Adds, Xdex, PDX.....

qphox · Post by **qphox** » 31 Aug 2005 23:33

I was thinking.

I believe that Leggy Atomic ss Mirage should get xdex. Leggy Set. Hippy downtime.

The set, in of itself, is a full dex. It's impossible for it not to be. You gotta go over and under again. Period.

The downtime, well...due to the position of the bag relative to your body after the SET, you've got no choice but to bring that miraging leg under the bag before you can get back over it.

Two full dexes.

Tap: Gets x-dex if it's leggy.

james_dean · Post by **james_dean** » 01 Sep 2005 00:39

hacksterbator wrote:okay, well here's where we reach problems with x-dex and pdx. is stepping mirage 3 adds and slapping mirage 4 adds with x-dex? not looking at the set location, they are jobbed identically. are we going to shift every thing in to toe favour? kevin, don't answer this.

well slapping mirage does require more dex than stepping ss mirage. It's definately harder too...

the definition of x-dex, as it was described to me, is that to gain an x-dex add a trick must have 2 or more full dexes... and that dexes were ranked individually, so a half dex plus a one and a half dex (e.g. atomic ss illusion) doesn't equal 2 full dexes.

by the sounds of it most ppl seem to disagree with this and i agree... if you have to circle the bag 720 degrees what difference does it make where one dex ends and the next starts? although in cases like stepping ss whirl it does seem more like a body shift than a 1.5 dex... note: can't hit this i'm just theorising

leggy tap an x-dex... just to make things more confusing hey?

i do see what you mean but if we start giving different styles different adds.... very confusing

i suppose it wouldn't be too hard to say "leggy/hippy tap" every time

i have always thought of x-dex as an extra [dex] add too

ptaku · Post by **ptaku** » 01 Sep 2005 03:59

Andrew: I don't thnik we should base some arguments on Jobs... Jobs works quite nice for describing move over internet, but I wouldn't consider it as a good base to count adds and as a good reason for arguments when talking about adds.

Yeah... Fuck adds when shreding, jaming... But it's hard to fuck adds when preparing a shred30 and then competing in it...

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 01 Sep 2005 07:02

I have always thought of x dex as an extention of pdx - such that a move only gets it because the dex before turns the following dex into a pdx stlye dex. Hence, slapping mirage, stepping mirage, triple mirage, blurrage, fusion etc - do all not get an x dex. They are harder either because you have to move faster or something like that. Yes they are hard moves - but there should be more logic behind it then just "this move is fucking hard - it should get an add - this one is a bit unclear - lets give it that one"

Although I yearn for the day when adds aren't used anywhere at all.

Anz · Post by **Anz** » 01 Sep 2005 10:36

I can't believe this scheisse what I'm reading on this forum these days about adds. When it comes to paradox and full dex, most of the newer (or even some older) players don't have a clue what is really going on. You just learn the tricks name and are satisfied with that. Then people start to make their own theories why it gets so-and-so many adds. Don't do that.
When you guys start to play footbag, learn Job's notations! There are no exeptions in footbag, so it's all in Job's! Full dex is a full dex. Paradox is paradox.
www.footbag.org - Read. Don't start whining about something you don't fully understand. There is explenation for everything and you'll find it without asking here.

AAAAAAAAARRGH!!!

sergio · Post by **sergio** » 01 Sep 2005 11:26

What are you talking about? And who was that post directed at?

ptaku · Post by **ptaku** » 01 Sep 2005 11:31

No... Not all is in Jobs Notation... I know Jobs almost perfectly (if not perfectly)... It was invented and conceived for describing whats the move look via internet. I don't think it's the good tool to debate about what we calll adds.

Iwrite how I feel about it... I know how most people think about it... but I just don't agree with their point of view. I haven't seen any "official rules", and I don't even know if some exist. So I have my fuckin' freedom to write how I feel about it... Until someone will show me that there are official rules, which say something different.

Ps. And Jeremy: In Eric's deffinition Triple ATW, Toe Barrage, Fusion, Triage were all X-DEX... Same would be Blurrage... And don't think that all what you think is the only and true option - if you will think so - you will be the most stupid man on the world.

p.Ps. Anssi: if you don't agree with something it doesn't mean it's scheisse.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 01 Sep 2005 11:49

Indeed, none of this discussion is covered by the official rules of footbag, and it will probably be seven years before we see the IFPA act at all.

I personally don't feel any barrage type dex should be considered an xdex.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 01 Sep 2005 12:04

I personally don't feel any barrage type dex should be considered an xdex.

word.

7 years huh... That's like breaking a mirror. Bad luck for footbag.

Official Rules For Footbag:

Kick / Stall / Have Fun

~peace
Damon

sergio · Post by **sergio** » 01 Sep 2005 12:09

Isn't toe barrage two full dexes when it's done clean? IMO, the leg passes twice behind and in front of the bag.

And also there are some moves that I feel have two full dexes that don't get xdex. Fear (I know this one was already the cause of a lot of controversy), stepping same whirl, atomic twirl for example. Doesn't the leg pass in front and behind (or over and under) the bag for these moves? You can't really say a set or a move is a full dex, it depends of the tricks ; for instance fairy same mirage, blurry whirl don't have two full dexes, and reverse swirl isn't a full dex.

And I'm just saying how I feel about it, I'm not trying to state how the rules are. And rules are meant to be changed, the PDX add didn't fall from the sky (French expression

)

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 01 Sep 2005 12:16

I agree toe barrage is two full dexes, but I don't see any reason for an xdex.

ptaku · Post by **ptaku** » 01 Sep 2005 12:28

And I suppose, that you think about an X-DEX as an extention of Paradox?

You know... If you would think about it as an extra ADD, that is given for extra effort to complete the dexterity, as I interpret Eric's deffinition, you will see why Toe Barrage is, IMHO, X-DEX move.
And beside this... I think that the fact that Toe Barrage HAS (I don't think that anybody can argue about that) two full dexes is the reasoning for it beeing an X-DEX move.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 01 Sep 2005 12:39

I actually think the whole x-dex thing is poorly thought out, and I don't count it at all.

I think it was in fact designed to be an extension of paradox.

Explicitly stated, I believe XDEX was Eric W's attempt to explain why his friend Sunil's toe tricks should be of equal difficulty and value in a contest to their clipper set counterparts. There was no paradox add for tricks set from the toe, and XDEX was his attempt to solve this.

That is my opinion.

If I followed the "extra effort to complete the dexterity argument" to it's logical conclusion, then everyone of my grab tricks with a dex now qualifies for an extra add because they are more difficult to complete the dex than their regular versions. Which of course would be just plain ludicris.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 01 Sep 2005 13:22

IMO - The added timing issues of cramming an extra dex into barrage making it triage deserves extra credit. An Add??? nah. X-dex??? nah.

Mostly likely just props I guess. At some point a line needs to be drawn to distinguish difficulty.

This is a cycle that keeps going round and round. How 'bout we change the title of this thread or create a new one and settle all this difficulty none-sense once and for all.

We will never get anywhere in the real world of sports with this much confusion and interpretation.

Personally I think this particular thread is pointless. We are just swapping opinions about an add that isn't even recognized in comps.

Can we at least agree to work together on a REAL solution???

That would be sweet! So when I tell my daughters about freestyle I can say Daddy hit a "such and such" trick with a difficulty of "such". Instead of Daddy's not sure what the fuck he just hit or how hard it is. Some say its "such" in that clich of players, while this clich says "such other", and that other clich is just a bunch of punks.

~peace
Damon

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 01 Sep 2005 13:43

what ? A difficulty based system for classifying tricks ?

Won't ever happen. It's too much work. I'd be interested in it, if the IFC explicitly requested community input, had a forum to present such input, and was responsive to the freestyle communites input. I don't see that ever happening.

It's obvious to me, that should we develop such a system, it would be expecting too much of the governing body to even read through the proposal, let alone do anythign with it.

ie XDEX. The proposal has been out there for about 5 years now. How far has the IFC gotten into implementing a rule change ?

Fine, I'll answer my own question. About as far along as they were in 1996.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 01 Sep 2005 14:15

Is the IFC a communist state or something???

Fuck a proposal, we'll just do it, practice it, one of us (proposers) will win a tournament, we'll all scream and shout, whip out our guns and shoot them in the air, stage a bloodless coup of all kicks to the head, and all will be right in the new footbag federation.

We'll call it the WWF - World Wide Footbag

And wear masks so noone can point us out individually.

It'll be great Cameron - you just have to want it bad enough.

But seriously - IFC had to start somewhere as did IFPA, so what is to keep us from forming a NEW commitee of the willing and hammering out some of the dents in the sport until we come up with a better cadillac?

Businesses do it everyday. One day hopefully, you all will want to see money in the sport. For that to happen there has to be a viable system in place. As of right now, it is a more or less a cult following like Blouchi dominated by net players.

I haven't given up. If fixing the system is too much work, then damn if you'll ever get any better at schooling footbag, cause its just too much work.

~peace
Damon

SlashC · Post by **SlashC** » 01 Sep 2005 15:19

qphox wrote:I was thinking.

I believe that Leggy Atomic ss Mirage should get xdex. Leggy Set. Hippy downtime.

The set, in of itself, is a full dex. It's impossible for it not to be. You gotta go over and under again. Period.

The downtime, well...due to the position of the bag relative to your body after the SET, you've got no choice but to bring that miraging leg under the bag before you can get back over it.

Two full dexes.

Tap: Gets x-dex if it's leggy.

Here's my best shot at leggy atomic ss mirage.

http://v.footbag.org/media/396/tap.wmv

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 01 Sep 2005 15:46

Actually there is a 2004 edition of the rules and another new edition coming out in November I think - or maybe that's the cut off date for changes. It's just that a certain person on the IFC who is in charge of printing or something refused to listen to suggestions that pdf files made it almost impossible to update the website with the rules and the last drafts of the rules have all been pdfs. This is another issue that is being worked on.

Regarding Eric's original definition. I've read it a number of times and x dex has been discussed a number of times. I don't agree with his definition and I think it would be pretty amazing if the first proposal for something was the most accurate - these things always get improved on - otherwise the rules would be perfect already.

The documents at footbag.org regarding pdx are efforts to try and explain something very complicated to new players - that tutorial is in no way an official definition of pdx and why that add exists. Maybe it explains the initial reason for introducing pdx but freestyle footbag has changed an enourmas amount since pdx was first introduced.

The current "official" definition of pdx would mean that all ps whirl moves do not actually get a pdx add (since there is no change of momentum). It's clear that this definition is no longer accepted by anybody and I'm sure it will have been changed before July 2006

edit: if you are an IFPA member you can read a draft of the 2004 rules here. It's not complete but it's a good guide.

http://www.footbag.org/groups/showfile/136

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 01 Sep 2005 15:47

I wouldn't give that x-dex. Atom smasher - YES! That move - NO

~peace
Damon

footjoe · Post by **footjoe** » 01 Sep 2005 15:59

atomsmasher is a 3 add to me