X-Dex

Senor Grommet · Post by **Senor Grommet** » 16 Dec 2002 11:58

i once had a conversation with Sunil Jani, one of the three (maybe 4) creaters of the x-dex. When I told him about the imaginary axis through which ones legs would need to pass four times, he looked at me as if I were a moron. He said that the axis shmak had nothing to do with what moves receive x-dex.

The only thing he said was that some moves are performed with half dexterities like pixies, some are performed with 3/4 dexterities, like some peeps do their fairy moves. And then there are full dexterity moves.
As I understood him, only a move with two full dexterities could get an x dex, or A MOVE WITH THREE DEXES, OF WHICH TWO WERE FULL. He and Dave holton at the shred symposium seemed to agree that atomic sets with a second opp. leg dexterity seemed to fulfill this requisite for getting an x -dex, while clip. set mirage moves like flurry do not.

Jeremy

QuantumBalance · Post by **QuantumBalance** » 17 Dec 2002 05:40

i hate it when sunil looks at me cause im a moron

max · Post by **max** » 17 Dec 2002 05:50

Yeah, I guess stuff like this can happen when a handful of people decide that a concept shall now be the norm... It should be up to them to write a comprehensible FAQ about it and have on posted on footbag.org (and here for that matter). For example, I know that the swiss players don't count pdx in spinning moves.. let alone x-dex (or x-spin)
And what about the official freestyle 'rule book' on the ifpa site? I's well known moves section is pretty outdated . I think Scott Davidson is the freestyle chairman for the IFPA and he should be the one deciding if these concepts are integrated in the more modern freestyle events (such as shred 30).
Ok, I'll stop ranting now.

Muffinman · Post by **Muffinman** » 17 Dec 2002 12:36

i dont think they should use xdex.

Zerbalicious · Post by **Zerbalicious** » 30 Dec 2002 10:21

Enforcer wrote:I am in favor of X-Adds (both X-Dex and X-Spin) because they provide a systematic solution to an obvious problem in the current Add system.

Me too. I'm all for trying to patch the Add system.

I do think that the Add system, although it is useful in judging freestyle competition, limits freestyle. Is seems to me that freestylers, in general, only do things while playing, that get adds. There are quite a few exceptions but overall most of the movements freestylers do are focused around several Add components. I thinks there is a whole world of freestyle to be explored that is outside of the add system. (Grabs for one) Right now we are doing most of our movements around the footbag. (Dexs and Ducks) and, except for spins, body movements that are not related to the footbag but performed while the footbag is in the air have been relativly unexplored.

FootbagginBum · Post by **FootbagginBum** » 03 Jan 2003 16:06

The first thing that needs to be said is I love Kenny Shultz, I was all ready to rant and he just settles everything down with good explanation and humor.

I think that everything mentioned here should go into a new judging system INCLUDING adds. Everyone who ever talks about how bad adds are talks about abolishing the whole sytem, but we merely need to add to it (pardon the pun). The adds system is great for an ending number to factor in when determining the quality of a routine. We should have a seperate category for X adds (although I feel that spinning pdx should be a regular add) as well as a uniques category again, and we can add in stuff later to fill in the additional gaps. I think we could come up with a new technical score by doing something like Adds + ((Adds + Xadds) * uniques)) all raised to the power of the shred ratio. Little compicated and doesn't factor in everything, but just using it as an example. Still using adds independantly and then a component for all the adds and then you have a pretty valid overall number for technical, its missing drop though.I also agree that the zulu should get a extra merit of some sort.

All these components put together and then we can go back to the term points that we all used when we were newbs, and all it would take would be one additional judge to check for Xadds.

And, answering the basic question, I vote for anything that makes Triple ATW, Atom Smasher, and Toe Blur recieve more of any kind of merit, because those are great tricks, and I think that someone that knows them should send an email to Davidson or Goldberg to take a look at this thread.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 10 Jan 2003 04:02

I'm all for the both X adds (inspin and dex) provided they get called something else! Even if adds is just a value of the amount of components in a move, I feel that moves like atom smasher have an extra component in them anyway. There's a big twist of the hips for atom smasher - paradox style. Moves like toe barrage I'm not so sure about. To go slightly off topic, I also believe that there should be a freaky add for moves like frigid osis and dragon because they're hardcore!

Jeremy from Tas

dafootbager · Post by **dafootbager** » 10 Jan 2003 05:02

Adrain Dick once said:

"I think the basic idea of Xdex was that the trick has to start on a toe, and end on a toe. Must contain two dexes done in opposite directions, and must contain a switch toe catch. eg. Scrambled Eggbeater does not get xdex, Atom-Smasher does. Tricks set from clipper get paradox, and tricks caught on clipper get Xbd, so its just created to give you the add you so rightfully deserve... "

HackyRichard · Post by **HackyRichard** » 10 Jan 2003 07:13

** WARNING THIS IS A LONG POST IF YOU DON'T GIVE A RATS A$$ ABOUT X-DEX FEEL FREE TO SKIP THIS POST. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED **

The major thing here is two full dexes.

Full dexes include:
- mirage
- illusion
- whirl

Dexes which are not considered full include:
- legover
- pickup
- butterfly

double dex groups i.e dlo, eggbeater, and the double dex butterflies(barfly, dod, ddd and paradon) are only 1.5 full dexes.

I'm not 100% sure how reverse whirl and swirling (both directions) dexes fit into the situation so I'll leave those for someone who does. (My gut feeling says that rev.whirl isn't a full dex, and that both swirling decxes are full.)

Moving to the sets, full single dex sets include:
- quantum
- atomic
- nuclear ( to op side component)
- quasi (I may be wrong on this one)
- wonton & flailing (symp quantum & symp atomic)

single dex sets not considered full include:
- pixie
- fairy
- stepping (and hence blurry and pogo)
- slapping (quantum ss)
- tapping (atomic ss)
- nuclear ss (this may not be correct, just a gut feeling)

Multi dex sets considered as a full dex would include:
- barraging (and hence furious)
- sailing (to op side component i.e following move is back on the initial pixie setting side)
- frantic (to op side component)
- terraging (to op side component)
- shooting (to op side component)

I'm not sure on sets involving whirls and swirls so I'm not including those in this.

Right, I'm going to apply this to the real world now, using the example of Sunil's sick 3 at the last worlds (thanks for the vid Rob

):
Fury(Furious Mirage) > Plasma (Quantum Dod) > PS Whirl

I should say, I initially didn't view this footage with any sound so didn't get the full picture right away, and thought that it was 5,5,5 combo(a damn hardcore one at that)

Fury is: clip>op in(dex)>same in(dex)>op in(pdx)(dex)>op toe(del)
Barraging set counts as 1 full dex, and pdx mirage is also 1 full dex, 3 dex adds and 2 full dexes you get an x-dex, and so fury becomes a 6.

Plasma is: toe>op in(dex)>op out(dex)>same out(dex)>op clip(xbd)(del)
quantum set is a full dex, and the dod also gets a full dex, 3 dex adds and 2 full dexes you get the x-dex, plasma becomes a 6 also.

PS Whirl is just PS Whirl and gets 5 adds enough said. So the combo is 6,6,5 as Kenny said on the day. Speak off topic briefly Sunil mentioned a 6,6,7 I'm guessing fury>plasma>clownface?

So x-dex doesn't apply only to toe set moves, it applies to clipper set moves(and any other set for that matter). And it appears that a move can get both paradox and be x-dex.

Other moves that benefit from the x-dex would include:
- atomsmasher (and pdx atomsmasher, and and any symp variants)
- toe - blur, blizzard, & barrage
- ClownFace (furious eggbeater, symp clownface would then be an 8 )
- whirr (double whirl)
- nemesis (barraging barfly, surely this of all moves is x-dex)

That's enough out of me, please add anything I've missed out and correct anything I may have wrong.

That is one longa$$ post, hopefully it makes some sense

HackyRichard

Muffinman · Post by **Muffinman** » 10 Jan 2003 12:12

as if pickup isnt a full dex. its the exact same dex as mirage. maybe more even. i think scrambled eggbeater should be pdx. just like pdx pickup should be. and blurry pickup.
i think illusion and fairy are the only true full dexes.

Juana · Post by **Juana** » 10 Jan 2003 13:44

I agree with some of the above, and not with some of the above. For example, Erik, I would think that fairy is not always a full dex. Consider fairy ss clipper and fairy op butterfly...no full dexes there. However, fear would seem more a full dex (i.e. your dex crosses over and under the bag in theory). To determine whether a dex is full or only half, you have to look at the whole trick...analyzing the set alone can be deceptive.

For x-dex...anyone who has not read or wasn't a part of this discussion when it was on freestyle@footbag.org a while ago should check out Eric Wulff's post:
http://list.footbag.org/majordomo/lette ... bag.org%3E
The link above may expire, so just search the archives (ignoring case) on x-dex and look for Eric's post titled "[freestyle] X-Dex and X-adds" He goes into detail on his proposel for x-dex, x-spin, an "in" (as in in-spinning).

-Jane

Muffinman · Post by **Muffinman** » 10 Jan 2003 14:31

actually i wasnt talking about the moves as sets. plain old 2add fairy and illusion. thanks though. i didnt consider sameside moves. i was thinking fear and anything ending in op illusion.

Juana · Post by **Juana** » 10 Jan 2003 14:38

my bad, whenever I hear "fairy" or "pixie" I think set and not trick. D'oh!
But with regards to an x-add...there'd still have to have another dex with your other leg-- you know that though.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 13 Jan 2003 02:42

Surely ATWs are full dex moves!

Dr. Jones · Post by **Dr. Jones** » 25 Jan 2003 05:32

i really feel like x-dexes should only aply to toe set moves.
plus it doesn`t matter how the move ends (just look at toe blur, quantum drifter and quantum torque - they all deserve the x-dex...

for the other moves, there are pdx and xbody adds. imo, that`s enouph.

jones

Hacky_Slacker · Post by **Hacky_Slacker** » 26 Jan 2003 15:13

ive gotten along just fine without x dexes untill now, why change now? It does nothing but complicate the aleady complacated system. Why bother?

Peace!!!

Muffinman · Post by **Muffinman** » 26 Jan 2003 15:29

exactly!!
im happy with atom bomb as a 4add

Hacky_Slacker · Post by **Hacky_Slacker** » 26 Jan 2003 15:39

might i inquire as to what an atom bomb is? (pardon my ignorace)
I am glad that you see it my way.

Muffinman · Post by **Muffinman** » 26 Jan 2003 15:42

your ignorance in paradoned.
sorry for being nuclear.
double symp atom smasher.

Hacky_Slacker · Post by **Hacky_Slacker** » 26 Jan 2003 15:47

Ha ha, your Dyslexic!! ("sorry for being NUCLEAR"(that confused me for a bit!))me too though. what would that be in jobs?

X-Dex

Do you think we should use x-dex in jobs and stuff?

X dex

My thoughts on the matter