it had nothing to do with that, that was just something obvios that should let him know I should know what I'm talking about.
I agree chopper. But I also say fuck adds, and support x dex and paradox...I don't know.
The only reason we should make this add is if we are going to try to get adds back on dificulty. That is of course the reason paradox and x dex were developed, so we've already started...and I've heard some talk about partial adds for certain components to attempt to made them difficulty as well. I think I'm ready for a new system...didn't Steve say he was coming up with one a while ago?
I'm not into flaming much Chop, and I'm certainly not going to argue you opinions, its just that he was arguing fact and I thought the way he went about it rude.
Flexibility [FLX] Adds?
-
FootbagginBum
- Flower Child
- Posts: 2018
- Joined: 03 Jan 2003 00:58
- Location: Grass Valley and Las Vegas
- Contact:
.-
ShredPirate
- Punkass
- Posts: 1090
- Joined: 03 May 2003 15:57
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
- Contact:
-
MegaFighter_X
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2334
- Joined: 27 Apr 2003 16:52
- Location: Las Vegas
- Contact:
You must remember, the UNS add is for a place where it usually doesn't touch (I.E. heel, sole, and kneepit, maybe etc?) The outside surface, although not usually used, the base trick (outside delay) gets one add for delay. There shoudln't be a reason it gets an UNS add. The FLX add would be sort of good, but who could really determine where the FLX add comes in? Would a flapper get it? Dragon obviouly would (according to the thread), as well as a few other tricks.
It would give incentive to learn the tricks, yes, but we have add catagories a few people still can't just pick up on. I'm talking about XDEX, PDX, and XSPIN. People can just assume it works without knowing why. Although I think the FLX add catagory is a decent idea, I don't think we need another add type... not quite yet
It would give incentive to learn the tricks, yes, but we have add catagories a few people still can't just pick up on. I'm talking about XDEX, PDX, and XSPIN. People can just assume it works without knowing why. Although I think the FLX add catagory is a decent idea, I don't think we need another add type... not quite yet
John D
-
Acid~Reign
- Multidex Master
- Posts: 219
- Joined: 31 May 2002 21:11
Will there be negative adds soon to makes adds represent relative difficulty for moves such as dada curve? I understand where it's all coming from but by the time we've given adds to everything to show the relative difficulty between moves there'd be so many add components it would look a little hideous to people who are just starting. And once we add fractional adds to account for smaller differences in difficulty the add system wouldn't really serve it's original purpose (or what I thought it was anyway).
Maybe we'd be better off keeping the current add system as a system to show move elements (maintaining its simplicity for beginners) and coming up with a numerical system to show approximated move difficulty?
Maybe we'd be better off keeping the current add system as a system to show move elements (maintaining its simplicity for beginners) and coming up with a numerical system to show approximated move difficulty?
How about getting rid of adds completely and keeping jobs. Adds are useless cause you cant say one trick is as hard as anyother trick just based on adds. Most serious footbagers can tell which tricks are harder and which are easier so why bother assigning every trick a difficulty. If anything I would like to see a new system based around the number of dexs.
Jon's FootBlog
MSN: [email protected]
"It was clean enough to be thin..." - Andrew W.
MSN: [email protected]
"It was clean enough to be thin..." - Andrew W.
-
ShredPirate
- Punkass
- Posts: 1090
- Joined: 03 May 2003 15:57
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
- Contact:
jon wrote:How about getting rid of adds completely and keeping jobs. Adds are useless cause you cant say one trick is as hard as anyother trick just based on adds. Most serious footbagers can tell which tricks are harder and which are easier so why bother assigning every trick a difficulty. If anything I would like to see a new system based around the number of dexs.
I doubt i could see that working, cause there's no way that the difficulty of a Montage (1 dex) could be compared to an ATW or Legover. Also, the difficulty between a Montage and a Nemesis (4 dex's) could not be as varied as that.
I don't know what the solution is, unless perhaps every pro-footbagger convenes somewhere and decides the difficulty of individual moves and assigns them an arbitrary value. But thats just plan stupid.
As a side note, destroying the add system would negate 'Slaying the Beast' and hitting a Jackpot etc. Also, the skill of footbaggers (Guiltless, Fearless etc.) could have to be defined based on the new system, which would just be plain confusing.
i was thinking more of say ranking the difficulty of moves into dex catagories so say rank different moves with one dex and then the with two and so on if that makes sense
so you take all the single dex moves and then rank each move, but this to probably would not work, any attempt to rank the degree of difficulty will fail cause no two moves can be said to be equally hard and some people find some moves easier then others
so you take all the single dex moves and then rank each move, but this to probably would not work, any attempt to rank the degree of difficulty will fail cause no two moves can be said to be equally hard and some people find some moves easier then others
Jon's FootBlog
MSN: [email protected]
"It was clean enough to be thin..." - Andrew W.
MSN: [email protected]
"It was clean enough to be thin..." - Andrew W.
-
Outsider
- Ayatollah of Rock n' Rollah
- Posts: 1373
- Joined: 21 May 2003 21:30
- Location: Bridgewater, New Jersey
Well, guess which way I voted...
Generally I am against giving out adds to stuff. Its like grade inflation. Pretty soon wiggling your ears will be worth extra adds. What are adds really worth if we just award more and more of them to any different combination of elements?
And I have protested, if a bit quietly, against all the various new schemes that award more and more adds.
The problem, as I see it, is that some discrepancy is found between adds and difficulty in some specific circumstance (i.e. Atomsmasher having the same add count as Butterfly) and so some little patchwork system is devised to correct for the discrepancy. The shortcoming of this approach is that it doesn't fix the whole difficulty-rating system. It only fixes the problem for a few moves. And then some other class of moves is found who's adds and difficulty don't quite agree. So another, different kind of patch on the old system is devised (spinning vs. inspinning).
Even the paradox concept itself seems like it may have originally been a kind of a patch on the adds system to give moves an extra point of difficulty when you do them from the wrong side of the body (do a mirage, but from the other clipper, thus doing the move the long way around, making it harder...)
Pretty soon, to fix all the little problems we'll need an absurdly complicated patchwork of gibberish technical babble to explain a scoring system that doesn't even go up to ten whole points yet.
And me, I've always been against making mountains out of mole hills. I've been saying that there are problems, but they are little problems which are not so desperately in need of fixing that we need to resort to all these complicated little patches.
But I've given up. I've changed my mind. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em!
If everyone else benefits from extra adds for trickier combiniations of dexterities, then I should benefit from my trickier catching surfaces (despite Kenny's joking on Tricks of the Trade 2, I was not born with a special gift allowing me to bend and twist wierdly. I worked hard on my flexibility and postures. And if anyone is interested to know, the real challenge to most of my stranger moves is not flexibility at all, but balance. Dragon and anchor require move balance than clipper and toe stall.)
So I want my extra adds too! Gimme gimme gimme!
And as for the questions raised about things like Flapper, well, thats another issue and we'll think of some other stupid fix for them later.
Jonathan Schneider
[email protected]
Generally I am against giving out adds to stuff. Its like grade inflation. Pretty soon wiggling your ears will be worth extra adds. What are adds really worth if we just award more and more of them to any different combination of elements?
And I have protested, if a bit quietly, against all the various new schemes that award more and more adds.
The problem, as I see it, is that some discrepancy is found between adds and difficulty in some specific circumstance (i.e. Atomsmasher having the same add count as Butterfly) and so some little patchwork system is devised to correct for the discrepancy. The shortcoming of this approach is that it doesn't fix the whole difficulty-rating system. It only fixes the problem for a few moves. And then some other class of moves is found who's adds and difficulty don't quite agree. So another, different kind of patch on the old system is devised (spinning vs. inspinning).
Even the paradox concept itself seems like it may have originally been a kind of a patch on the adds system to give moves an extra point of difficulty when you do them from the wrong side of the body (do a mirage, but from the other clipper, thus doing the move the long way around, making it harder...)
Pretty soon, to fix all the little problems we'll need an absurdly complicated patchwork of gibberish technical babble to explain a scoring system that doesn't even go up to ten whole points yet.
And me, I've always been against making mountains out of mole hills. I've been saying that there are problems, but they are little problems which are not so desperately in need of fixing that we need to resort to all these complicated little patches.
But I've given up. I've changed my mind. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em!
If everyone else benefits from extra adds for trickier combiniations of dexterities, then I should benefit from my trickier catching surfaces (despite Kenny's joking on Tricks of the Trade 2, I was not born with a special gift allowing me to bend and twist wierdly. I worked hard on my flexibility and postures. And if anyone is interested to know, the real challenge to most of my stranger moves is not flexibility at all, but balance. Dragon and anchor require move balance than clipper and toe stall.)
So I want my extra adds too! Gimme gimme gimme!
And as for the questions raised about things like Flapper, well, thats another issue and we'll think of some other stupid fix for them later.
Jonathan Schneider
[email protected]
-
piel_de_toro
- Circle Kicker
- Posts: 2
- Joined: 23 Aug 2003 08:00
-
max
- Australofrenchbrityorkus
- Posts: 3751
- Joined: 24 Apr 2002 00:12
- Location: Bondi Beach, Australia
- Contact:
I think it's a great idea!
We should also consider half adds and half negative adds! And imaginary adds (iADDS) that when squared equal a negative add! AND we should add multiplicators, like hitting a trick with your eyes closed. Also, as jonathan pointed out, I think that wiggling one's ears is an inherent part of footbag as is flailing one's arms when hitting a trick (surely that's worth at least an add or two). Finally, and I think you'll all agree, using your feet should be worth 2 adds per foot used!!!!!!!!
as Jonathan said, the system is pretty obsolete but still used, so lets reap it!
We should also consider half adds and half negative adds! And imaginary adds (iADDS) that when squared equal a negative add! AND we should add multiplicators, like hitting a trick with your eyes closed. Also, as jonathan pointed out, I think that wiggling one's ears is an inherent part of footbag as is flailing one's arms when hitting a trick (surely that's worth at least an add or two). Finally, and I think you'll all agree, using your feet should be worth 2 adds per foot used!!!!!!!!
as Jonathan said, the system is pretty obsolete but still used, so lets reap it!
IMO, they shouldve stopped at "wow, thats much harder to do!" instead of continuing to "wow, thats much harder to do, lets somehow find a way to justify that in a system of points". people should just do moves because they look/feel good, and because they area challenge, not because of some point system. some things like pdx and symposium are fine, but now with x-dex, xspin, etc etc etc, its like trying to fix something that was never broken. imo, jobs and the add system were fine the way they have been for awhile.
as COUNTLESS people have said, adds are not a system of difficulty, only a means of breaking a move into its individual components, therefore sometimes being a relative difficulty (pretty much any 5 is harder than any 2) my point being, trying to make it into a system equalling difficulty is both complicated and pointless, not to mention making it intensely harder to learn for new players.
as COUNTLESS people have said, adds are not a system of difficulty, only a means of breaking a move into its individual components, therefore sometimes being a relative difficulty (pretty much any 5 is harder than any 2) my point being, trying to make it into a system equalling difficulty is both complicated and pointless, not to mention making it intensely harder to learn for new players.
_____________________________________________
J Trevorr Hibbs
J Trevorr Hibbs
Hey Jon, do you remember the time when I hit whirlygig while looking straight at you the entire time?
And I personally feel that `tomahawk chop` (essentially a tomahawk, but you dex the bag with your arm in a chopping motion after the duck and before the whirl, while doing the cleveland indians chant) deserves some kind of add.
And I personally feel that `tomahawk chop` (essentially a tomahawk, but you dex the bag with your arm in a chopping motion after the duck and before the whirl, while doing the cleveland indians chant) deserves some kind of add.
-
Outsider
- Ayatollah of Rock n' Rollah
- Posts: 1373
- Joined: 21 May 2003 21:30
- Location: Bridgewater, New Jersey
Hey Jon, do you remember the time when I hit whirlygig while looking straight at you the entire time?
Yeah, Ken, but you totally the-d the ear wiggling.
Seriously, though, whats whirlygig.
I don't remember you ever pulling off the tomahawk chop, actually, but I do remeber in that session at NYU when you pulled PS Whirl (or was it Blurry PS Whirl) while looking right at me and sticking your tongue way out. In fact, I can't stop seeing that in my mind, and it gives me the creeps.
Jon Schneider
I just had this preminition, or prediction, or whatever you wanna call it: Im hearing the announcers at the 2018 olympic footbag finals in a wispering voice commenting things like... "Ohhh! i think he the'd the half-dex on that ducking super fly, . But fortunatly it has a high difficulty rating so that'll only cost him a quater point on that trick."
-ive really only been playing for two years and studying the terms ect. for like one, but i think that if adds are just ment to describe a move, then a simple [flex] note wont cut it, cause ive looked for a few minutes and still have no idea what any of those moves look like except dragon.
-But if you do want adds to represent how difficult a move is, than there will eventually need to be an elaborate system with fractional adds and negative adds, and stuff for grabs and flex and UNS and blind yaddayadda. maybe not for freestyle since that is pretty subjective, but Definalty for shed30 and Big3 (somethings that i think Jon really gets screwed on with the current system)...
heres an example..I think swirl dragon is actually easier from a cliper than just a swirl since you really one do half a roation around the bag, so if dragon is 1/2add and rotations are worth the amount of revolution (i.e. paradon is 1.5 dex>clipper) than that might be a way to go...BUT WHO WANTS THIS HEAD ACHE???? so i vote i dont care (sorry i babbled so long
)
PS: where can i fin a discription for those moves, or vids???
-ive really only been playing for two years and studying the terms ect. for like one, but i think that if adds are just ment to describe a move, then a simple [flex] note wont cut it, cause ive looked for a few minutes and still have no idea what any of those moves look like except dragon.
-But if you do want adds to represent how difficult a move is, than there will eventually need to be an elaborate system with fractional adds and negative adds, and stuff for grabs and flex and UNS and blind yaddayadda. maybe not for freestyle since that is pretty subjective, but Definalty for shed30 and Big3 (somethings that i think Jon really gets screwed on with the current system)...
heres an example..I think swirl dragon is actually easier from a cliper than just a swirl since you really one do half a roation around the bag, so if dragon is 1/2add and rotations are worth the amount of revolution (i.e. paradon is 1.5 dex>clipper) than that might be a way to go...BUT WHO WANTS THIS HEAD ACHE???? so i vote i dont care (sorry i babbled so long
)PS: where can i fin a discription for those moves, or vids???
Jason "Miller Time"