There was a request for information and discussion on Clubbells and it got off track.
As I was involved in taking it off track I felt I should give it another try and perhaps do better with my responses.
Clubbells are a modern take on a very old method of strength training.
Commonly called Indian Clubs because they were often used in India, but they were also common in Persia, Turkey, Russia and similar geographic areas.
Similar approaches can be seen in other old instruments: maces, gada , meels, jori, karela and ekka.
Basically all tools where one end has more weight and they are swung.
These often had martial relationships as well with direct links to weapon training.
In the late 18th century Indian clubs moved into Britain.
In 1861 the tradition moved to the USA.
However, what caught on most in Britain and USA was the very light Indian Clubs of 1 or 2 pounds.
Some exercises were even adopted by the US Army in 1914.
Strong men used to demonstrate with a variety of heavy Indian club-like apparatuses.
However, their uses drifted off.
So the idea of swinging a club is not new but rather very old.
The Clubbell design of Scott Sonnon’s is a modern version and if you look at some of the old really large wooden clubs you can see why a nice and slimmed down metal version is more efficient.
Scott Sonnon’s 45 pound clubbells (The largest he has):
Scott Sonnon and a 15 pound clubbell:
Old large Indian clubs:
But the question here is: Why Clubbells?
The goal is not to disparage other training but to explain what you can get out of Clubbell training as I see it (sadly I have not conducted any blind testing.
)The first difference I noticed was the appearance of weight.
A five pound mini-clubbell does not seem very heavy but most people estimate the weight of the mini-clubbells (5 pounds) as 10 to 15 pounds.
This is due to the displaced centre of gravity. Rather than grasping the weight at the centre of gravity you are grasping the clubbell out on the end of a lever away from the weight thus away from the centre of gravity.
When swinging the clubbell this displaced centre of gravity is emphasized as the weight pulls away from you.
Because of the swinging actions often used in the movement of the clubbells this pulling away from you by the weight it is a very different experience and workout than any other tools I have used for weight training.
The effect of momentum trying to rip the clubbell from your hand that is created by the swing means you must focus on gripping the clubbell. The effect this has on grip strength and forearm power is profound in my personal experience.
Understand I have done wrist curls and plates on strings as I roll them up but none of them have compared to clubbells – for me anyway.
So for Uechi folk and other martial artists where grip strength is important then clubbells work this area very well.
The other effect a swing has is that that weighted centre of gravity is moving on an arch, a curve. The location of the pressure is moving and you must move through that range of motion with the strength to control and hold onto the clubbell.
And this is where, for me, I see not only the health benefits but the martial benefits.
Flexibility is one thing and we often think that is what we are after but flexibility can come without strength.
What we need is the widest, broadest range of motion possible AND strength at every point in that range of motion.
Flexibility can give you a large range of motion but it does not necessarily mean you have strength throughout the movement. Making circular movements with Clubbells demands that you have strength through the entire range of motion.
So the Scott Sonnon approach is to focus on mobility as the term to think of and work towards rather than flexibility. Semantics to some but to some of us an important distinction.
The modernization of the design adds to the usability of the tool.
Being metal it can be heavier but smaller than a wooden club. Also being metal it is structurally stronger (doesn’t chip or break easily).
However, being metal mean the earlier versions also did some damage so a coating was added to prevent unnecessary scratching and dinting etc.
Being metal the length of the handle could be lengthened and stay strong. This allows for a micro-adjustment to the effective weight of the clubbell by choking up in it as you would a baseball bat.
The handle also has a blend of enough “grip” to make it easier to hang on to and not so much that the normal shifting in your hand will tear you up. Not too much, not too little, but just enough.
They also have a screwed on knob to help keep the handle from sliding out of your hand.
I have used barbells, and dumbbells and machines but the clubbell is different.
Picture a simple press.
I bring a dumbbell up to my chest and pressing upwards extending my arm. Definitely benefits gained no question.
Now try to picture the same weight but in the form of a baseball bat. I bring the bat to my chest with the muzzle or top of the bat pointing up. I press that bat up extending my arm. Not only must I press that weight up but I must also maintain the balance of the bat with my wrist and forearm or else it will tip over and fall.
Not advocating better or worse but rather pointing out a difference due to structural design.
And on a personal note I find the need to keep control over the clubbell and monitor its line of travel far more mentally engaging, but this is just a personal preference.
and stay with working with them using the guidelines of 3 to 4 in discomfort and no pain and working with whatever range then yes they can help with shoulder rehabilitation.
.great way to injure yourself..................what you have here is the endorsment of two guys who don't use weights 
.....................lairds shoulder is better .......................how much better would it be if he subscribed to a weight training programme 
)..........but I think some objectivety is required here..........not saying all this stuff is Hocum, however. I would like a bit more science and a lots less endorsement.............from the committed 
