Blurry

FootbagginBum · Post by **FootbagginBum** » 29 Jun 2003 17:34

Oh god...we need to discuss this....because stepping paradox is blurry...and bedwetter is a blurry eggbeater....without an op in dex on the other foot....because thats the way its been...regardless of how it was intended....and thats what we need a term for...

Johnny · Post by **Johnny** » 29 Jun 2003 18:57

Im not quite clear on what you are saying. I'd love to help but... so far Im clueless.

OneWeak · Post by **OneWeak** » 29 Jun 2003 20:15

Footbag.org doesn't even say blurry eggbeater. So I don't know what you mean when you say that that's "how it is" or whatever. I don't think it really matters personally, I think blurry is a perfectly fine term for stepping paradox, there's really no need to have seperate terms for op out and op in in my opinion. Nonetheless Mr. Shults cleared up this same argument over at flipsider by saying "Blurry must incorporate at least one in-out dex on each leg in the same trick."

http://www.flipsider.com/forum/phpBB2/v ... c&start=15

So technically blurry inherently has no direct connection to stepping or paradox. According to Kenny, toe blur is a blurry move. Yet, no step and no paradox. He says that it is unfortunate that blurrier and blurriest were named before the concept itself was defined, because they don't fit the real definition. This is only his opinion of blurry, but his "opinions" are generally law seeing as he probably invented the concept, or at least was most likely involved in its original conception. So, even though he says that that is only his personal opinion, I think I'll accept it as truth on the matter.
Either way, I don't think it's very important that we stop calling bedwetter a blurry eggbeater, just as it's not really all that important that we stop calling pixie butterfly dimwalk. It doesn't even change the add count, because toe blur doesn't get a paradox add even though it's technically blurry. And eggbeater doesn't lose any adds due to it's non-blurriness. It still gets a paradox add and a dex add for the step. So who really cares. It's very much like the questions regarding dimwalk. At this point it's become so ingrained that I don't think it's worth trying to stop people from continuing it. But either way, "blurry eggbeater" or anything else that's stepping paradox without an op in dex by the setting leg is a schewed version of blurry. Accepted? Yes. Nonetheless, they are incorrect according to the original definition. And I don't really think it's important at all and I have no clue why I felt the need to type so much.

FootbagginBum · Post by **FootbagginBum** » 29 Jun 2003 21:55

So ya for or against blurry eggbeater?

Panda Licker · Post by **Panda Licker** » 29 Jun 2003 22:20

i do believe that this is exactly why footbag needs more structured trick names.

xndru · Post by **xndru** » 30 Jun 2003 14:18

According to Mr. Shults, it's not blurry. But it's still stepping pdx.

FootbagginBum · Post by **FootbagginBum** » 30 Jun 2003 17:45

ok...well I'm trying to figure out if we as the footbag world are going to continue to listen to kenny and let it ruin our perfect naming convention we have going on and re-write the term blurry into something almost useless for determineing add count and trick description which it perfectly does now and continue to listen to Kenny.

No disrespect to Master Kenny, but before he said that, anyone in the footbag world would have defined blurry as stepping paradox, and that definition makes the most sense...if someone (under Kenny's actual definition of Blurry) were to say a trick was blurry, you could infer nothing about the trick...calling a toe blur blurry does nothing to it, its a wasted term....

I was all for switching back dimwalk and dyno, I don't even say dimwalk anymore except rarely when actually talking about quantum butterfly, but this just doesn't make sense....

bob · Post by **bob** » 30 Jun 2003 20:33

i'm not gonna get into this discussion, but footbagginbum, that was probably one of your best replies. to be using the term blurry for long since before i started, and then to have mr shultz say it was something else when it was originated doesn't mean we should change everything. i don't even think kenny wanted that to happen. he was just stating that that was what it was. i agree that we should keep it at stepping paradox because as bum said to say that moves like kenny is talking about are blurry, really doesn't help us define the moves any better. just my cent.

bob

MJK · Post by **MJK** » 09 Jul 2003 11:11

Yeah, I agree here. A term to describe a move witrh 2 in-dexes on opposite feet has no practical use, but a term for stepping paradox does. However, I think that it would be even more useful as stepping op component.

FootbagginBum · Post by **FootbagginBum** » 09 Jul 2003 11:36

which it had been used as incorrectly in the past to describe say blurry clipper. I don't really like it for that use, most of the time you can figure out the trick.

qphox · Post by **qphox** » 09 Jul 2003 19:18

Booya, that Flipsider thread was mine!

So proud.

See, no one really commented on the "only some sets get ss and opp counterpart names" thin in the other thread. If Atomic and Quantum get "Tapping" and "Slapping" counterpart terms for ss components immediately following the set, why should it be any different for Stepping and Blurry.

Frankly, I think Tapping and Slapping are extranneous terms, as well as more terms for symposium sets. ie: Symp Atomic = Stampeding. Symp Blazing = Flaring. Symp Quantum = Wonton

Why not just say "Frontside" trick?

I aplogize for drifting a tad off topic.

Juan · Post by **Juan** » 14 Jul 2003 21:56

to me, blurry is simply: stepping to an opposite side component. (not necessarily paradox)
i.e. ripwalk=blurry butterfly
this method is way simpler because it applies to all basic moves rather than just paradox moves.
someone explained it to me this way and i liked it. forgot who tho.

FootbagginBum · Post by **FootbagginBum** » 14 Jul 2003 23:46

Poll added

Muffinman · Post by **Muffinman** » 15 Jul 2003 14:19

Juan wrote:to me, blurry is simply: stepping to an opposite side component. (not necessarily paradox)
i.e. ripwalk=blurry butterfly
this method is way simpler because it applies to all basic moves rather than just paradox moves.
someone explained it to me this way and i liked it. forgot who tho.

that is exactly how i feel. it might have been me who told you that. i preach my blurry ways. and my plant negates paradox ways.

ted · Post by **ted** » 15 Jul 2003 15:01

I agree. It makes the most sense to make blurry mean 'stepping op.' while implying paradox if possible (like spinning)

I love you hwawn.

ShredNJ · Post by **ShredNJ** » 17 Jul 2003 10:55

i concur with juan chan and ted
like in blurriest, stepping opp double over down. thats a blur move

Johnny · Post by **Johnny** » 08 Aug 2003 12:16

*El Rivivo*

jhibbs · Post by **jhibbs** » 08 Aug 2003 23:55

i agree with all of you who say blurry to be stepping op component. i learned it this way and it makes the most sense. it does include stepping pdx, and at the same time applies to more basic non-pdx tricks. (blurry clipper as opposed to stepping, etc)

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 09 Aug 2003 05:36

Does anyone know the history of the following move names:
Blur, Blurrier, Blurriest? Was the concept of blurry invented after those moves (obviously it was after or at the same time as blur) or before.
I guess these days it doesn't matter what people decide to define it as - so long as it is either stepping op, stepping parradox, or stepping op in(I presume this is what you mean by an in dex on each leg - since I've never heard anyone call smear or frantic butterfly "blurry" moves) because if someone said "Yesterday I hit a blurry clipper" I'm sure everyone would know exactly what he means even if they didn't think that that was correct usage of the term. The same thing happens with "parradox pickup"

Blurry

What do you think blurry should mean?

Blurry