The end of >>

mosher · Post by **mosher** » 09 Jun 2005 20:47

I was inspired by James' thread about the end of greek nomenclature and I thought that an equally good idea would be for us all to stop using the uptime/downtime indicator ">>" because it is far too useful.

It only serves to make things easier to understand and that is something we should work towards preventing.

Perhaps we can keep using >> but it no longer has to go at the midtime point, it can just go where ever you want. It will be a fun guessing game!!

This makes absolutely as much sense as erradicating greek nomenclature.

Oh yeah, and we should stop saying same or op because that tells you what side of the body stuff is done on, that's not helpful either.

Please don't kill me James!!!

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 09 Jun 2005 20:51

I think we should get rid of jobs notation and all footbag move names - so you have to explain moves like this.

I stalled the bag on the inside of my left foot which was behind the right foot. I then set the bag up and as it's going up go around the bag with my left foot in a clockwise direction. Then without putting that foot down I hop off my right foot and go over the bag in a clockwise direction. As I land I go around the bag again with my left foot in a clockwise direction.

This would mean that everybody - even somebody who had never heard of footbag before - would know what I'm talking about and there would be no confusion ever.

I see no possible confusion with this naming system.

professor · Post by **professor** » 09 Jun 2005 20:57

Did you really need to make another thread to mock James? I mean come on...

mosher · Post by **mosher** » 09 Jun 2005 21:13

professor wrote:Did you really need to make another thread to mock James? I mean come on...

I am *actually* this lame!!

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 09 Jun 2005 21:17

lol

Is there already a thread for mocking James? It should be sticky so that people don't have to look so hard for it.

- it's just a joke Joyce

Anz · Post by **Anz** » 10 Jun 2005 07:13

I am ALMOST rolling on the floor at the moment.

Let's do it!!

slapdash21 · Post by **slapdash21** » 11 Jun 2005 07:49

we should assign a different letter of the alphabet to each possible dex and body movement, and also the system should change everytime you explain something, so that you can spell out funny words by doing strings like

"today i did my first m-o-u-n-t-a-i-n-g-o-a-t! isnt that sweet?!?! it felt so nice to land that, let me tell you..."

Muffinman · Post by **Muffinman** » 11 Jun 2005 14:29

Let's just stop playing footbag; it's too much fun.

sniikeri · Post by **sniikeri** » 12 Jun 2005 03:22

Word, Chan.
Too much debating on things IMO, though it'd be good to have standards on these ">>" and G.n.. Luckily I don't have to do it, I'm having summer holidays.

Jdigges · Post by **Jdigges** » 14 Jun 2005 18:49

hahah i just saw that post. I really liked the extensive and powerful imagery he used

ptaku · Post by **ptaku** » 15 Jun 2005 07:11

If we are on >>> topic then I have idea to use two >> sometimes, in one trick of course. I think about ducks, spins, and peektime dexes.

So.. Tomahawk would be: CLIP >> DUCK >> OP IN > OP CLIP
Scorpion's Tail could be CLIP > (back) SPIN >> OP OUT > SAME OUT > OP CLIP but it could be CLIP >> BACK SPIN >> OP OUT > SAME OUT > OP CLIP too. And think about peektime dexes examples by oneself. It would give nice way to describe "how did you hit the move"" in universal language.

Some thoughts only. Maybe people just use it all the time, but I didn't saw it.

max · Post by **max** » 15 Jun 2005 07:32

Yes I have the same thoughts. I know this weird trick I call uzjiglatz (and that I spell differently every time I write it) also known as a guillotine by some. It's hard to describe but the closest I've been to is:

diving spinning ducking clipper

mid trick you're arched over backwards facing straight up to the sky with the bag over your neck / face.

i wouldn't know where to place the ">>" on that trick...