Symposium Butterfly/Down

Need help? Find someone else who's had the problem or ask about it in here.

Moderator: Muffinman

JoshC.
Multidex Master
Posts: 219
Joined: 19 May 2008 11:58
Location: East Greenbush, NY
Contact:

Symposium Butterfly/Down

Post by JoshC. » 08 Nov 2008 17:41

Is this considered a trick? Why dont I ever see anyone do it? Would it still only be 3 adds?
Josh Cummings

I'll rest when I'm dead.

If you do what you've always done, you'll get what you've always gotten.

Check out my shred blog: http://modified.in/footbag/viewtopic.ph ... 20&start=0
Check out my skate blog: http://cummingsspeedskating.blogspot.com/

User avatar
Jeremy
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 09 Nov 2008 18:45

Yeah it's only 3 adds because it's basically too easy to be 4. It's more like a variety of butterfly than a separate species (or actually order if I want the analogy to be accurate).

Pixie Symposium Butterfly is Anssi's favourite footbag move.

mc
Modifiend
Posts: 7619
Joined: 22 Apr 2002 15:16
Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA
Contact:

Post by mc » 09 Nov 2008 19:01

You asked if it's considered a move...

one thing that's really holding back footbaggers is that a lot of them are concerned with whether or not other players feel that certain things are "a move", or also, whether or not a certain thing fits into the add system..

If you can make it happen, it's a move. no matter what it is.

if you consider it a move, it's a move. if someone else doesn't consider it a move, that doesn't matter.

so, you can conceive a "symposium butterfly" in your mind, and you can make it happen physically.

that makes it a move in my book.

also, don't let adds dictate whether or not something is a move :)
Last edited by mc on 10 Nov 2008 06:27, edited 1 time in total.
BRICK!

rfa::never give up::
nyfa

JoshC.
Multidex Master
Posts: 219
Joined: 19 May 2008 11:58
Location: East Greenbush, NY
Contact:

Post by JoshC. » 10 Nov 2008 03:34

Thanks! I wont let that hold me back anymore!
Josh Cummings

I'll rest when I'm dead.

If you do what you've always done, you'll get what you've always gotten.

Check out my shred blog: http://modified.in/footbag/viewtopic.ph ... 20&start=0
Check out my skate blog: http://cummingsspeedskating.blogspot.com/

User avatar
gMoney
Think Pink
Posts: 1210
Joined: 10 Sep 2006 14:17
Location: Chicagoland Suburbz
Contact:

Post by gMoney » 10 Nov 2008 17:46

Isn't buttefly only a symple move?
Grant Mooney
Footblog
Challenge

User avatar
semiconscious
Multidex Master
Posts: 205
Joined: 21 May 2006 14:15
Location: All over the place

Post by semiconscious » 11 Nov 2008 12:32

Only sorta. A real symple move is one that is impossible to do symposium, because you are switching feet during the dex, like a legover. So it means that even though you are pushing off the ground with the dexing leg, like in a symposium trick, you are going to be catching the bag with that foot, so you can't keep the dexing leg rooted, hence it's only really half of the symposium motion.
With symple butterfly, you are actually keeping the dexing leg on the ground the whole time, kinda like a real symposium trick, but I think the lack of a complete dex voids its symposuim standing.
But anyway it's not 'only' a symple move. The symple tricks deserve some respect just like all their more ADD-worthy symposium siblings. The term symple should be added with pride!
Now excuse me. I'm gonna go do some cool symple tricks.
Sam Neale

mc
Modifiend
Posts: 7619
Joined: 22 Apr 2002 15:16
Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA
Contact:

Post by mc » 11 Nov 2008 13:32

symple doesn't mean "symposium without the add", symple means "the dexing and catching foot are the same, and you start the dex with the dex leg on the ground and the other leg off the ground".

so, based on that definition, you can't have a symple butterfly. you can only have symposium butterfly. Some people call it symple because it doesn't get the symposium add.

it's not lack of a full dex that keeps symp butterfly from getting the body add. it's just a little detail of the add system. symposium butterfly has just as much dex as symposium mirage from clipper, but one gets the add, the other does not. way back, it was decided that symp butterfly was way too easy to be a 4 add trick. so, no add.
BRICK!

rfa::never give up::
nyfa

Muffinman
the gimp
Posts: 10296
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 15:34
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Muffinman » 11 Nov 2008 21:58

Technically it should get the add. It's a mystery to me why it doesn't. Also, it's awesome.

User avatar
Jeremy
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 12 Nov 2008 04:38

You can hit butterfly both symposium and symple.

Symple is when a move starts symposium but doesn't finish symposium - ie. you hop off the dexing foot and dex the bag; If you then land on that foot again, without the other hitting the ground, it's a symposium move. If you land on the other foot, it's a symple move.

All moves are far easier to hit one way than the other, but in theory all moves could be hit both symposium and symple (unless they are dexless, although you can hit dexless moves in a symposium/symple style).

Butterfly doesn't get a symposium add because, despite what some people claim, the add system was meant to be representative of difficulty, and people back before I was playing (but as I recall, when guys like Ryan and Scott Davidson were and I seem to recall reading a discussion involving those guys about it on the old email lists) decided that the move was far too easy to be worth 4 adds, and so arbitrarily made it a 3 add move. This is obviously a good thing when you consider that da da curve was once a 5 add move until that decision was made, despite being physically easier than drifter and dlo (as in, your body has to do more to hit those moves than it has to do to hit da da curve, regardless of which you personally find easier, which is almost certainly down to which you've drilled the most, or the consequence of other moves you've drilled more).


Edit; It has nothing to do with full dexes as to why symp butterfly doesn't get the add. Otherwise moves like stampede or little apple would not get a symp add either.

User avatar
semiconscious
Multidex Master
Posts: 205
Joined: 21 May 2006 14:15
Location: All over the place

Post by semiconscious » 12 Nov 2008 06:43

Yeah, I realized my mistake pretty quickly sfter posting. I was just trying to think of a way in which the removal of the ADD was not entirely arbitrary, but I think it is. Do you think symp butter is any easier than clip set ss symp mirage? After doing a couple of each to compare, I vote no. But then, I guess they are both worth 3 ADDs, even though it's for different elements of the trick.
Sam Neale

User avatar
Jeremy
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 12 Nov 2008 17:11

I think it really depends on how you hit the tricks. I would say that symp butterfly and pogo toe stall are equivalents but I think downtime clip set symp mirage is harder than downtime symp butterfly. They're pretty equal though, and I have no problem with both moves being 3 add moves. I have the view though, that a symp mirage isn't clean unless you face the same direction both before and after the move - rather than spinning on it. So with clip set symp mirage, you still need to move across the bag a considerable distance. I also think rake style symp mirages are not clean, so you need to get a good dex. I also think it's more difficult to dex from clipper to toe than toe to clipper (in this case at least). One of the things that makes symp butterfly so easy (and butterflies in general) is that you don't really dex the bag at all - it just goes behind the leg to a clipper stall (as opposed to an action where the leg actually goes around the bag). Even with a clip set symp mirage there is still some degree of actually trying to go around the bag with the dexing foot - although it's still fairly minimal.

I think it is important to note that pogo sets don't get an add either (symposium stepping) - for the same reason as symp butterfly, although pogo is a little more difficult to hit cleanly.

User avatar
brianbear
Egyptian Footgod
Posts: 1048
Joined: 05 Aug 2008 20:31
Location: Bay Area (MV), Cali
Contact:

Post by brianbear » 13 Nov 2008 22:42

i like where you are commenting on this jeremy...
i think symple stuff is a BIG bulidling block for certain moves....
for example...
i hit a symple dyno before i hit a dyno because uptime stuff is easier for me... a symple dyno is like a... symposium reverse whirl bailed to osis if you set it right, and same thing with symple blender and normal whirl...
i can hit rev. whirr because of this.... and if i could EVER do this x-body.... it should get the same add a normal whirl does cause it is one and a half dexes... i am not sure if this all correct or not...
i was told that a ducking symp. whirl is worth 6 and a ducking symp. rev.whirl is worth 5.... if this is true i have a problem. if you do a x-body double rev. whirl vs. a a x-body whirr the x-body whirr is two FULL dexes and the reverse is 1 and 1/2... i think doing a full dex should be at least awarded an extra add for x-body... so a x-body reverse whirr would get 1 extra add because a full dex is performed for the element to be right...
then again in truth...
ducking symp whirl= 6
ducking symp rev whirl= 5 1/2... i guess the symp add can at least be claimed for rev. whirls (as opposed to butterflies!!!) which is a fair trade off i guess for the lost 1/2 dex in rev. whirl x-bod.

edit: by the way, i agree with matt, focus on what you think rather than adds or whatever... creativity is the spawn of improvement...
style yourself, dont dex yourself out....
brian "bear" sherrill
buy my footbags
via freedom footbags
or on occasion (also for fabrics) thru modified

FlexThis
Post Master General
Posts: 3025
Joined: 14 Nov 2003 16:27
Location: San Diego, CA

Post by FlexThis » 14 Nov 2008 15:33

Just my 2 cents (worth about .5 cents)

From what I remember (digging in the dirt for this one) Symposium butterfly was downgraded because it was "THE" most of the time.

To truly do a symposium butterfly the dex needs to be "BIG" and "High" in the air. Same for Dada Curve. Form wasn't as important back then as it is today.

I totally disagreed then and I totally disagree now about adds. ADDS DO NOT = DIFFICULTY. I think ADDS were a good starting point for dicussion, but shouldn't end all. Ultimately in my mind what defines difficulty is the shear amount of movement and energy needed to pull off the trick. Not some collection of definable parts to a move. For example 2 dexes done uptime is way harder than 2 done throughout the entire move, yet they weigh the same. I won't go any further because I'm not trying to start a flame war here.

I do Symposium butterflys all the time and try to make them look big and showy. Regardless of the ADD system's perception of the move.

I remember first learning freestyle and avoided certain tricks because of how other's perceived them. Today I say "Horse Pucket" - do what you want and what feels right for you. I got clowned for years for doing reverse whirls. Eric Chan proved they are just as stylie and cool to do. Thanks Eric ;) Good news is at 33 I still have my knees. :)
Go out and shred already.
~Damon Mathews

User avatar
Jeremy
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 14 Nov 2008 17:52

ADD stands for "Additional Degree of Difficulty." If adds were not meant to represent difficulty, why would they be given that name?

FlexThis
Post Master General
Posts: 3025
Joined: 14 Nov 2003 16:27
Location: San Diego, CA

Post by FlexThis » 17 Nov 2008 10:02

I think ADDs were a great way to explain how to perform a trick, and how a trick consists of components.

However, it lacks the definitions needed to distinguish one level of true difficulty from another.

A dex is a dex is a dex according to the ADD system. If you break down just one dex and place it at varying places in a given move you will see what I mean.

Example: IN/Out dex
Miraging dex - performed downtime
Quantum dex - performed uptime

Quantum while worth the same according to ADDs, is increasingly more difficult to pull off due to the shortened time frame required to successfully pull one off. The bag must still be on its way up as the dexing leg passes and then makes contact with the ground. This requires a greater amount of speed and therefore energy to perform.

In a miraging dex, the body has more time to prepare and setup for position to successfully pull it off. You have a larger window of time, and also as the bag peaks you actually have an even more extended window of time. This requires less energy as you now have a greater window of time to work with.

Therefore, Quantum requires more energy in a shorter amount of time, making it more difficult.

I may not have explained it to the best of my abilities, but the general point is that although ADDs can accurately define a trick's components, it lacks the varying degrees of difficulty with a given trick's timing.

Similar arguments can be made for trick placement in a given combo. Ie. links.

Just my thoughts on it anyways.
Go out and shred already.
~Damon Mathews

User avatar
Jeremy
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 17 Nov 2008 16:12

Sure. The add system isn't perfect, and I don't think anybody has claimed that it is. It is very broad though, which helps because for something as varied and subject as difficulty in footbag tricks, you need a fairly coarse resolution or it's pointless.

There are obviously plenty of exceptions in the add system, and we all know that, but if you look big picture instead of focusing on the exceptions, I think it clearly does largely represent difficulty.

I would say that if you wrote out every 2 add move and every 3 add move and every 4 add move etc. and graphed them based on add value and actual difficulty there would be a very noticable trend of higher add moves being worth more adds.

An even better method would be to do the same thing, but instead of writing out ever 2 add move, just write out all the moves that are hit in a video (or many videos would obviously be more accurate). You could even do a great 3D graph of add value, frequency of move hit, and your subjective rating of actual difficulty. I'm willing to bet any amount of money that especially amongst the most frequently hit moves there is a clear and obvious trend of higher adds mean higher difficulty.


Here's another way of looking at it. Choose a 1 or 2 add move. I'll choose clipper. Now add a component to it. We'll turn it into a drifter. Now add another component. Pdx Drifter. Then another. Blurry drifter. Then another. Alpine blurry drifter.

2 Add
Clipper

3 Add
Drifter

4 Add
Pdx Drifter

5 Add
Blurry Drifter

6 Add
Alpine Blurry Drifter


Now rank those moves in order of your subjective difficulty - easiest to hardest.

Try the same thing with any component. I am sure that you'll be able to find an exception - for example I would argue that if we went from drifter to da da curve, it's actually getting easier despite going up in adds, but how many exceptions are there compared with non-exceptions? If you wrote out every possible stream and graphed them, would the exceptions be significant?

We know that the add system is not perfect, but I think that's the wrong question. Instead of looking at the fine details, we should look at the big picture. Overall does it do a reasonable accurate job of determining difficulty, or are the exceptions significant enough that it cannot be relied on? If you randomly chose two different add value moves, what are the chances that the add values would not accurately tell you which move is more difficult?

FlexThis
Post Master General
Posts: 3025
Joined: 14 Nov 2003 16:27
Location: San Diego, CA

Post by FlexThis » 17 Nov 2008 17:04

I understand the overall concept for ADDs = difficulty. And you are right! For the most part it is accurate.

Since Symposium butterfly IS an exception, then I am focusing on it here. Does that make since? We pretty much are talking exceptions for this move.

However, I can point out a great number of discrepancies as we get into higher add counts.

For example: Flurry (from clipper for this example)

Requirements
-3 dexes
-clipper set
-same toe finish

This can be interpreted many ways, but not all ways have the same level of difficulty, even though they are defined as such by the ADD system.

Lets leave out the clipper set and toe finish as they are obviously necessary to the move and focus solely on the dexes for a moment.

We can perform this move a number of ways.

1.) Fluid - 1 up, 1 peak, 1 down
2.) Furious set > legover
3.) All uptime (show me someone that has that on video)
4.) All downtime (seen it performed)
5.) 1 up, 2 down

Now rank those according to your perceived level of difficulty. I think that you will find that they can be ranked, and in some instances they tie.

I point these out, not to annoy, but to rather expand the perception that ADDs while close, do not represent actual difficulty.

I have tried mapping out dex types, and their position in the move (1st dex, 2nd dex, etc...), bag height, symposium or not, pdx or not, symple or not.

It boiled down to timing mostly - how much time you have for a given dex. It seems to get exponentially shorter the more dexes you add in.

Anyways - not to ramble, but I have put a lot of thought into this, and hope that one day we can take advantage of computers to better map everything out and potentially create a working model that takes into account things like links, position of a move in a given run, amount of moves per run, etc... in addition to the individual moves difficulty.

It a wish list item for sure.
Go out and shred already.
~Damon Mathews

User avatar
Jeremy
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 17 Nov 2008 19:37

But the variances in flurry just indicate why the ADD system has a coarse resolution. There is a lot of variance in most moves and also a lot of variety between different moves of the same add value, such that many moves are largely impossible to accurately rank in difficulty. Hence if there are only a small number of different scores that you're ranking moves with - about 8 - then it maintains the integrity of the system.

Here is a rough sketch graph to demonstrate what I'm talking about;

Image

(sorry for shitty facebook compression)

As you can see, the fact that we break up an random scatter into broad groups means that we don't need to decide which is more difficult out of lots of moves. If we didn't do it like this then it would be impossible to have any kind of overall comparison system. If anything, we should slightly reduce the resolution even further so that there are even less exceptions.

I tend to think of 4 levels of moves - sub guiltless and bops, simple genuine, moderate such as easy hard fours, moderate 5s and easy 6s and exceptional.

FlexThis
Post Master General
Posts: 3025
Joined: 14 Nov 2003 16:27
Location: San Diego, CA

Post by FlexThis » 18 Nov 2008 11:15

Nice chart!

Some of those 7's must be easy ... lol ... jk

I see your point and I actually agree with you. I am indeed splitting hairs.

While I feel that Symposium butterfly is not quite a 4, it is not a 3 either.

I feel that comparing one trick to another trick could potentially be the problem with ADDs. I don't know that ADDs need a replacement, but maybe there just needs to be a separate system for difficulty that isn't duh huh easy to explain.

Excuse my comparison to figure skating. But what makes a triple toe loop harder/easier than a triple sow cow (sp?)? They use a very intricate system of ranking difficulty and it uses decimals. Why can't we do something like?

Rather than compare a trick like butterfly to another 3 add trick like atom smasher (no x-dex in this example), why not look at the move from start to finish and map the path of the bag, map the bodies total overall movement, and determine the amount of physical energy needed to complete the move?

I know it is asking a lot to try and figure it all out. But we are living in the world of computers. Why not take advantage of processor power and get to Web 2.0 instead of relying on counting on your fingers?

Once the physics and math are determined, it can be as easy as entering a trick name or trick string into a nice application and letting it spit out the results.
Go out and shred already.
~Damon Mathews

User avatar
Jeremy
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 18 Nov 2008 14:55

I'd love to see you put that into action. Maybe it can be done. My feeling is that there will always be disagreement because there is too much variety in footbag and in body types. For example, I find pdx torque really easy, other people find it fairly difficult. You could extend that and I could say that I find pdx torque easier than spinning whirl. Other people find spinning whirl easier than pdx torque. Your system is going to rank one of those moves above the other, and inevitably that will draw disagreement and criticism.

A fine detail measurement seems particularly difficult when you look at rewinds. We all know what's harder out of clip set drifter and infinity, but can you give an explanation of why that is? Every single method of doing infinity in rewind is more difficult than infinity. How could you design a logical system that accounts for this? What would be the rule that makes it so?

So it seems to me that the best way of having a difficult system is to have a system that is so broad that most of the tricks where there is disagreement are ranked the same. Of course there's exceptions, and maybe symp butter is one of them, but it seems like the method that is going to have the least amount while still being based on a set of rules.

Post Reply