Hardest Link Ever?

[Olav]

...for me a link contains all components of the first trick, which have any impact on performing the second one, plus all components of the second trick that makes it so hard to hit it after the previous trick. (...) That's why I gave an example: Super Nem > PS Whirring Swirl as an "easy" link (...) to show you the difference between linked tricks and a LINK, as I understand it.

anything spinning out of Spinal Tap would be super hard. actually, there are alot of things that would be hard out of Spinal Tap

LOL, I'm beginning to feel like an asshole, but if Spinal Tap is a Tapping Torque, than it's a zoom out of Torque. It is a quite hard link for most ppl, but far (!) from the "hardest link...". Adding Pdx wouldn't change it. It beggins really hard when making it Symp before a same leg Symp. Or imagine Zoom out of Spinning Marius (or Spinning Mobius ooooor just Marius) - that's way harder to control.

(all IMO, of course)

[Anz]

Yes. I would see Fairy Atomic Ducking Drifter > Blaze equal to Vertigo > Blaze in link difficulty. In majority of hard links the downtime part of the first tricks and the uptime part of the second tricks make the link hard.
So why would spesifically Tapping Torque make a harder link than, say, Paradox Torque?

[Jeremy]

Thanks Anz for your support!

I see two different ways of defining a LINK.

For some people (majority??) it's a combo made of two difficult tricks, like Whirr > Swirlwind. It's even harder considering only Vasek can hit it nowadays. And it's hard to disagree, that it's a huge 2 tricks combo. But for me, it doesn't exist as a link. Here, a link would be a Symposium (really hard one) cought on Clipper > Spinning set (with the potential for Symp Wh Swirl). Although the combo is obviously insane, link (I'd compare it to, lets saaay Pogo Shaft > Void ?) seems not that hard (comparing to some other combos made of a lot easier tricks), the link is not what makes it so hard. So in my opinion what's hard here are TRICKS, not the link between them.

I was asked to verbalize how I understand link, but I couldn't think of any fine definition... for me a link contains all components of the first trick, which have any impact on performing the second one, plus all components of the second trick that makes it so hard to hit it after the previous trick. Now I need to apologise you for my english, lol. That's why I gave an example: Super Nem > PS Whirring Swirl as an "easy" link. To show, that two LINKED TRICKS do NOT have to be a hard LINK. To show you the difference between linked tricks and a LINK, as I understand it.

And it all start to be REALLY important when comparing sick3s. Also, it was an inspiration, base of making new methods of counting sick3. And it is really important for people (like me), who risk dropping by raising the difficulty of links, not just putting big add tricks. I mean, is there a difference between Nem > Pdx Blender and Pdx Blender > Nem? I think there IS - a different link (much harder in the second example). Whirr > Toe an insane single trick (bailed).

Sure, there are harder ways of doing combos. That doesn't mean the way somebody did it is not still hard.

What's a harder link; osis>ripwalk or blurriest>pdx torque?

I would say that if you hit any move with good form then you should be able to hit any move out of it. If hitting particular moves out of another trick is difficult, it's because you're finishing the move after you've stalled the bag. For example torque>whirr sounds like a "hard link" but having started hitting it a little recently, it's no harder than clipper>whirr when you hit the torque well. Yeah you have to be more exact than with whirr>torque, but once you hit the moves correctly, it doesn't matter which order you hit them in.

[mc]

this thread seems to be moving forward with the perception that what you do before and after the actual linked components doesn't affect the difficulty of the link.

Am I the only one who feels that doing a hard uptime component before your final component(s) of a move makes those final components harder to perform (smaller window for downtime, recovery from the set, etc), and therefor should be given some consideration as the difficulty of the link goes?

I know I'm not one of the people hitting these world class links, so that kind of discredits my opinions, and if you world-class busters don't feel that what comes before and after the link affects difficulty, I'll take your word for it, but I'm gonna have a hard time wrapping my mind around that one. You guys must be GOOD.

[C-Fan]

I agree with you Matt, but then again, I'm also over-the-hill.

[dyalander]

Yo, Matt I'm not sure what you mean exactly:

Am I the only one who feels that doing a hard uptime component before your final component(s) of a move makes those final components harder to perform (smaller window for downtime, recovery from the set, etc), and therefore should be given some consideration as the difficulty of the link goes?

But isn't that just saying that the harder the tricks the harder the link? so to keep with Jeremy's examples touque>whirr is a harder link than clipper>whirr, simply because torque is a harder trick than clipper.

Or

do you mean that the harder uptime components make the downtime components harder which in turn makes the first components of the next trick more difficult? So torque>whirr is harder because the extra effort required before the clipper makes the start of the whirr more difficult.

[mc]

well, from my old-fogey point of view, I guess I mean both. I think that increased difficulty of any component of a move increases difficulty of all other components of the move because of the compensation you have to do with the non-difficulty-increased components. If you're doing pixie butterfly, you can place the bag in a given area, but if you're doing pixie paradon, the given area in which you must place the bag to complete the move is reduced, thereby increasing the difficulty of the pixie, which must now be more accurate in its placement of the bag, and easier to recover from because of the increased precision and effort required by the more difficult downtime component.

So, I think fusion > blurry whirl is a harder link than paradon > blurry whirl, because you're having to step out of a much faster, more accurate double down that required more effort than you would have had to use to step out of paradon.

I think whirl > blurry whirl is not as hard a link as gyro genesis > blurry whirl, because the whirl you have to do out of a gyro furious set is going to be much smaller, faster, and in control than a whirl done from a ss clipper set.

[krawallier]

I know I'm not one of the people hitting these world class links, so that kind of discredits my opinions,.

to fuel the discussion with another discreditable (i doubt thats a word...) opinion:

jeremy asked:
"osis>ripwalk or blurriest>pdx torque"

i don't think this is a valid question.

the question should be e.g
"blurriest> pdx torque" or "blurriest> rev up"
rev up should be easier for most people than pdx torque. but the second combo is definitely harder than the first, because the link being more difficult.

i don't think the hardest link/hardest combo is the two hardest tricks. but a crazy difficult order of two hard tricks:olavs example (pdx blender-nem or nem-pdx blend)

as i meant before symp whirr >swirlwind might even be the hardest two tricks out of two tricks hit up to date (mostly because of the first trick, i guess).and obviously its a bit harder to hit swirlwind out of symp whirr than out of a clipper. but the hardest combo in the sense of the hardest link? i read stuff in this thread that would seem more unnatural/powerful/whatever.

oh god. this is confusing to write.

[dyalander]

That sounds to me more like the first option - which is in line with Jeremy's argument (I think).
So to answer your question, no, you're not the only one - Jeremy seems to agree, as does Ken. I think I agree too.

[krawallier]

but once you hit the moves correctly, it doesn't matter which order you hit them in.

well, but nobody hits even the easy moves correctly then, i guess. cause i still don't see those 30 fearless everywhere, or 10 beastly all over the place. even 20 genuine guiltless isn't seen that often.

i think the order in which you hit them is extremely important, because nobody hits every move perfectly, and there are moves that string better than others. i don't really see a point in discussing this.

[dyalander]

It seems to me that there are two different things going on here - 1) the difficulty of the individual tricks involved - and 2) the difficulty of a component coming out of a certain component.

The problem is that these two difficulties don't interact in an easy uniform way to differentiate complex technical combos - i.e. which difficulty is more differentiating in which cases?

Re what Max mentions above, it seems to me that the reason you don't see long beastly etc is more to do with difficulty 1 while the fact that trick order sometimes matters is more to do with difficulty 2.

[Ogden 09/04]

This cool , ive never seen this thread before.

I have a new link that would be really hard.

Reverse double twirl> double spinning clipper. I think it would be really hard to get a good set out of the osis, while being in good balance to do two spins.

[C-Fan]

Yeah, and supernemesis x2 would be a hard link too.

Let's stay on topic.

[mc]

::whip crack noise::

[Ogden 09/04]

Thanks, but as you can tell I decided to stay on topic with the thread, since its what the thread is about, and that I was not involved the previous topic, so I had no comment on it. Does that mean I cant type anything? Its not the end of the world.

[Jeremy]

I think Ken was making the point that this topic is about the hardest link that has been hit, no hard conceivable links.


The reason I see my osis>ripwalk or blurriest>pdx torque combo to be a valid example is because I see Vasek's moves to be so much harder than the other ones. I've hit most of the tricks mentioned in this topic. Admittedly not even close to the links, but with Vasek's I can hit neither trick, and I'm not even remotely close to symp whirr. Those 2 moves, and symp whirr in particular and considerably more difficult than most of the other options. So unless you think osis>ripwalk is a harder link than blurriest>pdx torque (which means you really are just paying attention to what happens in the join between the two moves, not the moves at all) then I don't see how symp whirr>swirlwind can be considered "easy" as has been suggested.

[Olav]

Geez, nobody STILL sees my definition. The last component of Torque, which has an impacton the link is Torque. Spin befor Clipper makes it harder than just Clipper. And Mirraging dex makes Torque harder than Osis. Ducking WOULD make it harder to control it/make anything out of it.

Osis > Ripwalk vs Blurriest > Pdx Torque is a weird example, it's not obvious. Very easy stepping out of Osis still seems harder than a straight set out of Clipper (Blurriest makes it only slightly harder). Second combo is obviously harder. Link not, though (but the difference between link difficulty is not so big as the difference in combo difficulty, so a harder link doesn't even get Osis > Rip close to that fearless combo, as a COMBO).

And YES, Nemesis > (for example) Stepping is A BIT harder than Barfly > Stepping. What counts here as a link is Double Down > Stepping, but it IS important, that Furious takes energy, and leaves less time for the downtime component than Clipper set Far sth (when clean). And it WOUILD BE important, if there was Gauntlet aterwards, because it requires different set that just Ripwalk. But I don't care if there's Furious or Whirling or Symp Whirling Swirling or Swirling Symp Furious... important is, how much hader is to control Double Down (Clipper Delay). I mean, please discern the difference between linked tricks and link, again. It doesn't make a difference if there's Gauntlet or Spike Hammer.

but once you hit the moves correctly, it doesn't matter which order you hit them in.

Ah, it does matter which order you hit them, because we have to keep in mind what's before the delay, that has an impact on that delay. Is BS Blizzard > its revind link as easy as Toe delay > Toe set? Even if you hit the first move perfecty, it's harder to Symp Quantum out of it, than from Toe delay. I don't care if there is Stepping at the beginning or Furious, but I need to think if it makes Flail harder. It has NOTHING to do with valuing the whole combo, only link (and cos of the link, combo might me harder).

hiting 8>8 link, I wouldn't even DARE comparing it with Big Apple > FS Nem, because this was done specially for the hardest link I could think of. (But of course having video of Dave's revind combo, I can't say my is better.)

this topic is about the hardest link that has been hit, no hard conceivable links

But do we know what is THE LINK?? Because I see it this way: the hardest link here would be Big Apple > FS Nem if cleanness was confirmed. The hardest combo would be probably Vasek's Symp Whirr > Swirlwind, but it belongs in a new topic. It's not right to put this kicking ass combo between the hardest links, because the link (my deffinition) is NOT what makes it so hard (I never ever said this combo is easy, I said the link is quite easy). I think even those, who created this thread thought of a two trick combo, because few years back they didn't see the difference (we don't see? Or perhaps I'm out of my mind?).

Again, we need "my" definition of LINK, because there HAS to be a difference between Pdx Blender > Nem and Nem > Pdx Blender (if you want hard tricks, make it Alpine Food). Link is not a combo. But while evaluating links we have to keep in mind th whole combo and choose, which components make the difference (some examples are above). Links are underrated, if we don't care about them, why do we care how hard moves REALLY are (lets start counting adds again ONLY...)?

[Cod]

Olaf, one thing. You know I feel all this links thing the same as you do but... please do not write anything like your point of view is better then others'. If someone wants to think about link as a hard move > hard move it's his right and you shouldn't change it. I'd like you to do a small exercise. Please, count all the white things in your room. Now, close your eyes and try to say how many black things you have in your room. White things represent your rights and black things represent others' point of view. Now, do you know what the problem with you is?

PS. In the near future I'll try to hit one really nice link and if I do it I'm going to post it here .

[Olav]

All the time I was trying to open some peoples minds. Showing the difference between combos and links, as it often happens with adds and trick difficulty.

Of course I don't have the right to say what people should believe in, but people have the right to know what I/other ppl think and why I think it's better. Better not because it is MY opinion, and my opinion is always the best, or something. But it seems to me, that footbag would be enriched if we seen the difference.

If people understand my point of view, but want to stay with their own believes than great, my job is done. I don't want people to believe in everything I do or say, but to see there's something beyond their opinion than might be right (or might not).

And speaking more in general, why do you think I shouldn't change anybodys point of view? And IF (note: if) it's wrong wouldn't it be my duty? I hope I have never forced anyone to change their way of thinking, that would be terrible.

If I sounded offensive or like "you people are all wrong! I know better!", I am sorry, I never ment that. Just gave you opportunity to choose.

PS. Why would white things be worse than the black ones? Who's broad-minded here? I think it doesn't matter if sth is black, white, red or green - black and white can pretty well coexist, regardless to quantity. Being the minority I still have my right to tell other people my opinion, especially when I believe it might cause good influence on something?

[Cod]

Olaf, you misunderstood me about this white/black things. But who cares .

Your posts sounded really offencive sometimes. The last post clarified all. Thanks.