Uranos wrote:i read your post, but how are you agreeing with ken? the one that says "i have to disagree with....."
anyway those pictures to me seem like the 2nd one (quantum) is more skeptical but which one is the bag?
Read the whole post, and the ones above it, not just the first 5 words. I was disagreeing with the statement that all symposium frantic sets are 'the,' and therefore agreeing with the sentiment that some are not 'the.' I'm sorry you found this hard to understand.
As I said in my original post, many people have different definitions of "the," a great example was a video I posted a while ago where I hit pixie torque (flip) at the end. In my opinion the pixie set was definitely 'the' and I showed it to a lot of people who all said they thought it was ok. Of course in footbag people often tell you what you want to hear anyway, but if we assume that some of these people are honest, it's obvious that there are different definitions of cleanliness. I called it "the" for the same reason I called Ken's pixie set, because if the bag drops below the foot, and perhaps my screenshot is not very clear on this, but check it out in the video for yourself, then you're doing the action above the bag, instead of around it, even if, as I did in the video in question, and as Ken does here, you bring the foot back down in front of the bag. In a case like this, because your leg is already pushed to the outside of the bag, you can only pass it along the fronts of your foot anyway.
Regarding quantum sets; the notation is toe>op in. It is not toe>op swirl or toe>op over. The correct way of doing a quantum set is stalling on the toe, then going around the bag from in to out. If, as is demonstrated by the picture, you go behind the bag, up over it and then back down in front of it, you're not going around it from in to out at all, you're going from back to front. You could name that something else, and give it a different job's notation, but it's not a quantum set. There are countless examples of clean quantum sets that I'm sure people can find.
If somebody is going to then claim to have hit a clean pixie quantum set (as opposed to a pixie non xbody swirl, or whatever you want to call it), it could only be legitimate if both the pixie and quantum dexes are legitimate
pixie and quantum dexes. Likewise if you're then going to make one of the dexes symposium, if you're still claiming that it's a pixie symposium quantum set, it still has to fit the definitions of pixie and quantum.
In my opinion footbag is about skill, it's about doing technically hard things with your feet and a bag. While we could argue that pixie symp non crossbody swirling set is a legitimate set, part of skill is doing the thing you're setting out to do. If you're playing pool and you miss your shot, but sink the ball in a different pocket, you've missed by a long way and played a bad shot, even though you've still done something legitimate. Likewise, if you attempt to hit a pixie symposium quantum set, and you don't, you're doing the move wrong for what you wanted to do. It may be a legitimate move, but it's still a 'the' pixie symposium quantum set, going by the clear definition of what that set is.
Total fluke of a move.
