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?
