Jobs Discussion

shredzilla · Post by **shredzilla** » 17 May 2006 16:18

Paradox Mirage = clip [set] same IN [dex] toe [DEL] right? But can't that same notation be used for Swirling Same Toe?

I think I've seen this discussed before, but I couldn't find it in the almighty search engine of life. Yo, so this is kind of a two-part thread. First, I'd like the answer to that question.

Secondly, we could use this thread to come up with Jobs Brain Teasers. Like, each person could post their Jobs Notation for a move, and then people can guess, and then check lower in the box for the answer in very small print. Of course, we won't reply to them because most people on here know Jobs really well, but it'll help for guys like me who have a tough time visualizing moves in Jobs. So it'll go like this:

clip [set] same IN [dex] toe [DEL]

Answer= Pdx Mirage <-----Answer

By the way, I suck at Jobs so bad, I'm not sure I'm even right about that notation! So yeah, if someone does their teaser incorrectly, either we can reply or PM that person. It might be neat to reply, that way everyone can learn.

james_dean · Post by **james_dean** » 17 May 2006 16:35

I believe swirl has a unique jobs notation? Not entirely sure though. And not sure where to find out.

also ">>" notates the point where the bag peaks during a move, so:

clip > op in [dex] > op out [dex] > same toe [del]

could be either stepping legover or DLO. But:

clip > op in [dex] >> op out [dex] > same toe [del]

is definately stepping legover and:

clip >> op in [dex] > op out [dex] > same toe [del]

is clip set DLO.

sampotter · Post by **sampotter** » 17 May 2006 16:44

Hey Chris,

In Jobs Notation [things] listed in brackets denote an add that is given for such and such component. There is not a [set] add. The proper Jobs notation for paradox mirage goes a little something like this:

clip >> same in [pdx][dex] > op toe [del]

Concerning jobs and swirling same toe, the jobs for that would be something like: clip >> same front/back swirl [dex] > op toe [del]. I can never remember which was which as far as front and back went with swirls in jobs. I remember it being stupid, though, and that the logic was faulty.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 17 May 2006 16:47

shredzilla wrote:Paradox Mirage = clip [set] same IN [dex] toe [DEL] right? But can't that same notation be used for Swirling Same Toe?

Paradox Mirage = clip > same in-out [dex][pdx] > op toe [del]

Swirling Same Toe = clip > same in-out [dex] > same toe [del]

There are two differences in the jobs notation, without using >> voodoo. One has a paradox add, which provides critical information on the way the dex was performed. Two the relationship between the dexing leg and the catching leg is inverted.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 17 May 2006 22:42

yeah swirl dexes are not in/out dexes - they are swirl dexes. Also it is Job's notation - not jobs notation - because the guy that came up with was Ben Job - so it's his notation and not some reference to the word "job".

sampotter · Post by **sampotter** » 17 May 2006 23:53

edit: needlessly quippy

max · Post by **max** » 18 May 2006 00:00

Yes I think swirl is written as "swirl" or "reverse swirl" or something similar. It does have it's own notation.

I do have a Job's question though: is it possible to denote Symple tricks in Job's notation?

sampotter · Post by **sampotter** » 18 May 2006 07:09

If I remember correctly you use 'no plant while' but don't give the [bod] add, or whatever the add is for symposium.

max · Post by **max** » 18 May 2006 07:27

Nagasake wrote:If I remember correctly you use 'no plant while' but don't give the [bod] add, or whatever the add is for symposium.

Yeah good point, that makes sense... kind of.

Anz · Post by **Anz** » 18 May 2006 08:32

Swirls coul be like this:

Ripstein - clip > xbd same in > xbd same in > same clip

Infinity Rev Swirl - clip > same out > xbd op out > same clip

Muffinman · Post by **Muffinman** » 23 May 2006 07:12

Swirls are denoted like this:

Swirl:
clip >> same back swirl [DEX] > same clip [XBD]

Reverse Swirl:
clip >> same front swirl [DEX] > same clip [XBD]

Because swirl dexes from back to front and reverse swirl from front to back.

sampotter · Post by **sampotter** » 23 May 2006 07:18

Except that... reverse swirls dex backwards and swirls dex forwards.

I will never use that notation for swirls.

akalazou · Post by **akalazou** » 23 May 2006 07:37

Nagasake wrote:Except that... reverse swirls dex backwards and swirls dex forwards. I will never use that notation for swirls.

Erik was right

thats straight from footbag.org
swirl: CLIP > SAME BACK SWIRL [DEX] > SAME CLIP [XBD] [DEL]
and reverse swirl
CLIP > SAME FRONT SWIRL [DEX] > SAME CLIP [XBD] [DEL]

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 23 May 2006 08:55

which is why, if you really want to avoid confusion you could use the fully qualified dex description,

in-out [dex] -- mirage
out-in [dex] -- barfly
back-front [dex] --swirl
front-back [dex] --reverse swirl

but then everyone realised that we really only need to know where the dex starts, and the other part was dropped to avoid excessive verbosity.

Nathan · Post by **Nathan** » 23 May 2006 18:25

I've always used front for swirl and back for rev. swirl

james_dean · Post by **james_dean** » 23 May 2006 23:51

It makes sense the way it is on footbag.org.

in dex = in-out dex
out dex = out-in dex

same for swirls:

back dex = back-front dex
front dex = front-back dex

Anexthesis · Post by **Anexthesis** » 30 May 2006 19:38

Just as an aside here but I have to say that Job's notation is infuriatingly difficult to read and I for one refuse to use it as a system. I get along just fine stating moves by their components like Pixie Legover. I can visualize at this point exactly what a pixie is and what a legover is so the move is clear to me.

I do however understand the need for Job's I just don't feel like learning a new language.

james_dean · Post by **james_dean** » 30 May 2006 20:30

hm, I didn't find it too hard to understand/use. pixie legover may not need jobs, but some of the more complex/unusual stuff it can be very handy for.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 30 May 2006 22:03

Anexthesis wrote: I get along just fine stating moves by their components like Pixie Legover.

You mean like a magellan right ?

sampotter · Post by **sampotter** » 31 May 2006 08:20

Nathan wrote:I've always used front for swirl and back for rev. swirl

Exactly why I won't use that notation for swirls in Job's, Akalazou. I understand the logic, but I think it's faulty. I like Anssi's suggestion.

modified

Jobs Discussion

Is this a worthwhile thread?

Jobs Discussion

Re: Jobs Discussion