the best way to demonstrate crushing strength with a gripper as being a no-set close. What fouls this idea up is handle spread and hand size variances. I don't think those things will ever fully be resolved to make a level playing field for everyone.

Consistent, persistent, serious training is the best way to overcome these hurdles.

BC.

[Bill Piche]

No matter what your natural leverage, the answer is to make up for it by just getting that much stronger.

I agree with this.

But, let's not make it sound like the equivalent of the analogy of saying a 5'9 guy can be playing power forward in the NBA by just practicing more.

It's just the facts of life. No training for the majority of people is going to offset nature.

Which is why I knew at some point I wouldn't be winning bench press contests when I competed in powerlifting.

[nagual]

Great post

However I find that I read alot of people compare setting the gripper to partials, or lockouts. I don't find this entirely accurate. The improved leverage when setting the gripper is due to better positioning of the gripper in the hand, and not simply because ROM is less. (Of course, you probably could perform better at partials in the bench for example, if you used optimal technique and positioning of the hands for the partial.) Oh... and to nitpick a bit more... the arch in the bench not only reduces ROM, but also lets you use more of the lower pecs and triceps in the bottom range, instead of the shoulders - which are weaker.

[Rocksurly]

The thing that makes the most difference to me being able to close a gripper with a parallel to 1 inch set verses a no set close is how i am able to place the gripper in my hand.

With the parallel to 1 inch set i am able to place the griper handle to middle crease in my hand and get much better leverage while using the no set rule i have to place the gripper way lower in my hand and be at a leverage disadvantage relative to the 1 inch set in middle hand crease.

So while i think the no set requires more sweep strenght etc i thing the leverage issue above makes the most difference.

[jad]

Very nice post Brian.

Whilst I feel that I was responsible for shovelling my fair share of S**T over this issue, it definitely has "kindled" an interest in an area of grip that was previously closed to me, so for that I am definitely greatful.

I still don't understand why anyone who can close a trainer no-set has hands that are to small to close much harder grippers (normal gripper variances applying, of course) though.

It's called leverage. Smaller handed individuals don't have anywhere near the leverage without a deep set. Larger handed individuals can get the leverage from a much shallower set making them APPEAR to be stronger. So while a small handed person can overcome the leverage disadvantage on a trainer, a #3 is a whole different ball game. When you let both individuals set it to their preference, within reason, they both have equal leverage and then watch what happens. If style points were to be awarded then the smaller handed individuals should recieve a bunch anytime they perform a no-set or credit card close. When a man with 8.5 inch hands and a man with 7.5 inch hands both no set close a gripper it's not even close to the same leverage or feat.

[The Mac]

jad,

I've been thinking about how to respond to your post without ruining this thread by shovelling more S**T in the hand size area and have found that I cannot.

[jad]

The Mac,

I wasn't aware this was handsize free thread, if so then my appologies. I just don't understand how anyone can talk about set depth and not discuss handsize.

[The Mac]

OK.

I don't see handsize as a problem (although it is, of course). I'm 5'11 and I don't want to play in the NBA.

I didn't want this thread (or my post in it at any rate) to be used to go back and start re-hashing this whole issue which to be hionest must be boring the pants off of everyone by now.

[jad]

Fair enough.

[Tom of Iowa2]

The solution to this question as I see it is to start awarding some sort of style points rating. A no-set close and a deep set close technically lead to the same outcome i.e. a clsoed gripper yet they are clearly miles apart as far as difficulty. This is never reflected anywhere.

Exactly.

Very logical.

Water under the bridge.The 'new rule'is in place but with the current COC list and for future COC's? all they had to do was put an asterisk by those that had the ability to close 'no set'....those that couldn't or can't in the future....don't get the asterisk.

The 'can't say it cause it makes me giggle',2 1/8" rule could have been avoided.

Insignificant to the casual observer but grip geeks would understand what the asterisk meant.

[bseedot]

Damn... I wanted the scope of this thread to be bigger than the hand size issue. I was thinking about crushing in general, not crushing when taking x, y, and z into account. We can't objectively discuss the micro if we haven't first even thought about the macro. But let me lay out this scenario: A small-handed person owns a #T and a #3. Both grippers have the same exact handle spread. This person can no-set close the #T but not the #3. How is it a leverage disadvantage on the #3, but not on the #T?

In general, leverage and ROM are closely related, at least for grippers. The increased leverage is usually achieved by decreasing the range of motion. In my experience, the more the ROM is decreased in grippers, the more it signifies that off-hand strength is being used to create that decreased ROM. The more strength being used in the set by the off-hand, the more strength is reserved in the gripper hand for the end of the close.

Anyway, ignoring hand size for the moment and getting back to the larger picture, does anyone disagree that a no-set close better demonstrates crushing strength than does a deep-set close?

BC.

[Rocksurly]

I would say the only way to find out would be to put both groups of people on a Dynamometer and see who wins.

[Rob Vigeant]

Anyway, ignoring hand size for the moment and getting back to the larger picture, does anyone disagree that a no-set close better demonstrates crushing strength than does a deep-set close?

BC.

Yes

[jad]

Damn... I wanted the scope of this thread to be bigger than the hand size issue. I was thinking about crushing in general, not crushing when taking x, y, and z into account. We can't objectively discuss the micro if we haven't first even thought about the macro. But let me lay out this scenario: A small-handed person owns a #T and a #3. Both grippers have the same exact handle spread. This person can no-set close the #T but not the #3. How is it a leverage disadvantage on the #3, but not on the #T?

In general, leverage and ROM are closely related, at least for grippers. The increased leverage is usually achieved by decreasing the range of motion. In my experience, the more the ROM is decreased in grippers, the more it signifies that off-hand strength is being used to create that decreased ROM. The more strength being used in the set by the off-hand, the more strength is reserved in the gripper hand for the end of the close.

Anyway, ignoring hand size for the moment and getting back to the larger picture, does anyone disagree that a no-set close better demonstrates crushing strength than does a deep-set close?

BC.

Maybe I'm alone but I feel I have maximum leverage just below the first line of my middle finger(from the top). This is what I use as a reference when setting my grippers. When I attempt the no set or new IM rule the gripper is much closer to my fingertips and my pinkie is all but useless. Now on a trainer I can overcome this leverage disadvantage , its still a disadvantage but I can overcome it due to the 100 lb rating but not on a #3. A larger handed man would have the gripper much closer to the first line and not so much on their finger tips and would get a lot more out of the pinkie. That is the different leverages I'm talking about.

The ROM is decreased for sure but it's not like a 1/4 squat, the gripper only gets harder towards the close. Sure I think a no set takes a little power away from your close but I don't believe that I can't no set or shallow set certain grippers because my hand is too tired from performing the sweep to complete the close, I think its a leverage issue. The whole motion takes maybe 1 second, I don't think hand fatigue is an issue. Let's say that the offhand sets the gripper to 1 inch from close thus saving the closing hand from 200 lbs of sweep, well as soon as the offhand is removed the closing hand must immediately deal with 200lbs or the gripper flys open, so its not like the closing hand is getting off easy its just in a better position to deal with the poundage.

As far as your question on no set vs deep set closes and which better demonstrates crushing strength: As I stated in an earlier post on a different thread, I think we need to clearly define what crush is. Is it the maxium force you can exert at a distance of your choosing(deep sets) or is it the maximum force you can exert over approximately 2 7/8"(no set) or is it something else all together? For example, If John Wood, who from what I hear is the all-time king of no-set closes, can no set close a gripper that Nathan Holle can't but Nathan can close a #4 and John can't, who is the better crusher? You could also substitute a higher dyno reading for Nathan using the same scenario and ask the same question.

[RSW]

Long fingers with a narrow palm would be most advantageous.

Long fingers help you reach the handle, and the narrow palm gives you better leverage on the handle.

[OldGuy]

Rob Vigeant was kind enough to loan me a #4 gripper that has handles 5 1/2'' long and therefore a very wide spread. I do not need to set it, nor does my son who has far smaller hands. If the handles were another 1'' wider I would still not need to set it. I think that either some people have minutely small hands, or are exaggerating their need to deep set grippers. I would like to see proof that larger hands have a mechanical advantage when it comes to closing a gripper. Is being able to not have to set also a mechanical aid in then closing the gripper?

[bseedot]

Anyway, ignoring hand size for the moment and getting back to the larger picture, does anyone disagree that a no-set close better demonstrates crushing strength than does a deep-set close?

BC.

Yes

How so, Rob?

"Now on a trainer I can overcome this leverage disadvantage , its still a disadvantage but I can overcome it due to the 100 lb rating but not on a #3. A larger handed man would have the gripper much closer to the first line and not so much on their finger tips and would get a lot more out of the pinkie. That is the different leverages I'm talking about."

I understand what you're saying now, Jad and I agree that there can be a leverage disadvantage for someone when we're compared against another person. What Mac and I were mentioning (correct me if I'm wrong Mac) was that if you can no-set close a T but not a 3 (and both grippers have the same handle spread), your failure to close the 3 is not because of a leverage disadvantage (since you can close a weaker gripper with the same handle spread), it's because you're not currently strong enough to do it. We're comparing you against yourself in this example, not against someone else.

Now my head hurts...

BC.