pretty vs. playable

bluntobj3ct · Post by **bluntobj3ct** » 18 Aug 2006 19:50

it seems to me that many if not most stitchers these days are striving to create a product that looks pretty instead of using the energy to be creative with the ability of their bags to shred. obviously even stitching and consistent gather are important... but whats with the intense focus on the beauty of your bag as opposed to how it plays? ive owned many a bag that although beautiful, sucked royal ass. the best bags ive ever played with looked nothing like this misled ideal everyone seems to be striving for.
bags arent for looking at, they're for shredding, jackasses

. there are way too many variables in the construction of a bag to be worrying about how it looks on the outside. why has stitching become a beauty pageant???

discuss.

EDITED: with smilies so as to not scare the children... sheesh

gangsta · Post by **gangsta** » 18 Aug 2006 20:29

Both are important!

shredzilla · Post by **shredzilla** » 18 Aug 2006 20:35

bluntobj3ct wrote:bags arent for looking at, they're for shredding, jackasses!

Please try not to offend people this way in the forum. I know it was a joke, but it's somewhat offensive.

tuff duff · Post by **tuff duff** » 18 Aug 2006 20:43

100% bags shood b made for playing. the third bag i ever made looks like a 6 year old made it in 2 seconds. u can see thread, occassionally with a good thumbing u cand see the lead and plastic in it, but ill b dammed if i didnt still break it in and it turned out great, it is high in the ranking for most shreddable bag i have, granted i do stich patterns that look cool and i pick colors that wood look nice together, but i still have pretty bags that i never use and im bummed because it was a waste of time cuz they werent stiched as well. i could probably break it in and it would turn out ok, but i have learned that if a good sticher has a problem with a bag he doesnt fix it, he just make sa new one and learns from his mistakes.

bluntobj3ct · Post by **bluntobj3ct** » 18 Aug 2006 21:02

gangsta:
no doubt both are important!!! aesthetics are a fundamental part of makin bags, plus its a lot more fun that way, but my point is that aesthetics shouldn't be the one and only focus of a bag.

EDIT: gangsta by the way i think you have some of the coolest lookin bags around

zilla:
EDIT 2: chris i dont know why you could be offended by this from all that ive gone and read since this reply your bags get great reviews.

please try not to be such a crybaby. if you go out of your way and TRY to be offended by TRIVIAL things you are going to have a very unhappy life. try to see past the severely offensive statements

and stick to the point of the thread. if you cant do that, then please feel free to go the hell away, stay off my thread, and cry yourself to sleep. kthxAND WERE BACK LADIES AND GENTLEMEN!

duff:
wordup man, some of the least likely bags turn out to be the choiciest!! patterns are not included in what i feel to be the problem here, a cool pattern/color scheme can be on ANY bag

plus thats one of the things i enjoy most about stitching my own bags- being creative with designs. again though, i just think that functionality is infinately more important

shred villain · Post by **shred villain** » 18 Aug 2006 21:26

i like to make sure my bags look good and play better. but honestly i would have to say my first facile 32 i made was probably the best bag ive ever played with. i'm gonna definitely make a recreation of it, cause the 2 colors broke in so well together. and by the way i dont care if you call me a jackass, go right ahead. it's not gonna stop me from making some great looking bags.

shredzilla · Post by **shredzilla** » 18 Aug 2006 21:41

bluntobj3ct wrote:please try not to be such a crybaby

Is that really necessary? I just asked a simple request bro, grow up. You actually didn't offend ME personally, I could care less if a bag is pretty or not. Haha in fact mine usually look bad in pics cuz I had a crappy camera for a while. I just don't like it when people shout jackass into a crowd of people. It makes that person the jackass in my eyes.

bluntobj3ct · Post by **bluntobj3ct** » 18 Aug 2006 21:58

Shredzilla:

Eh, I figured you'd come up with an idiotic response like that. This topic is completely obvious to anyone who plays footbag and doesn't even warrant discussion. Have fun with it though.

lol this topic is open for debate. way to have a temper trantrum over absolutely nothing. i believe the only "idiotic" person here is you, for taking deliberate unsubstanciated offense to something that is meant to inspire debate. you're not even trying to engage the topic- you're whining like a silly child. the entire topic itself apparently doesnt even apply to you by all accounts in the first place so i think you need to just calm down a little bit, as your posts dont even make contextual sense. not in the least... lol.

now if you would please leave this thread alone as you dont believe it warrants discussion, may i suggest a relaxing session of shred?

EDIT: chris you insulted me personally, so i quoted your ORIGINAL post.

now for the second time, please leave the thread to discussion instead of freaking the hell out. this isnt about your opinions about the word jackass and its use in crowds, its about playability vs. prettiness of bags. LEAVE IT THAT WAY

shredzilla · Post by **shredzilla** » 18 Aug 2006 22:03

Eh, I'm over it. Later.

bluntobj3ct · Post by **bluntobj3ct** » 18 Aug 2006 22:08

you got PWNED son!

all you've done is effectively jack my thread, and now tell me, whos the one acting like a child?
can you please leave the thread alone man?

please just leave it alone please

[/quote]

james_dean · Post by **james_dean** » 18 Aug 2006 22:11

lol. most pointless complaint ever AND busted editing your posts... bummer.

Sam - playability

Although I like a sexy bag as much as the next shredder, I'd rather it play well.

shredzilla · Post by **shredzilla** » 18 Aug 2006 22:17

You're a jackass james dean. lol.

Okay fine, now that I've been pwned by two people in one thread, I'll comment. That's usually shredzilla's rule of thumb.

Both. Make a good lookin bag that you know plays good as shit. People think my bags look sick in person, and they shred like crazy. It's like this thing of beauty that you created that's like idk, really dank quality.

bluntobj3ct · Post by **bluntobj3ct** » 18 Aug 2006 22:29

i agree both are always good. but now, zilla, that you're done spraying your enema all over my thread, read the other comments that pertained to the subject and you'll see i already said i figured it didnt apply to you because i researched your bags and they get good reviews

Wumbo · Post by **Wumbo** » 19 Aug 2006 02:14

i dont understand why its versus. bags can be pretty and play well at the same time. ex: hania bags. but if i have to decide, i pick the one that plays well, cuz i dont buy a bag for 30$ just to look at it the whole day and think: "oh, what a pretty bag!"

james_dean · Post by **james_dean** » 19 Aug 2006 02:14

shredzilla wrote:You're a jackass james dean. lol.

I know, it's so much fun

Okay fine, now that I've been pwned by two people in one thread, I'll comment. That's usually shredzilla's rule of thumb.

haha, nice man

Toby · Post by **Toby** » 19 Aug 2006 04:51

bluntobj3ct wrote:it seems to me that many if not most stitchers these days are striving to create a product that looks pretty instead of using the energy to be creative with the ability of their bags to shred. obviously even stitching and consistent gather are important... but whats with the intense focus on the beauty of your bag as opposed to how it plays? ive owned many a bag that although beautiful, sucked royal ass. the best bags ive ever played with looked nothing like this misled ideal everyone seems to be striving for.
bags arent for looking at, they're for shredding, jackasses . there are way too many variables in the construction of a bag to be worrying about how it looks on the outside. why has stitching become a beauty pageant???

What are you basing this on? If you are talking about the thead "Bags I've (any stitcher here) Made", I don't see how it could be anything else. We can only judge the footbags in that thread by their appearance, because we only see a photo. Therefore, neat and pretty bags are what is encouraged.

gangsta · Post by **gangsta** » 19 Aug 2006 05:25

bluntobj3ct wrote:EDIT: gangsta by the way i think you have some of the coolest lookin bags around

Thanks. They play well too.

You do have a good point though! I have quite a few bags from a certain stitcher, in which every pent looks different, and all the panels have slightly different sizes... They play Amazingly well and break in to be the best bags I've ever seen

BenRea · Post by **BenRea** » 19 Aug 2006 06:53

if it catches peoples eyes, they might buy it. so make a pretty bag and you will make money. there is only so much you can determine about how a bag plays before you even see it in person, so looks have to do a lot about whether the person buys it or not, but once you have the bag, the color (in my opinion) or style doesnt matter as much at all. on the stitchers part...well, i hope they make the bag more for how it plays, you have to make it nice looking while it still plays well, thats the tricky part.

schfiftyfive · Post by **schfiftyfive** » 19 Aug 2006 07:14

If a bag has a nice uniform (or pretty) look, then that usually means the stitcher stabbed it pretty evenly...so the two go hand in hand....

Beauty is performance, and performance is beauty. Ha, that should be the mantra for all footbag stitchers.

mosher · Post by **mosher** » 19 Aug 2006 07:15

Uhm... I think all the best stitchers in the world can make a bag that both looks AND plays good.

They don't have to be mutually exclusive, you know.

modified

pretty vs. playable

my bag is fuzzy and cute and pretty!!!

pretty vs. playable

Re: pretty vs. playable

Re: pretty vs. playable