Refraction

janis · Post by **janis** » 03 Apr 2006 22:54

Surely there has to be a video out there somewhere.....

slapdash21 · Post by **slapdash21** » 04 Apr 2006 06:51

oh for fucks sake! there actually is...matt kemmer uploaded a video of him doing refractions and he didnt know what they were...thought he was doing a 'butterfly osis'

but it seems so easy to understand to me, i dont understand why people are still confused. when you do an osis, you set the bag on the OUTSIDE of the osis-ing leg and it passes over the heel of your foot, behind your leg, and you catch it on the inside of your foot. on a refraction (it doesnt matter where you set it from) the bag drops on the 'inside' of your 'osis' leg, falling directly between your legs, and you catch it on a inside stall that swings in the same way as an osis and pops out as a clipper, just like an osis. refraction doesnt actually require any spin at all, in my opinion, whereas osis generally should, as the bag is on the outside of your body. or if its easier, think of a refraction as a slurry symple butterfly. disregarding the complexities of foot transfers to do opposite side symple butterflys, its noted that refraction is generally set from the same clipper, or the far toe, as those are the two varieties that dont require any plant by the setting foot, which is a common feature of refractions. its like a no-plant butterfly, if set from the toe, where the stall is done before the butterfly dex, and then the bag is carried down 'through' your legs to the clipper position, and it feels a lot like an osis.

clear? if matt reads this, maybe he will provide a link.

Matt K · Post by **Matt K** » 04 Apr 2006 14:45

hey no problem Pete.

http://fizzied.phasing.org/butterosis.MOV

and i agree that there is little to no spin required for refractions, but if you really do put a big spin on it they look cooler.

bluntobj3ct · Post by **bluntobj3ct** » 19 Apr 2006 22:22

the spin is an add... take it or leave it

this trick is shrouded in mystery.

slapdash21 · Post by **slapdash21** » 21 Apr 2006 09:11

no it fucking isnt. it doesnt have a spin component, unless you're doing a spinning refraction. it can have a slight rotation to it, especially if its set from a far clipper, but it doesnt have a full back spin and therefore doesnt get an add for a spin. how can a trick be shrouded in mystery when its been explained fairly well at least twice, and there is a corresponding video of the move?

bluntobj3ct · Post by **bluntobj3ct** » 21 Apr 2006 16:38

i pondered your words kind sir, and you've only shown me that indeed this trick may never in fact be unveiled fully. its best that we've come to this conclusion in agreement.

maybe one day we'll be advanced enough in the game to really understand, its ok, right now we just dont have the capabilities.

peace out