I'm not going to lie, I'm skeptical. We don't use any of these "named" techniques for fitting, just go with a standard static centerline for a basis. We have an exceptional understanding of the hand and of the concept of how it needs to be fit. There's always going to be a "better way," but when is it better and when is it just different? Here is my major issue with paying 200 dollars for a fitting technique: it requires no special or additional tools for drilling on a regular mill. That means it can be copied. It also means there is a way to mathematically calculate a conversion from ANY fitting procedure to a standard static centerline drill. An example (after doing calculations) is a conversion from a CLT (centerline transfer). Say you have a 10 degree CLT in the fingers, and your lateral pitches are 1/2 both ways, or .500 in decimal. This converts to a barely rounded .455 lateral, .045 forward pitch in the fingers for a standard static centerline drill. Same fit, different numbers. (If you're curious about the calculation, message me)

Here's the important part, given a drill sheet with numbers only and not knowing the drilling procedure, you will NOT be able to duplicate a fit. 1/2 left in the left finger of a CLT is not the same as 1/2 left in the left finger of a static centerline, as discussed above. However, given a drilled ball to copy, you can duplicate ANY fit that has been drilled on a regular mill.

I'm not trying to be ignorant, and I'm not trying to be cheap . . but just because you spend money on a new "hot" procedure or technique doesn't mean you're suddenly on the cutting edge of technology and everyone else doesn't know what they're talking about. Just like when people got all excited about the CLT, we barely blinked because it's just a different technique to do the exact same thing we were already doing. If the tri-grip is no more than a way to standardize something and really show how to properly fit people, great. I'm just not convinced it's revolutionary or worth 200 dollars. If you fit someone correctly, it should FEEL the same as the tri-grip, the numbers just might be different because the basis for measurement, or where you're starting from is different. It could be a great method, but it's ignorant to say that a fit obtained based on a standard static centerline can't be as good as a fit using the tri-grip, since once drilled, a tri-grip CAN be measured and copied, therefore logically the same fit CAN be achieved using any and all other methods.

So in summation, the tri-grip is not factually a superior method or technique to all others, it just may be better than your previous way of doing it, and create simpler measurements based on a different basis.

THAT BEING SAID, I know nothing about the tri-grip, and NOTHING I stated above is reflective of my personal opinion, which I don't have and can't have because I lack the appropriate information to make a judgment, THIS IS SIMPLY A HYPOTHESIS DETERMINED BY A LOGICAL PROCESS OF EXAMINING THE AVAILABLE INFORMATION. It's a simple formula where A equals the fit specs, B equals the process, and C equals the fit. C, or the fit, is the constant, so the formula looks like this: C=A+B. It can't be A+B=C, because C, or the fit, is unchanging, but can be reached by several different combinations of A and B. Given a basis variance, I will concede that it can't be copied exactly, but the difference would be in the thousandths or ten thousandths, which is impossible to feel (and actually impossible to drill to that precision), and can be achieved by using standard static centerline measurements and dimensions.

Thoughts or rebuttals? This logic would lead me to believe it's a technique that could make fitting more accurate or precise, but insignificantly so. One must also allow that the price possibly reflects the reputation of the source, not the technology or value of the technique itself. Bill Hall is a big name, if I had developed it, no one would pay me a dime for it, though the product and its intrinsic value remains the same. I'm not trying to be a dick or smart ass here, I simply sat down and thought about it, and this is where my logic got me, doesn't mean it's right by any stretch. Meaning if you can blow holes in my logic, go ahead, it's just a theory based on the information I've processed. What am I missing here, or does this make sense?

Lmao . .

More drillers should Tri-harder at learning their craft and we wouldn't need wacky pitch tricks that cost $200 for a 60 minute DVD.

If this was Facebook I would LIKE this post a LOT

Its almost like like a clique! Just remember dont draw attention to yourself, or a clique may appear!

northface the hero member has it right...everyone but him of course throws it like a "dogs ass".

That makes sense.  However, to explain my angle a little more, we don't start from any specific fitting style.  We fit the hand, we just measure that fitting based from a static centerline.  We use the principles of weight placement and balance to get a correct fit, which can be measured for any drilling technique, but we don't use any specific technique as a basis for the way we fit people, follow me?  So we don't go into it saying we are going to use the CLT technique, or the Tri-Grip technique, we just get your proper fit, then measure how that fit would be drilled using a static centerline.  I apologize if that sounds convoluted, but that's the best I can explain it lol. 

Like making a mixed drink, instead of measuring how much we make based on the size of the glass we'd be drinking out of, we just make the drink and pour it into the glass we want it to be in, so the focus is on making the drink, where it should be, not on keeping to a specific set of boundaries.  We make sure you have a proper fit, and whatever we have to do to get it drilled right, we do, it's just that we haven't run into a fitting yet that can't be measured using a static centerline . .  I could delve more deeply into hypotheticals and comparisons, but the human hand is only so sensitive.  A fit can be just as comfortable measured in 32nds based from a static centerline as it can be measured from a Tri-Grip, even if the Tri-Grip is technically more accurate, BECAUSE that level of extra accuracy can't be perceived, and we aren't even factoring in multiple user fit variance . . but that's incalculable.  Meaning that the way I fit someone would be slightly different from the way someone else of the same experience using the same technique would fit someone, different enough that it would nullify or excede the theoretical accuracy and variance of the applied technique.  In other words, if the technique can obtain a theoretical accuracy of 98%, and the multiple user variance can only measure the data to a consistency of 90% (which is insanely ridiculously high for generally accepted human variance), that shows that the means aren't accurate enough to fully utilize the capability of the method, effectively reducing the accuracy of that method to the measureable variance of 90%. 

In summation, the Tri-Grip very well could be mathematically the best, most accurate way to fit someone, but given the variables, tolerances, and human perception, an equally good fit can be obtained and applied using any other method.  Theoretically anyway.  There is also no one perfect fit either, I believe.  I'd actually be up for the challenge of fitting someone who has been fit using the Tri-Grip method without using it myself and seeing what happens . . Sorry, I work with engineers, it's just constant theoreticals and chasing your tail, this kind of stuff drives me insane.  This is all basically trying to make a mathematical science out of something that is impossible to measure mathematically, hence the tail chasing and discussion. 

It does change your grip. Its completely different grip style from other style fittings.

I'd enjoy that . . I'm all for learning something.  And I have no doubt the Tri-Grip is awesome, I'm just challenging the statements that it can't be copied and that you can't have a good fit without using the Tri-Grip . .

^ + 1

i would like to see a double blind trial... i present you 3 balls, using any particular centerline for milling, you tell me which is which .

Riggs has been talking about it on his 11th frame blog.