On Setting Grippers

[jad]

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?

I'm assuming you didn't close the #4 so the fact that you didn't set it is irrelevant. How would you know if you needed to set it if you can't close it anyway? If you did close it then congratulations .

The only proof I can offer you is that I can dominate my #3 with the old IM rules and can't close it under the new ones. The gripper is out towards my finger tips and my pinkie is pretty much useless with the new rules. If my hand was longer the gripper would be back in my old groove. I'm assuming you don't close grippers with your fingertips so next time you no-set a gripper look where the handle is on your fingers and imagine where it would be if your hand was shorter. Large handed men don't set very deep or not at all because they're already in position for maximum leverage and setting it might even be a disadvantage for them. If the previous statement is false and setting grippers really does change the strength not just the leverage, then go deep set that gripper that you're just missing with a no-set and you should close it easily since you'll have saved yourself all of that strength from the sweep. When I perform this experiment with the #3 it works for me because I have smaller hands and the set increases my leverage. I don't think it will make much of a difference for you with your larger hands because a set won't increase your leverage and may even hurt it depending on how big your hands are.

[bseedot]

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?

I think that part of the 'exaggeration' is due to a lack of practice and being comfortable with a no set. There is a big difference in what can be closed using a no-set vs. deep-set and I'm sure that we'd all like to believe that it's due to something other than our strength level.

As far as the mechanical advantage is often helps, when looking at questions like this, to use extreme examples. Take the guy with a hand 1" long. He has a mechanical disadvantage. Take the guy with a hand 12" long. He also has a mechanical disadvantage. Somewhere in between that lies a point of optimum mechanics. However, when we're talking about hands that are mostly between 7"-8" the mechanical advantages or disadvantages in that range may very well be so small that they may as well be non-existent.

BC.

[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

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.

Sorry i read it wrong yes i AGREE with you

[Rob Vigeant]

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?

I cant believe this is STILL going on

[John Wood]

I don't think it will make much of a difference for you with your larger hands because a set won't increase your leverage and may even hurt it depending on how big your hands are.

I'm going to go with BC on this one. Actually, you are increasing leverage quite a bit with the set, not only with mechanical advantage with the gripper itself bit also with respect to the leverage of the fingers themselves. This is why you can very easily hold a much greater weight in the closed position on a plate loaded grip machine than you can dynamically close.

Jad,

The only proof I can offer you is that I can dominate my #3 with the old IM rules and can't close it under the new ones. The gripper is out towards my finger tips and my pinkie is pretty much useless with the new rules.

My Pinkie doesnt reach the gripper either. The other fingers must be strong enough to close the gripper so that the pinkie can fit. The reason you can't close the #3 with the new rule is that you are not strong enough.

[jad]

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.

BC and Mac,

Yes, I lack the strength to no-set or credit card set my #3 but my #3 is still rated at 280lbs post credit card rule. The force required to close it has not gone up. So if I can close it under the old rules and not the new ones my strength hasn't gone down and the gripper poundage hasn't gone up so its just a matter of leverage or having the strength to overcome the leverage. I now understand what you are saying by comparing me against myself and it makes sense. Allowing one to set the gripper into thier groove levels the field for everyone, the no-set and this credit card garbage, puts grippers on the thickbar/wide-pinch page( great training tools but not a very accurate measure of strength).

[Rob Vigeant]

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?

If i could rep your max gripper for say 5-7 reps with a deep set and you can

only close it once with any set, would i not be stronger? now if you give me that same gripper and ask me to close it at 2 1/8'' spread and i can't because i can't get my fingers on it would you be stronger now?

[OldGuy]

No idea

[John Wood]

How are you measuring "strength?"

[OldGuy]

John you must have a very short pinkie for such a tall man?

[Clay Edgin]

My Pinkie doesnt reach the gripper either. The other fingers must be strong enough to close the gripper so that the pinkie can fit. The reason you can't close the #3 with the new rule is that you are not strong enough.

I think John has it right. If the leverage is poor, which is the case with any shallow or no-set squeeze, you will have to rely on strength to overcome it.

If I could toss my experience into the ring here, when I was training for the 4 I would sometimes use a very deep set so I would just have to crush the last 1/2" or so. I think this made my hands a lot stronger as I have been able to pull bigger numbers on the dyno. For me, the dyno means more than closing any gripper since there is no question about hand size, leverage, and the results of your squeeze are right there in numbers. But enough of my pro-dyno agenda As a quick point of reference, when I was strong enough to rep the 3 a couple times I pulled 100kg on a dyno. After working with a deep set on the 4 for a while, I pulled 116kg. Although I am not pursuing certification anymore, I am still working with the #4 on occasion so that I can increase my crushing strength and post higher dyno numbers.

Not working the entire sweep hasn't hurt my strength I don't think, but it did hurt my progress on getting certified when the new rule change. Working with such a deep set allowed me to spend a LOT of time fighting the hardest part of the gripper, so when it comes to no-setting an easier gripper I have the strength to overcome the poor leverage involved.

So, to sum up what is yet another long-winded post by me, I disagree that no set closes build better more strength and say that deep set closes build more strength.

[jad]

I'm going to go with BC on this one. Actually, you are increasing leverage quite a bit with the set, not only with mechanical advantage with the gripper itself bit also with respect to the leverage of the fingers themselves. This is why you can very easily hold a much greater weight in the closed position on a plate loaded grip machine than you can dynamically close.

Jad,

The only proof I can offer you is that I can dominate my #3 with the old IM rules and can't close it under the new ones. The gripper is out towards my finger tips and my pinkie is pretty much useless with the new rules.

My Pinkie doesnt reach the gripper either. The other fingers must be strong enough to close the gripper so that the pinkie can fit. The reason you can't close the #3 with the new rule is that you are not strong enough.

I was the one that said setting it DOES increase leverage, but not for large handed men because they are already in optimal position if they set they could get too deep. So are you saying someone with Pfister size hands wouldn't put themselves at a disadvantage by setting the gripper? Wade has spoken about how having extremely large hands can put you at a disadvantage with the grippers and I would think setting it would make it even worse. Wouldn't a large handed person be hurting themselves by setting because the gripper would be too close to the palm/towards the bottom of the fingers.

Performing a two finger close until I can wrap my other fingers is not my idea of closing a gripper, if I can't get all 4 fingers into position, then I should be allowed to set it. While your ability to do this is no doubt impressive I don't think these kind of finger acrobatics were in the spirit of the original challege of the grippers either.

[patrick]

So John do you consider yourself stronger than Heath and Nathan in crushing strength since you are better at no sets than they are? Just Asking.

[cjcocn]

In some ways you guys are right, but in others you are wrong.

YES leverage matters, but the credit card rule does not factor that in and YES does therefore favour certain hand sizes.

at the same time .....

YES a deep set matters and it too favours certain hand sizes.

Is it worth more bandwidth discussing who is right (or in my opinion who is more right or even less wrong)?

NOPE

Now, while it can be entertaining (or at least it was about two weeks ago) to read even more of the seemingly eternal diatrabe on hand sizes and their effects on closing grippers, let's step outside the IM box for a minute and look at what gripper closing would look like on a level playing field.

***********************************************

Assumption:

It takes just as much strength to start the close as it does to complete the close.

Why can one not close any gripper that they can start? Hand strength. At the end of a close the leverage factor decreases and it becomes closer to a pure strength movement near the close.

Why is it so easy to start the close? Leverage.

***********************************************

Now to level the playing field. Instead of just accepting either the old (deep set) or the new (2 1/8" set), why not look for something that is more readily applicable over the range of hand sizes that exist? Caveat: something that does not include or require a multitude of (for example) #3 grippers with different handle spans.

For instance, what if the "new set" was a set that allowed one to get their pinky finger fully on the gripper? For some that would mean a 2" set, for others the set would be 1.5" (these numbers were arbitrarily chosen, but illustrate my point nonetheless). At the same time, there could be a range within the pad of the hand within which the opposing gripper handle was allowed to rest.

From this point we would all start from the same place regardless of our hand sizes and if some have to travel further to a close then so be it. At the least it would eliminate leverage advantages or disadvantages as the case may be. Would this not return the act of closing a gripper to the most pure form of strength as it was originally intended?

Either way there are two generally acknowledged rules for closing the gripper, so unless someone comes up with a third and better rule then we should all just quit discussing it and work towards closing grippers.

I am going to work out now.

CJ

Edited March 24, 2004 by cjcocn

[John Wood]

I am good at what I do, they are good at what they do. It is impossible to compare since they are two different movements.

[OldGuy]

So John Wood tell us your hand measurements so we can see why your pinky cannot reach the gripper handle.

[Rob Vigeant]

I am good at what I do, they are good at what they do. It is impossible to compare since they are two different movements.

John i have a question? I have heard that you are very strong

at no setting. What i'm wondering is if you can't close the #4 with

the no set, can you close it with a deep set?

[jad]

How are you measuring "strength?"

For grippers: first we need to decide what is crushing strength? Max force at whatever distance you're comfortable with(deep set, dyno) or max force over a certain distance(no set shallow set). Different people are better at different things. My vote would be for the dyno as it seems the fairest and most objective.

Thickbar: use the fairbar concept

Wide Pinch: adopt a fairbar concept to this as well

[John Wood]

At the present time I am unable to close a 4 with or without a set.

[Rob Vigeant]

At the present time I am unable to close a 4 with or without a set.

Does a deep set help you get closer? I heard you were about a 1/4''

with no set.

[John Wood]

It might but I don't practice using a set.

[bseedot]

For instance, what if the "new set" was a set that allowed one to get their pinky finger fully on the gripper? For some that would mean a 2" set, for others the set would be 1.5" (these numbers were arbitrarily chosen, but illustrate my point nonetheless). At the same time, there could be a range within the pad of the hand within which the opposing gripper handle was allowed to rest.

From this point we would all start from the same place regardless of our hand sizes and if some have to travel further to a close then so be it. At the least it would eliminate leverage advantages or disadvantages as the case may be. Would this not return the act of closing a gripper to the most pure form of strength as it was originally intended?

I really like this. We'd have to define pinky finger fully on the gripper.

BC.

[Bill Piche]

I am good at what I do, they are good at what they do.  It is impossible to compare since they are two different movements.

This doesn't make sense based on your other statements. Although I do understand what you mean.

Unless you are saying you need to "get stronger" at the close and they need to just "get stronger" on the sweep.

See my other post below.

Edited March 25, 2004 by Wannagrip

[Bill Piche]

So John Wood tell us your hand measurements so we can see why your pinky cannot reach the gripper handle.

At what? 6'5" if John pulls one of these "I have average hand sizes" gigs I am closing this thread!

[Bill Piche]

I am good at what I do, they are good at what they do.  It is impossible to compare since they are two different movements.

This doesn't make sense based on your other statements. Although I do understand what you mean.

Unless you are saying you need to "get stronger" at the close and they need to just "get stronger" on the sweep.

Does everyone understand what John finally has come out and said here?

I don't normally do this, but what the hay:

Specificity of Skill

by Tim Swanger, Mike Bradley, & Steve Murray

Skill and exercise are two separate qualities. Each must be developed separately. To improve a skill you must practice that specific skill.

The motor learning experts now inform us that it's impossible to recreate the neuromuscular pattern used to perform a skill unless that specific skill is performed. As soon as you add resistance to a skill, it become exercise or a new skill. If you play golf regularly and borrow a friend's driver, you realize how the slightest change can affect skill.

Motor skills can be classified as either "Open" or "Closed". Athletic skills can be placed on a continuum having what are called "open" and "closed" categories. Open skills involve actions which take place in a temporarily and/or spatially changing environment. The initiation of an open skill can be a visual cue (e.g., a tennis player reacting to an opponent's serve), an auditory cue (e.g., an offensive lineman's reaction to the snap count), or some other external stimulus. Open skills are usually "forced-paced" in nature, due to the fact that the performer is required to respond to numerous types of feedback and must do so at times when he is "on the run".

"Closed" skills, on the other hand, usually take place in a stable, predictable environment. Closed skills also have clearly defined beginning and ending points, with feedback playing a minor role on the skill initiated. Bowling, golf, archery, and any type of weightlifting (including competitive weightlifting) are examples of closed skill activities. The execution of these skills is usually "self-paced" in that the performer initiates the movement when he/she is ready to do so. As you will see, it is important to distinguish between "open" and "closed" skills when designing training programs to teach these skills since skills are specific in nature.

The experts state that there are three types of skill transfer: positive, neutral, and negative. Positive transfer results from the practice of the specific skill. Whatever the skill (throwing a ball, catching a ball, pass protecting, rushing the passer), you must practice that specific skill to get better at it. Neutral transfer results in no transfer, good or bad. Playing tennis will not help you become a better foul shooter, but it won't hinder your skill either. Negative transfer can occur if you perform an exercise or skill similar to, but not identical to, the skill itself It can actually adversely affect your skill level itself It's impossible to improve the skills you use to play the game without practicing those specific skills. For this reason we don't try to imitate movements you perform on the field with exercises in the weight room. We don't advocate any of the plyometrics craze, running downhill, or any of the other wacko ideas we've all had.

Realize that skills are learned and they are rapidly forgotten. They must be performed regularly to be maintained. Why execute skills in the offseason that aren't performed regularly during the season if they are designed to help you play the game? It's really simple when you rely on the facts. Strengthen your muscles in the weight room, condition the cardiorespiratory and muscular system, and practice the specific skills you use to play the game.