The Unusual Dragon

[Moxie]

Yeah, but you know what they say about guys with flexible ankles...
_________________
Emily Kulczyk

"Sins can be forgiven, but stupid is forever."

[crazydwarf]

They can clipper well?... oh well but yeh that is seriously a wierd ankle, thanks for the picture though.

[Outsider]

Okay, okay, I might as well chime in on this.

Omnicriz said:

ask jon schneider if he feels dragons are harder then clippers.

Dragons are harder than clippers. Even with lots of practice.

Omen said:

Its too easy to do really. Like the inside that you place behind your leg, so is outside. You just move it there and its there.

Its different than putting an inside stall into cross-body position. Look at where your foot is for an inside stall, and where it is for a cross-body inside stall. You hold your foot in practically the same place. A clipper is not really ACROSS THE BODY from where you do an inside. Rather, its simply behind the support leg from where you do its non-cross-body analogue. Now take a look at where you do an ordinary outside stall, and compare that to where you do a dragon. Beside the contorted position, they're a couple of feet apart. The dragon really is ACROSS THE BODY when compared to its ordinary outside stall counterpart, not just behind the support leg from its ordinary position (its that too, of course), like the inside stall.

James said:

people don't do them properly in the first place.

Too true, James, too true. Some dragon tricks can be THE, in a way. I've THE'd plenty of dragon tricks, but I know when they are and when they're not, and of course I try to do them properly as much as I can. As long as we're on the subject, I took a close look tonight at a video and saw somebody else THEing (several times in a row) another move I consider one of my trade-marks. Man, take some pride in your freestyle. Don't do a move unless you intend to do it right.

James also said:

Dragon is just one of those *gasp* dare I say arbitrary cases?

Depends on how you look at it. If you wish to give it another ADD in the Unusual category, that would be arbitrary. As you were suggesting, though, there are several similar cases that seem to merit this, and taken together, I think perhaps they could help define a new ADD category entirely. Why lump it in with unusuals when it clearly doesn't fit the definition of unusual surface? I kind of like the idea of a [FLEX] ADD, and the definition of such a category could be written to include Dragons, Anchors, Frigid Osis, Monster (you guys ought to see Monster! Ask The Enforcer...) and who knows what else will come up once the Category is defined. People might try inventing some new stuff because it might seem to fit in the new Category. A new category could inspire some new stuff. I mean, it doesn't necessarilty follow that just because we initially had 5 ADD categories that every new trick invented must fit into one of the already defined ADD categories. Its possible to do things with a footbag that are tricks, that could have some measurable skill involved, some measurable difficulty, but that don't exactly belong in any of the five existing categories. Consider Rakes and Pendulums. They are lumped in with Dexterities, but everyone can see that they don't really belong there. Personally, I think there could be another ADD Category for tricks where you [CARRY] the bag on your foot after making contact. Rakes, Pendulums, and I think perhaps Osis too, should go in that category (despite what some have said recently about good and bad osis technique and carrying the bag as you osis rather than doing the trick with a small spin, I don't think that a carried osis is really all that bad, and even when you don't do that, the spin in osis has never really been that clear. Its always seemed to me like something we have to convince ourselves of. "Well, yeah, its KIND OF a spin...") Maybe then we'd have a way to score Matt Churney's twirly-bird tricks. In fact, in competition we've never really known how the hell to score alot of that guy's moves. That indicates to me that there is an ADD category out there that is simply waiting to be defined. And then there is the [BODY] ADD category, which I've said recently seems to be too broad. There is at least one major distinction I'd like point out there. Some body moves (spins, ducks, flyers) are moves in themselves, while others exist only as a MODIFIER of a Dexterity trick (you can't do a paradox or symposium move without a dexterity for it to modify, the way you can do a flyer or a spin or a duck without a dexterity involved at all, thus they could be said to be some other kind of trick category that has simply been lumped into [BODY]. ) Paradox and Symposium seem like they belong in some other ADD category other than [BODY], along with X-DEX. And thats only where I'd begin...

Mosher said:

I feel that you can lump this in with the problems of defining unique.

Well, I don't think so, but if you really want to put it in those terms, I'll respond thusly: If dragons are given another ADD, I'll concede my position on what should count as a unique move. But if dragons don't deserve another ADD, then Barfly, Paradon, Double Over Down, and Down Double Down don't deserve to be considered unique from one-another (nor Dimwalk from Ripwalk, Sidewalk from Parkwalk, Schmoe from Megellan, etc.) So, which is it gonna be? (Kenny liked the former option. Though I think my scores would benefit more from the former, right now I still feel more comfortable with the latter.)

lastly,
HenryG asked:

what is anchor?

and quadgun responded with something that said:

This shot was staged.

Well, this one isn't.
http://www.philly-footworks.com/Chilly_JonPushups.avi

Not my best, I think, but the only one I know of on the web that isn't buried in a relatively long video. If that link or video gives you some trouble (like it does for me) than just try going directly to http://www.philly-footworks.com , the Videos section, and Jon-Push-Ups from the Chilly Philly '03.

[james]

I'm glad you finally gave some input on this one Jon, though I've lost my will to see dragon's with an extra add.
I agree with almost everything you said, especially the parts about the add categories.
Here's where I disagree and it is a useless disagreement but I'm bored:

If dragons are given another ADD, I'll concede my position on what should count as a unique move. But if dragons don't deserve another ADD, then Barfly, Paradon, Double Over Down, and Down Double Down don't deserve to be considered unique from one-another (nor Dimwalk from Ripwalk, Sidewalk from Parkwalk, Schmoe from Megellan, etc.) So, which is it gonna be?

Dragons DO deserve another add and it will not affect in any way the NON uniqueness of the double down (or the uniqueness of the other examples you gave).
It is not an all or nothing situation as you put it because the issues are unrelated.

On a side note, I was witness to those pushups and they were epic

[Prenz]

A side note on anchors...

I wish I remembered the link, but at the end of someone's routine they do
clip > xbd sole > clip > dragon > clip > anchor

Anyway, the anchor was done without planting an arm on the ground. Shouldn't they ONLY be done this way, knowing that it possible? The arm down seems like a training wheely thing.

Craig

EDIT: Heres a link that shows what I mean:
http://www.rochesterfootbag.com/multimedia.php
Look for "Anchor (1.2MB)"

[Outsider]

In point of fact, I've been told that technically, to be done correctly ANCHOR IS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOVE YOUR HEAD. Not kidding, and I didn't make that up. And like I said, that wasn't my best one. Anyway, how was I gonna do pushups without my hands on the ground?

[quadgun]

I've been told that technically, to be done correctly ANCHOR IS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOVE YOUR HEAD. Not kidding, and I didn't make that up.

That's crazy. Have you ever done it that way? Also who invented dragon/who was the first to hit it?

[Prenz]

Anyway, how was I gonna do pushups without my hands on the ground?

Touche!

So... it seems like what is presently called an 'anchor' is two separate tricks then. Two names required?

And Jon, it makes perfect sense that an 'anchor' would involve one's hands anchoring the person to the ground, allowing you to get it over your head. So I agree!

How about standing anchor = stanker

[Omen]

When I wrote my reply, way back when; it was late, I wasn't thinking and wasn't considering dragon's in runs.

To save you all the effort: "thats right, you wern't thinking Damien".

I have been cyberly PWNED, told and slapped.

[footbinc]

Why doesnt everyone quit worrying about Dragons and Anchors and how many adds they are and come play net? In the time spent arguing about 2-3 add silliness everyone could have been spiking...

Cheers

Ben

[blackcrown]

Monster (you guys ought to see Monster! Ask The Enforcer...)

Okay, I'm game, what's Monster?

Eric

[zachatree]

fuck adds

amen brother Anssi, speak the word of freestyle !

amen.

[FlexThis]