Paradon vs Barfly

[Jeremy]

The International Footbag Committe - which is a committee of the IFPA - sets the rules for footbag.

I'm in the process right now of joining so that I can attempt to bring about change in this issue and a number of issues.

Here is my current definition of unique: It's not perfect but I'm slowly working my way through it to get it be perfect. This is hard because there are other rule changes that need to happen before the rules for the definition of Unique can be adequetly updated - so those are my priorities at the moment (and I'm not even a member yet so if my application is turned down we just have to hope that the current members do something about this)

Um. note that this probably isn't how I'd word the definition in the rules - it's more all the things I think can be different about a move that make it unique. At this stage all downtime components are the same regardless of set - unless they get pdx - I will probably add a far/near side clause so that while paradon and barfly would not be unique - double over down and barfly would be (just like with whirls off different sets)

---------------------------------------
Unique:

A unique is any move with one of the following difference.

Adds:
Different value
Different sequence of components
Different components

Dexterities:
Different leg used
Different direction
Different stalling position*

Bods:
Different bod type (bod types are paradox, x dex, x spin, spin, duck, jump or symposium)

Spins and ducks:
Different direction
Different prior or subsequent components

Uptime and Downtime:
Different combination in components being clearly uptime or downtime.

*The different stalling positions are op xbd, same xbd, op non xbd, same non xbd.


For a move to be considered not unique it must be identical to another move in the performance in every manner mentioned.

edit: Yes I've changed my mind a little on this issue maybe - it's hard to work out. Oh and the IFPA rules only apply to IFPA sanctioned tournaments - which is very few - and even then the tournament director can cahnge the rules as they see fit - so the official rules only apply to IFPA members and only at the will of the tournament director - which is presumably why the rules haven't been updated for freestyle very much recently.

[Tsiangkun]

The setting location does not matter, but the relationship between the set and the dexing leg are important.

So, no jon, I don't think flapper set tork and clipper set tork are different. I think pixie osis and toe tork are different.

[Outsider]

The Flapper > P.Torque question was incidental, Cameron.

How do you feel about the hand-toss?

But as long as you bring it up, WHY is the relation between the set leg and the dex leg more important than the surface itself? Some people keep bringing up how a move "feels different" or is "harder" from some sets. I think my flapper example meets both of those criteria. And please remind me again how you feel about the various basic butterflies: unique or not? That move can have four variations of the relation between the set leg and the dex leg. And how about a move that has no dex in it, like Spinning Clipper and Gyro Clipper? Is it the relationship between the set foot and the spin direction? Are there four variations of spinning right clipper (set from right clipper, set from left clipper, set from right toe, set from left toe)?

[the Executioner]

I did not bother to read the 5 pages of commentary on this subject, but barfly and paradon are not the same move.

[Muffinman]

I did not bother to read the 5 pages of commentary on this subject, but barfly and paradon are not the same move.

And if they are, then why are some of the variations harder than others? How can the same move harder or easier than itself? Gee. They're clearly all different, and Job's doesn't solve everything, because, like Jon said pixie osis and toe torque are clearly separate moves also. I win.

[Outsider]

Erik Chan said:

because, like Jon said pixie osis and toe torque are clearly separate moves also. I win.

I never said that pixie osis and toe torque are separate moves. In fact, I would say exactly the opposite.

Erik Chan also said:

And if they are, then why are some of the variations harder than others? How can the same move harder or easier than itself?

I think I had already addressed this just a few hours ago when I said:

Another example: I've been practicing hitting my Paradox Torque from a Flapper stall lately. If I did that move (from the flapper) and also a Paradox Torque from the clipper, are they unique? I can tell you with great certainty: they feel different. It is also certain that the Paradox Torque from the Flapper stall is much harder to do. Does it make it a unique move? I don't think so. Just because a move feels different or is harder when done a certain way doesn't make it a different move. It just means that you did the same move but that you did it the hard way.

Besides, I believe that Paradon and Barfly are equally difficult. For me, neither of those two moves is harder than the other. Does that me that when I do them they are the same, but when you do them they are different because you think that one is harder than the other?

If you are going to argue/discuss with me, and more importantly if you are going to quote me, please at least read what I've already written. I'm getting tired of repeating everything.

[habitat]

so if I hit some paradon flappers and some barflys in a shred30, you IYO wouldn't *count them as unique. With that said (if thats what you really mean ), I wouldn't want to compete in your tournament. No offence, thats pretty lame


lets just get rid of uniques, adds, contacts, everything and make it a subjective shred30 like the routines.

^
|
|
|

(joke, but wouldn't it be better than bitching about things we cannot agree on and bitching about things everyone can agree on)

[Outsider]

No offence, thats pretty lame

IN YOUR OPINION its lame. IN MY OPINION it would be lame for one competitor to do Barfly, Paradon, Double Over Down and Down Double Down and have the same amount of uniques as another competitor who did Barfly, Legbeater, Whirling Swirl, and Pixie Butterfly, for instance. Who really demonstrated more variety there? I think its clear, but if you counted "every different setting surface makes a unique trick" than the judging system doesn't distinguish who had more variety, and I think THAT'S lame, and that's just one of the scenarios I wish for our sport to avoid.

One more thing, what do you mean by flapper paradon? Paradon ending on cross-body sole? That would be unique. Setting surface doesn't make a trick unique, but catching surface does. One problem with deciding that a setting surface makes a trick unique is that the surface was already counted once at the end of the previous trick (it made the last trick unique from any similar variation which ended on some other surface). To say that the next trick is unique because of the surface that the last trick ended on is like counting that move element twice: once in the preceding move and again in the following move. But a move element (like the final contact surface) should only count once, for one trick, not for both tricks.

I'm not against a subjectively judged shred 30. I think that if variety were a factor in judging it, a subjective judge would probably see my example above of a competitor who did four versions of DOD and a competitor who did four double-dex moves that were not all in the same style of dexes, and would easily be able to say that the second competitor demonstrated more variety.

[Tuukka]

Okay, I read the whole discussion just now, took some time to try to understand all of your points. So this thing should be clear now: flapper set pdx torque hell yes is a nice unique move, BUT it doesn't fill the definition of a unique move in competitions. When I shred in circles I don't count my uniques, but in shred 30 that is necessary. So, I would say that changing barfly,paradon,ddd,dod to be as one unique move in competition would help a lot.. 'cos those tricks are the only exceptions of the rule... setting surface doesn't matter (I don't like it, but it is the truth...)

toe ripwalk <-> clip set ripwalk <-two unique moves, because in fact they are stepping op butterfly and quantum butterfly, so different sets.

toe torque <-> clip set torque <- only one unique move, same move and setting surface doesn't matter

ripwalk <-> sidewalk <- 2 unique moves, ripwalk has set stepping op when sidewalk has stepping ss, so 2 different sets. It is the same with for example tapping bfly<->atomic butterfly

hand toss set whirl <-> clip set whirl <- one move, setting surface doesn't matter

drifter <-> pdx drifter <- two unique moves, setting surface doesn't matter, but since pdx drifter has paradox add, it is considered as a unique.

One problem is that clip->same out->same side component can't get paradox (well basically it can if some one hits double nuclear spinning pdx whirl,but that is highly unlikely). So buttefly can't have paradox like "all" the other basic tricks AND it shouldn't have and it is be considered as one unique move.
(Hitting toe set same bfly/toe set op bfly/clip set same bfly/head set bfly and so on are all one unique in competitions if they all end to same clipper). Paradon/ddd/dod/barfly/head set ddd are all kinda "double dex butteflies" so they should be judged as butterflies, setting surface doesn't matter.
Somebody could say barfly is harder than paradon. I could say toe set op butterfly is harder than clip set same butterfly, but they are still the same move. During the years I've played I've got used to that barfly/ddd/dod/paradon are uniques, while it didn't really make sense. Sometimes it is hard to change the things you've used to.. but everyone: think about it.. it makes sense after all. Those tricks don't feel same, but toe drifter<->clip set drifter don't feel the same either and still they are only one unique.

Worlds 2005 we are using IFPA's current rules, no x-dex and so on. So meanwhile, could you Allan Haggett please tell me what IFPA rulebook really says about paradon/ddd/dod/barfly at the moment. We have to live with the rules we have and we have to update those rules also if something is outdated or something. So, I'd like to hear IFPA's clear opinion about setting surface doesn't matter -rule.


-Tuukka

[habitat]

yeah I would agree that the 2nd choice (obviously) showed more uniqueness. Maybe your right if you put it that way. Hmmm. Im dumber than you think

[cd]

Awesome, my next shred30 is going to consist of 8 unique butterflies and 8 unique osii. Throw in some other stuff, including maybe 4 or 5 of those unique double downs and up to 6 unique dlo's, and I could easily score above 180 without performing more than a few different concepts.

Setting surface doesn't make a trick unique, but catching surface does.

This is a very very very important disctinction. I agree with you Jon about the main question here, that barfly, paradon, dod, ddd are all the same move, but I want to take what you said a bit farther. Uptime and downtime must be considered, and they play a part in what is unique and what is not. What I mean is that I believe that pixie osis and toe torque are unique, to use your example.

The setting surface has just as much to do with the uptime components as the catching surface has to do with the downtime components of a move. To ignore what happens during a set as compared to the setting surface is saying that pixie, quantum, and stepping are all the same sets. Thats like saying that drifter and whirl are the same downtime components.


To sum up what im saying, in a move:
-setting surface does decide uniqueness of uptime components
-setting surface does not decide uniqueness of downtime components
-catching surface does not decide uniqueness of uptime components
-catching surface does decide uniqueness of downtime components
*(except, of course, in cases where another add is forced)
*This doesn't really apply to ducking, but the currently accepted use of ducking, diving, weaving, zulu handles this question well.

These four points form a complete set of rules for determining uniqueness, and I believe it is the most fair.

edit: I completely agree with what Tuukka said. Our arguments are essentially parallel, but he put it better.

[Tsiangkun]

Yeah, and I'm only going to use one toe and both clippers, since everything is the same !!!
Draw out the conclusion of the binning approach, and this is in fact what you are left with, no need for two toes.

Chris has some good ideas with regards to up and downtime components.

I think the key is to reward variety, but I think binning tricks that are unique as the same is the wrong approach.

[Outsider]

Sorry Chris, but I still disagree.

I'll use another simple example, since those seem to be working well for me today.

Player 1 does a Pixie Op Butterfly, a Quantum Op Butterfly, and a Stepping Op Butterfly (ripwalk), all to left clipper stall.

Player 2 does a Pixie Op Butterly, a Legbeater, and a Blazing Op Butterly, all to the left clipper stall.

They each did three uptime dexes followed by an opposite butterfly.
Each did three uniques? I don't really think so. I think player 1 did three version of the same trick; three uptime in-out dexes followed by the butterfly. Once more: uptime In-Out Dex to butterfly. To me, it doesn't seem to demonstrate all that much variety. Player 2 did three tricks that cannot really be said to have almost exactly the same move components.

How do you distinguish who had more variety? How do you do it with a very simple set of rules that doesn't take an hour of reading and requires absolutely zero interpretation; interpretation which could come out differently at every event you might compete in? "A different setting surface does not make a move with otherwise identical move components unique." Moves don't need to be individually interpretted, and the rule can be explained in one sentence. Plus, it applies to easy tricks and hard tricks, so the rules are the same for pros and intermediates. Its not a rule structure that offers benefit to pros but not to intermediates (one of the major problems I have with saying that DOD's are unique if they come from a different surface but butterflies aren't is that its simply a double standard: "moves that I think are tough benefit by doing them from either toe, either clipper. moves that I think are easy don't." But tough and easy vary depending on your experience, and I think the rules should be the same for everybody despite their varying levels of experience/skill)

[Tsiangkun]

I guess player one would have the better difficulty score because of the tightness of window on the quantum vs players twos atomic set.

Player two did an outside in set, so his variety score would be higher than player 1.

Blazing butterfly and ripwalk and pretty much the same difficulty, but the whirling set improves players two variety score yet again.

Both did a pixie op butterfly.

While equal in difficult and uniques, player two wins because of his variety of components demonstrated.

[cd]

Jon, keeping in mind that the catching surface at the end of one move is the setting surface of the next, don't you think that contact has as much to do with what happens immediately before it as it does with what happens immediatly after it? (I don't think we're going to actually come to an agreement on this, but this is how I see it)

What if we looked at a move as peak to peak instead of from contact to contact? The connection between catching/setting foot and the set becomes more apparent. The downtime>catch>uptime segments of a string are inseparable.

Sidenote. When I started playing, the first set I learned was my strong pixie. After that, I still had to train for months to learn both stepping sets. Then I had to learn flip pixie. I still can't do quantum sets. A player should get credit in competition for being able to do each one because you have to learn each one separately.

I don't know. I want to say more but its getting time consuming. Gotta get ready for spike n' shred tomorrow. Plus none of this discussion is going to get any rules changed. However, there's a lot of food for thought in this thread and I think we now have a better understanding of the problem for when a change of rules does come about.

[Jeremy]

Worlds 2005 we are using IFPA's current rules, no x-dex and so on. So meanwhile, could you Allan Haggett please tell me what IFPA rulebook really says about paradon/ddd/dod/barfly at the moment. We have to live with the rules we have and we have to update those rules also if something is outdated or something. So, I'd like to hear IFPA's clear opinion about setting surface doesn't matter -rule.

I can answer this: The current rules state that for a move to be unique it must have different add components (add components are things like dex, bod, xbd, del etc.) or have a different dexterity or spin direction. The rules clearly state that setting surface does not matter unless the setting surface changes the add value.

As I see it this clearly means that bafly, paradon, double over down and down double down are regarded as the same move. However also under that definition pixie butterfly and ripwalk are the same move, phoenix and ripped warrior are the same move. Fairy pickup and atomsmasher are the same move and you can take things a lot further than that.

However the rules also state very clearly that the people organising any footbag tournament can interpret the rules as they see fit. If I were you I'd use common sense and decide which moves you think are unique or non unique - and maybe make an announcement now or pretty soon letting people know since I'm sure people have started preparing their shred 30s already.

Also off topic but hopefully the concept of "x-dex" will be written into the rules by the time worlds happens - it has been used at the last 3 worlds as well (and pretty much every ifpa tournament in that time as well)

[Tsiangkun]

Here's a wild idea I haven't seen suggested yet:

Why not just let unique be unique by a liberal definition of unique, and let the judges give a subjective measurement of variety from 0-1 ?

Just multiply the raw score, as determined by some valid formula, by the subjective variety scores.

[Tuukka]

okay, I will upload shred 30 rules to Worlds website as soon I manage to figure out which rules we are going to use. There will be also other updates coming soon. Jeremy, I will you some common sense when putting together these rules. I just have to consider this paradon/ddd/dod/ issue. All the other rules for 2005 worlds are ready.

Jon: Imo with uptime components the issue should be pretty clear. Why should pixie op butterfly and quantum op buttefly be same trick?
Now when think paradon/dod same trick I still think tapping butterfly/fairy ss bfly different tricks becuase of the set. You shouldn't mix up the basic elements....
You are then probably saying also that atw and legover are the same trick and so is reaper and d-atw? also pixie and mirage are same trick? btw. dso and reaper has same problem as paradon/ddd/... they are both double switch overs. clip set double switch over and toe set double switch over.

What you are here doing Jon, you are mixing all the basics to only few tricks. If pixie<-> mirage are the same, fairy<->illusion/atomic is the same and atw<->legover are the same and pickup <->atw are the same..then we just lost 4 main elements of our game. I think these basic tricks should be left alone. Those shouldn't be changed. or should we think that there is only mirage, illusion and atw both directions?


-Tuukka

[Gobol]

Damn I regret that I don't have time to read whole 5 pages. I agree with those people who claim that paradon and barfly are diffrent moves. But I've got a few questions. In which pair of this tricks both are uniques?
-toe set butter and infinity
-stepping osis and torque
-stepping lo and dlo
-toe set whirl , toe set ss whirl, whirl (are this 3 uniques?)

[Tuukka]

-toe set butter and infinity
-stepping osis and torque
-stepping lo and dlo
-toe set whirl , toe set ss whirl, whirl (are this 3 uniques?)

toe set butter and infinity <- one unique
stepping osis and torque <- two uniques
stepping op legover and dlo <- two uniques
toe set whirl , toe set ss whirl, whirl <- one unique