What double dex sets have been ducked?

Anz · Post by **Anz** » 22 Nov 2005 23:37

Adults kicking a bean bag while smoking a joint/drinking beer, how immature is that?

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 23 Nov 2005 03:06

Switch Kicker wrote:So, if you did a shooting ducking swirling whirl for your first time, and landed it, but nicked it with your left leg on the shooting, you would completely rule out that you hit that trick?

I say fuck that, and I don't care who tells me that a trick is not hit if you nick the bag while doing one of the dexes...

Man, if someone came up to me, and told me that I didn't hit a big add trick that I'd been working on for a long time, simply because I nicked it while doing a dex or something, and was flat out seriously just, "No, you did not hit that trick.", I would probably tell them to shut the fuck up and get out of my face, and if they continued it'd get violent. It's completely disrespectful in my eyes. It's only happened once where I had to tell someone to shut up and just get out of my face. It was only a ripwalk, and someone said that, "No, the bag didn't come high enough out of the step set, (It came up to my waist, high enough.) and was just all annoying about it too. It was my first ripwalk and he's like, "No, no props for you, you didn't do it." Not to mention that he can't do a ripwalk yet either, so, whatever.

By the way, I know the above trick is really unlikely to be done, but you get my point... Hopfully.

Let me rephrase the statement.

If you hit a trick that isn't clean in a competition it doesn't count (if the judges notice that it isn't clean). In footbag nomenclature the term "clean" really refers to if you go around the bag with your foot enough/in the right manner. If the bag hits your foot while you're dexing it this is referred to as "sloppy" which is different to "unclean" and the trick still counts but obviously the judges would deduct marks if they noticed.

How you feel about a trick personally is really your opinion - you can count whatever you like and it has no effect on anybody - in competition other people will decide if it counts or not.

Also please be respectful on the forum - I'm saying this as a moderator.

Muffinman · Post by **Muffinman** » 23 Nov 2005 04:29

I think thed moves are completely valid, they're just the. I also usually count moves that roll off my foot unsealed. It bothers me a little when people flat out say that thed tricks don't count, when if they do they do, y'know?

I've seen clean shooting done, where it's actually stepping atomic rather than a "double dex pulled nuclear". I know shooting is rarely clean and how hard shooting ducking must be to make clean (probably been done, though).

I know Johnny Suderman was also hinting at having ducked fusing. I wouldn't laugh at terraging ducking either. And Wontomic (Juantomic?) is probably pretty duckable too.

Has a really-leggy-second-dex blur set been done? Like stepping with a super quick almost completely horizontal, swirl-esque second dex? I was trying to picture other sets and pictured ripped warrior with a second quick dex thrown in after the stepping...

max · Post by **max** » 23 Nov 2005 04:57

Like stepping with a super quick almost completely horizontal, swirl-esque second dex?

I've hit this set almost *exactly* as you describe it. i hit when trying to do swirling stepping actually, but I got the order a fraction of a second wrong. I think it's called sliding set (stepping quasi). I've only done butterflies and legovers out of it as the set is usually pretty low. Ducking this seems very hard.

james_dean · Post by **james_dean** » 23 Nov 2005 05:06

Nathan wrote:Fusing doesn't get x-dex. fairy isn't a full dex

I'm pretty sure fairy is full when set to an opposite component.

Nathan · Post by **Nathan** » 23 Nov 2005 12:59

james_dean wrote:
Nathan wrote:Fusing doesn't get x-dex. fairy isn't a full dex
I'm pretty sure fairy is full when set to an opposite component.

Then fear is a 4?

HackMaverick · Post by **HackMaverick** » 23 Nov 2005 15:19

I think Juantomic could be ducked.

sidekick · Post by **sidekick** » 23 Nov 2005 19:05

No I know that fairy doesn't get x-dex, but fairy atomic op butterfly, or fairy legbeater as I call it was my question. If you think about it you get a lot of leggy dexing and it seems that after the atomic dex into an op side component is where the x-dex would occur. IDK, but it seems like it should get x-dex, but I also believe that phasing op side mirage should get paradox. I may just be x-dextarded

james_dean · Post by **james_dean** » 23 Nov 2005 20:03

OK, fairy, when set to an op side component, does get x-dex.

Eric Wulff:

"X-Dex - Any dex which, in theory, passes both over and under the bag
builds to be worth 2 adds each after the first is completed."

Fairy op side fulfills this criteria.

"Fairy op mirage 4 1,2,1(x-dex,x-dex,delay)" (adds)

so yes, fear is a 4.

So fairy atomic butterfly, does get x-dex.

And just because a trick has a lot of dexing, doesn't mean it should get x-dex. 2 or more full dexes, nothing else. I really don't understand how the x-dex 'would occur' between the atomic and the butterfly... x-dex builds up over multiple dexes, it doesn't occur at any one time. Why did you think it would occur after the atomic dex?

read http://www.footbag.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=319 for a full run down on x-dex.

I also believe that phasing op side mirage should get paradox

I see your logic there. I think I agree with you.

Slowsis · Post by **Slowsis** » 23 Nov 2005 20:37

And fairy op whirl is a 5?

No way.....thats not right at all!

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 23 Nov 2005 20:46

I think the standard convention with x-dex is not to give fairy set an x-dex. I think there are a lot of moves mentioned in Eric's original definition which wouldn't be considered for x-dex under current convention. The big thing with any add is that it needs to be consistant and moves like fear are outside of the consistant definitions for x-dex. (ie. two far full dexes).

edit: That said x-dex does not exist in any kind of official footbag set of rules and neither are there any rules about "the" moves or how clean a move has to be to be counted.

If one were to follow the rules to the letter "the" moves would count and there would be no x-dex. For the last 4 years no tournament has used the official rules apart from the rule that says tournament directors can use their own rules if they like.

james_dean · Post by **james_dean** » 23 Nov 2005 21:31

Ah... thanks for the update!

ptaku · Post by **ptaku** » 25 Nov 2005 09:13

The definition of x-dex, that you had quoted is a lill' bit old...

Even after that one, Eric posted on list.footbag.org that Fairy isn't a full dex set. So it isn't full dex even under Eric's definition.

james_dean · Post by **james_dean** » 25 Nov 2005 19:05

Is there anywhere I can read up on the current definition of x-dex? Or is it just a general consensus?

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 25 Nov 2005 21:59

There is official definition of x-dex. There is also no consensus. Some moves everybody agrees get an x-dex (apart from the people who don't believe in x-dex)

Especially - toe>op dex>>op dex>op side or foot component moves such as atomsmasher, quantum whirl, sailing drifter etc. - Those are all x-dex according to everybody who believe in x-dex

Some moves are accepted by everybody except a few unlogical n00bs - this is nuclear stuff - so pdx versions of atomic stuff that gets an x-dex for the non pdx version.

Downtime moves are accepted as x-dex by most people but are debated by a few people with fairly solid arguements (although I disagree) - especially symp toe blurs/voodoo, merlin, paratoxic etc.

Double dexing stuff is accepted by some people but it seems fairly split - definitely there are strong arguements on both sides - Fury, fusion etc are given x-dex by some people.

One foot stuff is given an x-dex by a minority of people - mainly based on Eric's original definition - whirr, triple atw etc. - All very hard moves but I guess it's about having a logical system as well as an accurate one.

I think most other things are only given an x-dex by a very small amount of people.

Xain · Post by **Xain** » 25 Nov 2005 22:33

I think QATW should get x-dex for sure.

james_dean · Post by **james_dean** » 26 Nov 2005 01:21

Thanks Jeremy.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 26 Nov 2005 01:51

Xain wrote:I think QATW should get x-dex for sure.

Why?

x-dex means "extra dex" it means you have to go around the bag more times then you get adds for. It doesn't mean "this move is hard and I have to move my leg fast so I'd like an extra add please". If you're giving out adds because a move is hard why not give a "this move is hard" add and fix up the add system that way. x-dex is an attempt to make the add system more realistic using a logical approach.

Xain · Post by **Xain** » 26 Nov 2005 05:57

I was mostly kidding, seeing as how often QATW is hit in competition, but it seems to me like since there are 4 dexes, that means 2 of them are full. But I could honestly go either way on that.

sniikeri · Post by **sniikeri** » 26 Nov 2005 07:16

As always, no matter how the descussion started, it ends to debating about x-dex.

If I "nicked" or the'd a trick without noticing it, I'd appreciate someone telling me it was unclean. Knowing that I could do it clean would make me practise it harder.
Fairy Atomic Ducking sounds hard, but I think all the double-dex>ducking sets are. I'd really like to see it on video.