Blurry Dyno?

NotHisRealName · Post by **NotHisRealName** » 22 Sep 2005 22:56

Is stepping far dyno blurry? Does it get a paradox add?

Paul Agostinelli · Post by **Paul Agostinelli** » 22 Sep 2005 23:29

its grab your balls and squeeze (GYBAS for short) and, no it does not get paradox.

~NEL~

Uranos · Post by **Uranos** » 22 Sep 2005 23:31

I thought GYBAS was Blurry SYMPLe reverse blender. Isnt it?

Post by **Allan** » 23 Sep 2005 00:16

It's probably THE

NotHisRealName · Post by **NotHisRealName** » 23 Sep 2005 00:33

NotHisRealName wrote:Is stepping far dyno blurry? Does it get a paradox add?

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 23 Sep 2005 01:14

It doesn't get a pdx add.

regarding calling the move "blurry" or not - there is much debate about this. I personally say that it's fine to call the move blurry.

Bascially originally in footbag "blurry" meant any move with two in to out dexes - one on each foot. Possibly the first one had to be an op in dex but that's unclear - so blurry was not by any means - stepping pdx.

Somehow the term got confused to mean "stepping pdx" - which you can see is a long way off the original definition. In my opinion it's stupid to debate the existence of "blurry dyno", "blurry legover" or any stepping farside move that is not pdx. There is only really one possible move that could be blurry dyno under today's definition. The point of move names - especially technical move names is to make sure that the players know what the move they're talking about is. In the case of blurry - using the term to mean stepping farside is completely acceptable and only really annoyingly pedantic people would argue against this. If you want to argue that blurry should still mean it's initial definition - that's a seperate issue but I'd say it's become most acceptable for blurry to refer to stepping farside.

NotHisRealName · Post by **NotHisRealName** » 23 Sep 2005 01:35

Thankyou Jeremy.

Very consise answer. Just what I needed to know.

james_dean · Post by **james_dean** » 23 Sep 2005 01:39

Dyno is symple Reverse Blender

Juice · Post by **Juice** » 23 Sep 2005 03:40

Dyno is just a reverse blender. Not simple. I think.

jon · Post by **jon** » 23 Sep 2005 05:57

Juice wrote:Dyno is just a reverse blender. Not simple. I think.

agreed, dyno = rev whirling osis

setman · Post by **setman** » 23 Sep 2005 06:01

Webslinger (Honza Weber) wrote:Yes, I am pretty sure- Dimitri Kavouras invented dyno and originally it was symple reverse blender, but everybody has started using the name for normal reverse blender.

FootbagGuru · Post by **FootbagGuru** » 23 Sep 2005 07:21

dyno's are fun

slapdash21 · Post by **slapdash21** » 23 Sep 2005 08:01

what about stepping opp blender? pdx? i feel like it should with the hip movements.

i want to land GYBAS today...go fairly close

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 23 Sep 2005 08:28

I seem to remember dyno being a gyro reverse swirl many years ago, but in today's game it's accepted to be a reverse whirling osis.

mosher · Post by **mosher** » 23 Sep 2005 08:32

slapdash21 wrote:what about stepping opp blender? pdx? i feel like it should with the hip movements.

stepping pdx blender you mean? yes, it is paradox.

aka food processor

BalinorNZ · Post by **BalinorNZ** » 23 Sep 2005 09:06

Jeremy wrote:but I'd say it's become most acceptable for blurry to refer to stepping farside.

I agree here, thought I have met some who don't. The way I use blurry is the same way I use atomic or quantum. I use stepping the same way I would slapping or tapping. It's just easier to have different name for oposite and same component out of a set. Go blurry legover!

Post by **Allan** » 23 Sep 2005 09:23

Jeremy wrote:Bascially originally in footbag "blurry" meant any move with two in to out dexes - one on each foot. Possibly the first one had to be an op in dex but that's unclear - so blurry was not by any means - stepping pdx.

Not disagreeing with you, but I was just curious where you got this info ...

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 23 Sep 2005 09:25

AllanHaggett wrote:
Jeremy wrote:Bascially originally in footbag "blurry" meant any move with two in to out dexes - one on each foot. Possibly the first one had to be an op in dex but that's unclear - so blurry was not by any means - stepping pdx.
Not disagreeing with you, but I was just curious where you got this info ...

That's straight from Kenny. He posted it here a long time ago, and I think it was lso tin the summer clean up. Basically Kenny said that for a trick to be blurry, it must contain an in-out dex with each leg, and they don't have to be in direct sucession.

slapdash21 · Post by **slapdash21** » 23 Sep 2005 12:35

mosher wrote:
slapdash21 wrote:what about stepping opp blender? pdx? i feel like it should with the hip movements.
stepping pdx blender you mean? yes, it is paradox.

aka food processor

ohhh, thanks mosh. so thats what that is. id like to hit it someday

Tsia wrote:That's straight from Kenny. He posted it here a long time ago, and I think it was lso tin the summer clean up. Basically Kenny said that for a trick to be blurry, it must contain an in-out dex with each leg, and they don't have to be in direct sucession.

that makes sense, because if the second dex was out-in, you're momentum would still be traveling in the same direction (both legs heading the same geographic direction), requiring a hip pivot for only the first dex. someone explained that number of hip pivots where a good method of discerning between far and paradox. it makes sense, and so far i havent found any solid evidence against that system...
please correct me if im wrong.

NotHisRealName · Post by **NotHisRealName** » 23 Sep 2005 14:57

Jeremy wrote: Bascially originally in footbag "blurry" meant any move with two in to out dexes - one on each foot. Possibly the first one had to be an op in dex but that's unclear - so blurry was not by any means - stepping pdx.

So, by that school of thought... one could say that toe blur is 'Blurry'? I guess that's in the name already - toe blur.

modified

Blurry Dyno?

Blurry Dyno?

Re: Blurry Dyno?