The Developement of Shred

[Jorden]

Alright, time to dive in...

First off, props Asmus for going against the grain to make this thread. Challenging established paradigms can only lead to new ideas and positive change.

There seem to be many sub-topics mentioned here. I'll try to touch on each.

BOPs

Butterfly, Osis and paradox mirage. For most experienced players, it's a "can't live with them, can't live without them" scenario. For those who can do them they aren't so much tricks as they are tools to stay afloat in the world of guiltless shred.

Each of these tricks has (supposedly) 3 elements each. A common view is that every player should strive to eliminate BOPs from their game.

Let's look at these moves completely separated from aesthetics for a moment. It cannot be argued that BOPs are building blocks for learning more advanced moves. They are the same, in essence, as moves with an equal number of components insofar as they involve 1) a stall, 2) a dex or 3) both. BOPs have become iconic tricks in footbag because of the structure in which our sport has been framed around. And that framework is ADDS.

Imagine if the very first generation of footbag players (including the first movers and shakers) played footbag solely while standing on their head.
Think what would happen if each player was DEAD SERIOUS in promoting only this style and enforced it among young players. All the early World champions performed their routines entirely upside down.
Could it be argued that what tricks we value and consider easy today would be drastically different?
Perhaps all the easiest tricks would be upside down tricks, and tricks like butterfly, osis and paradox mirage would be deemed "impossible" because all efforts were geared towards other areas in our sport?

What I'm trying to say is anything is easy or hard depending on how much you practice it. It's all relative. Our minds are so ingrained on using the ADD system that we criticize moves for being too easy and overused. Maybe we should be criticizing and challenging the system itself that we all know is extremely flawed and values certain moves over others.

A hacky slacker could play his entire life before hitting a BOP for the first time. It could be his crowning achievement, and the hardest thing in his mind. With a makeshift technique, maybe a BOP would be the hardest move for all of us. Try hitting a butterfly with 10 lb workboots leaning back and planting only the heel of your support foot after the dex. Yeah -- all relative.

On a slight side note, BOPs are also a useful tool in anyone's game for a few reasons. First, with the modern trend of high-energy, high complexity moves it allows the player to rest both their bodies and minds while they take a breath and prepare for their next explosive sequence. Second, a "simpler" move such as a BOP can be used to hit cues on music and fill time in an otherwise exhausting routine or exhibition. Paradox mirage can be used as a transition to get the bag from clipper to same side toe without too much complex thought.

I don't see this notion of genuine catching on anytime soon. This is not to say it wouldn't be cool for it to happen. I'm just saying with all the ridiculous moves out there, sometimes it's impossible to set high enough or controlled enough out of it to hit a blender instead of just an osis. A lot of the time players don't think ahead of what they'll do next after an initial big trick or combo to start a string. It's usually reflexes that kick in (excuse the pun). And those reflexes are often BOPs. Once again don't blame the player -- blame the system.

What if a BOP move just so happens to be a player's favourite move? Surely this is common. I for one love the feeling of doing a smooth controlled osis, and would never want to remove it from my game. Lon Smith can surely relate. Butterfly is also such a beautiful move. My jaw stills drops slightly every time I see Vasek do butterflies. With flawless execution and style any move can look breathtaking.

Why should we feel the need to take a player's trickset away? Shouldn't they be free to do whatever the hell they want?

Playing genuine encourages difficulty over form, even when a player's style may be too underdeveloped. Do we really want to encourage a new generation of technical slop? Anssi, I challenge your viewpoint in this regard.

How long should we witness a move (on video or in person) before it's deemed unimpressive? What's so great about paradox illusion over paradox mirage? The fact that we've seen it a couple thousand times versus several thousand? Should I stop liking swirl because my threshold for viewing it is 5000 times and I've seen it 5003 times?

Should we consider the billions of people who have never seen anything even REMOTELY like a BOP before?

Just to be silly: If butterfly, osis and paradox mirage were called "the ultimates" instead of BOPs, would people's opinion on them change?

To sum up, I can see where everyone's coming from in regards to BOPs.
In the end it just seems crazy to me that players feel the need to dictate what experienced (or any) players should and should not do. Isn't the goal to make personal goals/decisions and to have fun? After all, any of these 3 tricks can be just as beautiful and impressive as "harder" tricks when executed in a nice way.

That's all for tonight -- time to hit the hay. Tomorrow I'll comment on Bails, Progress and the Public.

Night.

[Ian Brill]

Great post Jorden. I really appreciated it. Nothing to add. Thank you.

[Jorden]

Bails

Most players define bails as moves that are 1) hit off-balance/out of desperation and 2) below the average difficulty of their runs.

I believe this definition is much too vague and widespread to be considered helpful. Here's why:

To call someone out on a bail means you know a few things about the player. You know their posture/form, trick selection and what a typical run looks like.
If that player hits a move that appears to be different than their usual trickset in a negative or lesser way, one might consider this a bail.

But is this REALLY enough information to determine whether a trick being hit is a bail? If that exact trick is INTENDED by the player is it still a bail?

How is it possible to know what the player is thinking at that moment and see if the trick they hit corresponds with the trick they MEANT to do?

Hint: it's not.

Generally 'bails' are used to save a player from dropping after a difficult and perhaps risky move. It could also simply be a slight misjudgment on a standard move due to special circumstances (wind, bad ground, traction loss, nerves, distractions, etc.).

Should we encourage player to play in perfect conditions ALL THE TIME where all factors contributing to a bail are removed?

I train in a racquetball court most of the time. Even with consistent clean flooring, white walls and no outdoor weather influencing me I still
experience TONS of extraneous obstacles. Stuff like

People knock on my door (or talk to me from above) and ask if they can watch me or use the court.
The air conditioner is on high power and the blow of air is distracting.
The all might G Unit still slips on the floor from time to time.
The rush to hit a specific combo on film with 30 seconds of tape left.

If any of these factors causes me to bail, or maybe I just didn't have the right train of thought OR maybe the trick before I am inexperienced with -- should I be ashamed of myself for hitting a bail?

Also, what is considered a bail is completely arbitrary. I have worked on, for many occasions, trying to hit triple blender. In this pursuit, hitting a double blender would be a bail. However, would anyone in the right mind call me on a DOUBLE BLENDER BAIL if they didn't know what I was trying??

What if what most players consider a bail are another player's BEST TRICKS? Isn't that really disrespectful and intimidating for the lesser-experienced player?

I don't mean to write so much. But anyway, these are the main points I'm trying to make:

1. What is actually a bail can ONLY ever be known by the player hitting the string. You can never read a player's mind, be accurate 100% and know exactly what they INTENDED to do. Please show respect and don't even try.

Besides, if an experienced player hits a true bail they will TELL YOU by stopping their run and passing the bag. Continuing to play should tell you they are satisfied with the tricks they are doing in the run enough to merit continuing the run. However, telling a playing partner to pass the bag when they feel they've unintentionally gone below their level is perfectly acceptable. There is no need to act like a jerk.

2. Wanting a bail-free world is entirely idealistic and is pointless to pursue. It is impossible to always have perfect conditions and flawless tricks in footbag. Players are HUMAN and make MISTAKES -- get used to it.

3. Zero bails means players would play a lot safer. Boring tripless and common non-BOP 3s would be the standard. The irony is I know every one of you who is for eliminating bails would be against this loss of variety.

Let's face it -- I bail a great deal. I know it and it can be very obvious at times. However, I like to try rare and complex tricks that players are generally interested in seeing. It's a trade off. Should I take a lot less risks so I can get rid of my unintentional moves, or continue trying new and weird things that could likely result in bail saves?

In my opinion, encouraging the removal of bails actually discourages variety and experimentation. Removing low difficulty "bail" moves decreases the possible range of dynamic in runs. This would lead to militant, cold and boring runs.

[Laroche]

Jorden, I can see where you're coming from and respect that, but I have a few things to add:

1. What is actually a bail can ONLY ever be known by the player hitting the string. You can never read a player's mind, be accurate 100% and know exactly what they INTENDED to do. Please show respect and don't even try.

You might be correct in a few cases but I think it's pretty easy to see what's a bail and what isn't, considering the execution of the move. I know you addressed it but I think you're thinking of a theoretical case which is highly improbable.

Also, throughout your entire argument, I get the impression that we shouldn't critique each others game at all. This, to me, is very counter-productive and I've always enjoyed having my own game critiqued from a different viewpoint, even if the player is not at my level.

This applies to all art forms, not limited to footbag. eg: I could write a song I love and think it's great and listen to it over and over, but it's such a subjective opinion, maybe other people will really dislike it and point out that my voice is off key the whole time?

There's a difference between constructive criticism and just acting like a jerk.

Some other thoughts...

Striving for an impossible goal, for example no bails in a string, is definitely something worth trying, if only for the sake that it will encourage less bails (in the commonly used definition of the word), and make us work harder during our strings.

I'm sure other people can relate to the feeling of being on "Auto-Pilot" while freestyling, staying within the basic constrains of what we do and getting the feeling we are repeating ourselves constantly. During these runs, bails might not be BOPS, they are normally moves that we can hit quite easily that we've practiced the most, symp. mirage, ducking clipper, or something similar.

In that case I would welcome people to call me out on those "Bails" to get into an active thinking state of mind while kicking. They aren't acting like jerks because they note I'm repeating myself, they're helping me out with a gentle reminder to wake up and play actively, instead of relying on the tried-and-true.

Anyway, I hope you respond to this in a more mature manner then you've responded to me in the past, as I found your post very informed and would like to know your thoughts on what I've just posted.

[janis]

I guess with bails people refer to one of 2 things, hitting tricks off balance and hitting easy tricks.

I think it is a good thing to strive to eliminate the "off balance" types of bails in the way that it encourages you to improve balance and form etc. But with the "easy tricks" category, what is wrong with doing easier tricks?

In particular, I'd like to hear peoples objective thoughts about tiltless tricks/low add tricks. What is wrong with doing tiltless tricks? (please try to be objective)To me, the initial thought that the guiltless standard would keep people passing the bag around the circle seems to be kinda irrelevant because a lot of shred circles are a group of people playing individually. The emphasis on going long seems to go against setting arbitrary standards designed to shorten run length.

love to hear peoples thoughts on the topic

[dazza]

But with the "easy tricks" category, what is wrong with doing easier tricks?

In particular, I'd like to hear peoples objective thoughts about tiltless tricks/low add tricks. What is wrong with doing tiltless tricks? (please try to be objective)

love to hear peoples thoughts on the topic

Of course there is nothing wrong with any trick, if performed clean
and beautifully, the problem, if there is one, is context bound .

I think that tiltless has a very beautiful side of its own, and i love it,
because its light, calm, low intensity . Now when i shred, i kinda
subscribe to classical guiltless - the lowest, and widely accepted
common denominator .It wasnt easy to get there, but the general
level of energy suits me a lot, so does the vast range of trix .

Personally, i percieve my own use of common tiltless moves as
a slow down, as a distraction - as break up of my flow .
So i avoid these, but be the first one to throw a gyro toe, because
it feels good .

Gotta say it again, this is how i feel about tiltless, but i wont give
anybody a nasty stare, if he/her chooses to differ, seriously why
should any of us. But i will encourage shy players that i know well
enuff to slowly step it up a notch * looks at Asmus and Bea, then hides
unsuccesfully*

A bail to me is an easy move that helps me to relax and to get my shit 2gether .
In that respect, bops in general meet that definition .
But since i'm not exactly your bop-hero, i have other tricks like smear
and ducking stuff doing the job .
The thing is i personally want to use them at will, and for what they are.
If i "bail" to them too much, i feel like i kinda overstepping some boundary.
In short : i need bails, but i want to use them less and less, i dont like
habits and being too obvious, i want to get my tech up to a level,
were i can create, decide, speed up, change direction, explode,
slow down and make music .
And in that pictures, i see non symple gyro swirls, frantic legovers and pink
lesbian turtles, but definitly no same side pick ups .

[Rieferman]

Kenny back in the day said that the concept of guiltless was originally designed as a tool to push the level of the sport. Then guiltless turned into all sorts of other things over time. But the original intent was to help shred evolve.

In my opinion, the sport is pushing nicely in all sorts of directions. We have performers (e.g. Jorden), inventors (Jorden again), flowy players (Nate, Johnny, Lon, others), players with more unusual trick selection (Matt C., Jon Schneider, others), hard core shred machines (Dave C., Vasek, others). Seems like a healthy way to grow and evolve to me, so I'm not sure anything really needs tweaking per se. Lots of people having lots of fun in lots of different ways. That's cool.

Btw, for me, a bail is doing a trick I didn't intend to do. If I choose the trick, and hit the trick, difficulty (or anything else) doesn't matter to me.

[Jorden]

Progress and the Public

I grouped these together because I feel Public = Progress.

There really aren't that many problems with our sport. Our trick system is a bit flawed, our primary equipment is equivalent to a dirty invisible golf ball and players are often too [insert adjective here] to attract new players. (Word bank: sweaty, intense, awkward looking, introverted)

These are only minor problems. Using larger brighter bags isn't much of a switch. A better trick system will emerge. The more confident players will still be able to rope in new players.

What we have going for us is: very dedicated players, a new/exciting/different sport, players worldwide, interesting and impressive tricks, legitimate competitions, etc. LOTS!

Our BIGGEST and only MAJOR problem is the PUBLIC.

Some assumptions:

World pop: 6 billion (6.6b to be more precise)
Number of footbaggers (semi-serious or serious): 10,000
Being generous, let's assume every footbagger knows 100 people that know about footbag through them (family, friends, coworkers, etc.)

Let's say since the Hacky Sack fad died in the 80s, 10 million people discovered the existence of footbag through newspaper ads, exhibitions, TV and promotions. This is a complete guess. Does it sound too high/low? Anyway, rest assured only a small fraction of this (or whatever) number went out to seek more information on the sport.

So that's a total of roughly 12 million that are aware of footbag. But right now numbers don't really matter that much. What we do know is the number is surely much greater than 100,000 and nowhere close to 100 million.

EVEN at 100 million which is grossly optimistic, that's only 0.01% of the World's population.

So AT LEAST 99.99% of the World's population doesn't know footbag.

Some of you are worried that catering to the public will 'bastardize' our sport. How can that possibly happen if there's practically NO SPORT to 'bastardize'? Numbers are everything. Numbers mean money, sponsorships, corporate attention, TV, movies, huge events, recognition. Everything.

Public means progress.

I know many of you hardcore enthusiasts of technical footbag think raising the level of play is the only progress that matters.
Let's look at an example: an existing player training in a gym and hitting nemesis for the first time.

What it means: a player working hard and achieving a difficult goal. This is a great thing, don't get me wrong! But let's not mix up personal goals with progress of the sport.

What it doesn't mean: this example is merely a blip on the radar of the overall picture of footbag progress. The 50 people that he tells might be happy for him, but they don't truly benefit. I challenge the belief that footbag "levels up" when harder and harder moves are hit.

On the flipside (excuse the pun), what if a new footbag site similar to flipsider were to go online? Picture high definition slo-mo practice videos of pros, tips, news, extensive FAQ, contests, etc. Thousands of new and current players could benefit. The future of our sport would be slightly more secured.

If we give to the public, the public will give back to us and the sport will eventually gain all the things we dream about having. Our moves are already very athletic and impressive and ready to show the public.
Moves of higher and higher difficulty register less and less with the public and you lose the connection with them.

Before we have our sport in the X Games and on the same level as skateboarding, etc. people need to appreciate and understand what we are doing first. Harder moves won't bridge the gap. They are SUPER CRAZY AWESOME WOW to us but they don't help at this stage. Down the road when footbag has the recognition it needs -- 100% yes, absolutely.

And lastly touching on this notion of bastardization -- show me a player that has demonstrated footbag in the media and given a NEGATIVE quantity of exposure and promotion to footbag. This seems pretty impossible to me. Sure, players can play horribly and be cheesy and lame but the right kind of person will still be interested and want to learn more.

Dexter is still a very good promoter of our sport. hehe

I've seen painfully short shorts, cheesy slogans and the easiest freestyle routines in demos and thought they were all great exposure. I ask you this -- how could a footbagger performing footbag possibly result in bad things? Isn't any exposure good exposure? Merely kicks and legovers with a fire footbag has 40k views on YouTube. A world record mess-up has 220k views on ebaumsworld and that made people think of hacky sack again.

If we're so paranoid about showing footbag in only the best possible light why aren't the players capable of doing this doing ANYTHING? It's easy to sit at a computer and write and complain how footbag should be. You get your irrelevant office job and keep complaining, I'll dedicate my life to performing footbag.

In regards to 'clowning' -- (good) clowns are funny. People connect and react positively to funny. If a clown did footbag people may very well positively to footbag.

Some of you are assuming I will become a footbag clown and will do only the cheapest lamest moves for applause. Don't jump to conclusions until you see what I'm actually trying to do. I have no desire to become a clown. However, I think some comedy in a footbag performance is important. My show is actually the hardest thing I have ever created. The footbag moves aren't that hard, but the choreography is quite hard.

Hmm...didn't mean to get defensive and attack-y. Sorry. But anyway...

Please back up and include examples to your claims as to what bastardization and clowning are in relation to footbag. Let's all on the same page here. Also, explain the importance of maintaining a specific image when the general public has NO image of footbag.

If you're hiding away in a gym hitting hard combos and thinking it's helping footbag prosper, to me THAT is clowning.

JM

[Tsiangkun]

regarding clowns and the public. . .

1) Clowns don't play sports, they give performances.

2) kids don't want to be clowns.

I don't see how associating footbag with clowns is a good thing for the popularity of footbag, even though it creates career opportunities for the players doing the performances. I just can't imagine a lot of people see these shows and would want to do it themselves.

Seeing the circus is great entertainment, but I've never wanted to become a circus performer by going to the show.

[Frank_Sinatra]

I've been enjoying the discussion.

I've got to take issue with some of your assertions, Jorden. Not that I'm as talented or experienced a player, but I think your logic is flawed. So to make it perfectly clear - I'm reacting intellectually, as an intermediate player, to what I've just read more so than what I've experienced.

The first assertion I took issue with: because 99.99% of the population don't know who we are, we have practically no sport. Wrong. Awareness does not equate to existence.

Let me just say that I think I can appreciate where you are coming from -- you want all of your time and effort put into footbag to result in more than personal satisfaction. You want to be able to play footbag professionally. I think that's great. I think it's great that you've been thinking creatively about how to make that happen.

Now, obviously, to have an income you need a customer base. In footbag, there just isn't a large enough base of people putting money in to products to really support professional players. So I can understand why you want to increase the numbers: larger base = more income.

I guess I'll take the side that says numbers are important, but they aren't everything. Quantity matters, but so does quality.

I haven't seen your act. But from the first time I read the description in your blog I was concerned. My concern is that, if you are the breakout star that brings footbag into the mainstream, and it's really cheesy and lame, you'll be making it even harder for someone else to bring 'pure' footbag into the mainstream.

Just think, if someone had no previous idea of comedy, and they saw Carrot Top and thought that person represented comedy, would they want to see another comedian? Wouldn't they just be more resistant if someone tried to present comedy to them?

I can't think of a single person who likes clowns. I don't mean to be harsh. Footbag generally appeals to young people (teens to early twenties) who are more generally interested in things currently deemed cool. Clowns aren't seen as cool.

Personally, if people see me playing and enjoy watching briefly before moving on, I enjoy it. I want to bring more people into the sport as players and I hope by playing in public I can find some new recruits. But I'm not making balloon animals, if you catch my drift.

Again, I think it's admirable that you've thought creatively and come up with a way of pursuing footbag professionally. I'd suggest that you keep thinking of yourself as a small business man - find products that people want, and test your ideas about what people want, and when you've found something deliver on it. A business that is sure that they've found what people want, without really testing that idea, and decides they are going to shove it down people's throats, is going to fail.

Obviously, if I knew exactly how to bring footbag into the mainstream so that the best players could be rewarded for their hard work by being able to play professionally, I would let everyone know. And obviously I don't have that answer. But look at skateboarding - Tony Hawk didn't get famous overnight and he didn't do it wearing clown shoes.

You keep playing this "I'm promoting footbag therefore I'm right" card. A lot of people promote footbag in different ways, some small and some large. That doesn't mean they don't have some terrible ideas some times.

I guess now I'll just wait to be dismissed as someone with an "irrelevant office job sitting behind a computer..." And while my efforts to promote footbag are significantly less than yours, I don't think it's fair to dismiss reasonable critiques of your ideas on the grounds of how much a person has done to promote footbag.

Or maybe I'll be told that any publicity is good publicity. Actually, that's the second assertion I'd like to refute. You said "show me a player that has demonstrated footbag in the media and given a NEGATIVE quantity of exposure" Well, by definition that's impossible.

But what about the quality of exposure? Face it, exposure can turn people on or off. Early exposure can lead to a lasting impression - that's why movie studios put so much thought and money into their promotional efforts for a movie. From the first trailer's contents and the movie it's released with, to the font on the poster, everything is about maximizing the positive impressions amongst a target audience to increase the likelihood of them buying the product.

So to sum up this much longer than intended post: I think presentation does matter, that it is in fact critical to attracting a larger base to the sport (either as players, fans, or some other capacity). And I've been thinking of ways of altering my profile to be more appealing to watch (smoother style, losing the headband). An incredibly technical trick or an insane link does little to capture an audience or expand the sport. But the wrong presentation will do more harm than good.

[janis]

So to sum up this much longer than intended post: I think presentation does matter, that it is in fact critical to attracting a larger base to the sport (either as players, fans, or some other capacity). And I've been thinking of ways of altering my profile to be more appealing to watch (smoother style, losing the headband). An incredibly technical trick or an insane link does little to capture an audience or expand the sport. But the wrong presentation will do more harm than good.

IMHO presentation of tricks is far from critical to attracting a larger base to the sport. I'm heavily involved in running one of the largest footbag clubs in the world and most of the members could care less about hitting perfect technical tricks and really hard links. Most people are just looking for a good atmosphere and an enjoyable activity.

We don't have to act like clowns and we also don't have to worry about the sport being associated with clowning. The fact of the matter is that most people don't associate footbag with anything because they haven't even heard about it. If you think footbag should be associated with the shred style of play, that's great. Get out there and promote the shred style of play.

Just step back for a second and have a look at other sports, a lot of people play casually and for a social element. Take tennis for example, the number of casual players I know outweighs the serious players by at least 10 to 1. Why doesn't the community attract the 9 out of 10 people who want to have fun but don't want to spend the time to get as good as the pros? For the most part people just don't care about hardcore shred, it is so esoteric and difficult that the numbers of hardcore shredders will always remain a small percentage of the people who play footbag related games. The important thing is that despite the small percentage of people who shred, increasing the number of people interested in the game will inevitably increase the number of serious players.

You keep playing this "I'm promoting footbag therefore I'm right" card. A lot of people promote footbag in different ways, some small and some large. That doesn't mean they don't have some terrible ideas some times.

Well if you have some good ideas then go out and act upon them! Posting great ideas on modified does crap all. Posting terrible ideas on modified does crap all. Go out and put your great ideas into practice!

I guess now I'll just wait to be dismissed as someone with an "irrelevant office job sitting behind a computer..." And while my efforts to promote footbag are significantly less than yours, I don't think it's fair to dismiss reasonable critiques of your ideas on the grounds of how much a person has done to promote footbag.

Move beyond critiquing other peoples ideas and get out there and use your own ideas for promotion. Ultimately arguing on an internet forum will achieve little, but introducing people to the sport that you play will have an impact. If you are promoting footbag, that's great!

Or maybe I'll be told that any publicity is good publicity. Actually, that's the second assertion I'd like to refute. You said "show me a player that has demonstrated footbag in the media and given a NEGATIVE quantity of exposure" Well, by definition that's impossible.

Well if you are refuting that assertion, please explain why you think no publicity is a better option than some publicity.



concluding:
If you think that shred style play is good, get out there and actively promote it! The lack of popularity of footbag has nothing to do with the playing style but everything to do with the lack of effort when it comes to promotions. Marketing means a lot, in many cases more than the products/activities involved. My favourite example is window$ being the most popular operating system despite being worse and more expensive than linux, but now that people are finding out about linux they have a chance to see why it is so good. But if people don't find out about it in the first place then they are unable to see the benefits. I think this is similar to footbag, footbag is cheaper (and better ) than other sports but is still a bit unknown, all it needs is for people to be aware that it exists and more people will inevitably get involved.

[Jorden]

The first assertion I took issue with: because 99.99% of the population don't know who we are, we have practically no sport. Wrong. Awareness does not equate to existence.

I didn't say we don't have a sport. That would be stupid. I'm talking perceived legitimacy as a sport.

If somebody invented a sport single-handedly tomorrow, they could boast about being the president of the sport and the World Champion. But how will the public perceive this? What legitimacy (if any) can the public hold towards this person? Multiply this by 10,000 (relatively nothing), throw in the IFPA and some manufactured equipment and call it footbag.

If say 20 of the World's most populated and established countries had a national footbag assoc., footbag schools, national titles, qualifying events, etc. people would say "Wow, this sport is serious". Our perceived legitimacy would grow. The existence of our sport would be more apparent to everyone.

Let me just say that I think I can appreciate where you are coming from -- you want all of your time and effort put into footbag to result in more than personal satisfaction. You want to be able to play footbag professionally. I think that's great. I think it's great that you've been thinking creatively about how to make that happen.

Cool -- cheers.

Now, obviously, to have an income you need a customer base. In footbag, there just isn't a large enough base of people putting money in to products to really support professional players. So I can understand why you want to increase the numbers: larger base = more income.

Yes. But this about the community, not me. I'm getting into the entertainment field. That customer base is simply people who want to be entertained. It could be a performance of anything. That base already exists.
Being comfortable in an apartment with no perks would be fine for me. This isn't about greedy personal ambitions. It's about the maximum possible number of people enjoying footbag and receiving maximum benefit from playing. Income certainly helps but is only a fraction of the big picture.

I guess I'll take the side that says numbers are important, but they aren't everything. Quantity matters, but so does quality.

Yes, quality matters a lot. But without quantity, there is no chance of there ever being enough quality for any sort of real recognition. A small percentage of people that see footbag will eventually be quality players. The higher the number of people that see it the higher the number of potential quality players. Think of how frequently a Vasek comes along. He discovered footbag through a demo at his school. If demos like these never happened, wouldn't numbers go down and number of potential QUALITY players in our sport go down?

I haven't seen your act. But from the first time I read the description in your blog I was concerned. My concern is that, if you are the breakout star that brings footbag into the mainstream, and it's really cheesy and lame, you'll be making it even harder for someone else to bring 'pure' footbag into the mainstream.

It's not cheesy and lame. And definitely not clowning. Trust me. Ask the baggers that saw the show. And this is still only the raw beginnings of the act. The tricks and difficulty will only get bigger and better.

Just think, if someone had no previous idea of comedy, and they saw Carrot Top and thought that person represented comedy, would they want to see another comedian? Wouldn't they just be more resistant if someone tried to present comedy to them?

Fair enough. Honestly though, do you know of any serious freestyle players that represent footbag so poorly the audience will be left with a negative impression? How is inventing a problem (a footbag goof-off) that has never existed or happened in the first place a strong argument?

I can't think of a single person who likes clowns. I don't mean to be harsh. Footbag generally appeals to young people (teens to early twenties) who are more generally interested in things currently deemed cool. Clowns aren't seen as cool.

I watch great amounts of circus footage and have seen many many clowning acts. Most of them have been exceptional, talented, funny and well respected. We're not talking birthday parties, carnivals and county fairs. Yes, most of them are garbage. We're talking Cirque De Demain in Paris, Monte Carlo and the prestigious Cirque Du Soleil. More modern, less polka dots/makeup and all that crap.

Not quite sure why I'm defending clowns. They're pretty meaningless to this discussion.

Personally, if people see me playing and enjoy watching briefly before moving on, I enjoy it. I want to bring more people into the sport as players and I hope by playing in public I can find some new recruits. But I'm not making balloon animals, if you catch my drift.

Playing in public is a good start.

Nobody is "making balloon animals" nor intends to. That doesn't happen in a short performance.

Again, I think it's admirable that you've thought creatively and come up with a way of pursuing footbag professionally. I'd suggest that you keep thinking of yourself as a small business man - find products that people want, and test your ideas about what people want, and when you've found something deliver on it. A business that is sure that they've found what people want, without really testing that idea, and decides they are going to shove it down people's throats, is going to fail.

You and every footbagger who ever lived played footbag because they found out about it in whatever way and that's what they wanted. We're no different than the general public. They have needs, wants, expectations and demands. Researching why people might want to play footbag, its key features/selling points and how to make it look visually appealing is a MUST to get it out there. I'm not a businessman. I want what you want and what all of us want -- for people to be aware of footbag and to consider it highly.

Yes, without testing ideas they will inevitably fail. Absolutely.

Obviously, if I knew exactly how to bring footbag into the mainstream so that the best players could be rewarded for their hard work by being able to play professionally, I would let everyone know. And obviously I don't have that answer. But look at skateboarding - Tony Hawk didn't get famous overnight and he didn't do it wearing clown shoes.

Skateboarding has been through many more stages of development than us. Keep this in mind. Definitely no sport will grow popular overnight.

You keep playing this "I'm promoting footbag therefore I'm right" card. A lot of people promote footbag in different ways, some small and some large. That doesn't mean they don't have some terrible ideas some times.

No. I want people to challenge my beliefs in footbag as much as I challenge other's beliefs. All the strongest arguments from all sides should be looked at so we can put our brains together to help make our sport better. Any promotion is great and terrible ideas are fine. It's a learning process.

I guess now I'll just wait to be dismissed as someone with an "irrelevant office job sitting behind a computer..." And while my efforts to promote footbag are significantly less than yours, I don't think it's fair to dismiss reasonable critiques of your ideas on the grounds of how much a person has done to promote footbag.

You're repeatedly missing the point of my statements. No disrespect to anyone's career path. What I meant is don't COMPLAIN about the bad things in our sport if you have no desire or intent to help change things in any way.

Or maybe I'll be told that any publicity is good publicity. Actually, that's the second assertion I'd like to refute. You said "show me a player that has demonstrated footbag in the media and given a NEGATIVE quantity of exposure" Well, by definition that's impossible.

Bingo. You got my point that time. Exposure is exposure -- duh.

But what about the quality of exposure? Face it, exposure can turn people on or off. Early exposure can lead to a lasting impression - that's why movie studios put so much thought and money into their promotional efforts for a movie. From the first trailer's contents and the movie it's released with, to the font on the poster, everything is about maximizing the positive impressions amongst a target audience to increase the likelihood of them buying the product.

It's pointless to worry about quality of exposure if there's no exposure to begin with. Let's get some exposure going and think of ways to improve it later.

So to sum up this much longer than intended post: I think presentation does matter, that it is in fact critical to attracting a larger base to the sport (either as players, fans, or some other capacity). And I've been thinking of ways of altering my profile to be more appealing to watch (smoother style, losing the headband). An incredibly technical trick or an insane link does little to capture an audience or expand the sport. But the wrong presentation will do more harm than good.

What is harm though? People disregarding and ignoring footbag? They already do that WAY MORE by being completely oblivious to it.

Scenario: one person says to another "I hate footbag! It's stupid and lame" and they say "Huh? What's footbag?". The footbag hater then describes footbag.

Progress?

I say yes.

JM

[shreddaily]

EDIT-
heres a post I made back when I was pretty sick of mainstream shred, though the thread I posted it in was about popularity and not evolution:
Heres a little rant about popularity as related to something that I have studied and really enjoy, and also happens to be pretty unpopular, jazz.

Ask most hip-hop/rock/emo fans there impression of a 1940s jazz cd and the 3 most common comments are:
1 lots of fast notes
2 the beat is hard to keep track of
3 It all sounds the same
Well replace "notes" with "leg motions", "beat" with "bag", and "sounds" with "looks" and you'll come up with something the last person who walked by your session was thinkning.
OK, in the early and most popular days of jazz there was swing music. Anyone could come and partake in the music by dancing and enjoying themselves. This era relates well to the popularity of hackeysack. During this timethere were these cats, Dizzy Gillespie and Charlie parker, who where taking swing to a new level. They put so much time and study into there art they created a new genre "Hard Bop". No one had ever scene mastery of ones instrament like these 2 shredders. They played in quite clubs in front of few people and there main fans were other musicians. The public didn't really like them because it seemed too flashy and not dancable. Dizzy and Charlie are a lot like, say, Kenny and Rick. These two took something like hack, put it on a huge talent pedistle, and created shred.
After Dizzy and Charlie, lots of people wanted to sound just like them, and lots started too, people even got faster and played even more bizzar scales. Like Pete, Ryan and now Vasek. But the style Diz and Charlie laid out called "hard bop" was already about as far as it could go, the abilities where being maxed, and people just weren't listening. Eventualy people started branching out into styles like funk, fusion, cool jazz, smooth jazz ect... And it turned out that the public actually liked some of these off shoots.
Footbag hasn't evolved from its "hard bop"(no pun ) days. And in my opinion the #1 thing holding it back from evolving is GUILTLESS. Setting a standard level of difficulty to prove ones talent is pretty unprecidented in the arts. ONLY a tail grab on a skate board isn't frowned upon. Playing long notes in a solo doesn't make it unworthy. Yet 90% of freestylers(me included until recently) think a trick that doesn't contain 3 adds is too easy and not worthy in a freestyle string.
In every form of art there is push and pull between talent and simplified inovation. Many people call Jackson Pollocks art "too easy" because he just throws paint on the floor. Certainly the 3 chord songs by greenday are easy, but do they have no artistic merit?
Now I garantee you many "hard bopers" laughed at the mellow sounds of soul music and think smooth jazz is just plain cheezy. Maybe it is, but there are people out there who can relate to it much easier than to "hard bop." These genres, no matter how simple, bridged a gap between the public and jazz.
I love guiltless freestyle. It is what it is, and what it is NOT is enjoyable to the uninitiated. The genre of shred is never going to be main streem. It is by definition a style of difficulty and presision.
So if you desperately seek popularity , earase ALL thoughts of ADDS or GUILTS(and I don't just mean throwing far legovers and clippers!). Create a new genre... You may be scoffed at by the "hard boppers" as a guilter and maybe your tricks won't be as dificult as a clean nemisis, but you may help bridge some gaps.
I think it has some relavance to this thread.

[RawSko]

^ that's a really great post. wow. Thank you for sharing

I just wanted to raise the issue of bad exposure. I'm obviously not knocking Jorden for this AT ALL, he did a wicked job; but does everyone remember The Edge? I don't think anyone enjoyed that. Those assholes put forth the notion that "Playing footbag means you don't get laid!!" ...not to disagree by saying that footbag does get you laid ()... but who's going to see footbag while someone is telling them it repulses women and think "I wanna try this!"? I believe that this type of clowning, on the radio hosts' parts, condisions the public against footbag. ...bastards.

again, Jorden, you did a great job and there was obviously no way of knowing that they were going to react to you like that. I think you're absolutely right that we need to jump all over every opportunity (and even create our own) for promoting the sport. My point is simply that if there IS a way of knowing that people will shine bad lights on you, the public's mind works maybe a bit like muscle memory. "Footbag is bad, footbag is bad, footbag is bad, foobag is good, footbag is bad" Thus a negative impression of footbag is enstilled...I'm of the oppinion that Bad Lights should be avoided if possible. There IS such thing as bad exposure.

Changing the topic back to the development of shred... I think it was Willie Diggs that I talked to about this at GRASS. Imagine wtf footbag would be like if it DID continue to progress the same way it's progressing now! supper nemesis, 6xatw, double nuclear tripple ducking symposium trifly swirl, etc.. that's rediculous! Personaly, I just don't see that happening. It can only progress like this so much and then we will HAVE to branch off to more public-friendly off-shoots, such as funk and soft-jazz. I think that time is coming... we'll see.

I gotta go, but I'm still thinking. I'll post more later

[Jorden]

Hey Ben, great point you bring up. What I wanted to emphasize was the player playing footbag will never create bad exposure. From this perspective you can never go wrong.

There are a great deal of ignorant and rude people out there. Always take their unfounded comments with a grain of salt.

Or don't perform a visual talent on a radio show.

Even with the disaster of a show, the female judge had some positive things to say. I was able to tell people about footbag and how it isn't Hacky Sack. Most of the 20 people in the room saw freestyle live for the first time.

JM

[Slowsis]

The 'funk' off-shoot of footbag would have lots of pelvic thrusting.

As someone who has done some public performances infront of large audiences of student (the people who make or break new sports, as they define what is 'cool') they really enjoy footbag when it is put up on a pedestle as 'cool'. When they walk by a couple people skooling on the street, they see a couple weirdos in short-shorts, instead of a performer being bigged up by the MC on a stage being the center of attention (which of course means what they are doing MUST be at least somewhat 'cool').

For our sport to ever be recognized, we need to be cool. The demographic of people who would start playing is 14-younger 20's, and that demographic for the most part thinks about getting laid, and being seen as cool. You may dissagee, but why do you think there are a hundreds of thousands of skaters, and only a couple thousand shredders? Because skating is cool, and until we can be seen as such, we are doomed to our own social disconnection.

[james]

Ya there's still about 6 billion people that will NEVER give a shit about footbag. Get over it. Besides the ones that are starving and all that, footbag is hardly a spectator sport. WOW WTF IS HE DOING? MUST BE AWESOME, WHAT ELSE IS ON? Yes this is even after you dumb it down. Unless you're actively involved in the sport you can't expect someone to be entertained enough by it to watch it more than the random talent show they were fooled into sitting down for. Heck, I can barely stand watching footbag for longer than 5 minutes at a time (besides like I said, being actively involved in it...i.e. playing).

Regardless, footbag is amazing for those who enjoy it, like anything else in life. Even more so if you can make a living from it.
I'll never make a dime off it but I support you 100% Jorden. That's one of the great things about our sport. We're all in it together and we care. It's personal.

Also, footbag is an arduous athletic endeavor and deserves respect. FUCK SOCCER! (that's just for shits n giggles...mostly)

some shmuck: 'hey man, check this out' -->does something futile

I'm like: 'but can you blurry whirl?'

Ya, shmuck around all ya want with 'crowd pleasers'. FUCK the crowd and fuck the police. All I care about is the chicks, and they ain't lookin' at the footbag let me tell you...neither am I come to think of it. One must be vigilant with the spinning ogle clipper. I had it perfected a few summers back.

Also, I happen to like guiltless shred. Something about 2 adds just feels filthy....LOL just kidding, sorta. Also, you add haters need to git a haircut and a real job. It's almost trendy to hate ADDs. I love ADDs. They are the strawberries in my Special K. Nubs.
Boo hoo, this move is sooooooo misunderstood. We should make a new system, call it EMOs. I have no idea what it entails but I'm sure those creative enough can fill that acronym appropriately.

I have completely forgotten where I was going with this. Shut up and eat Special K?

Ok, I'm being mean. I really do appreciate creativity and wonky moves that have no purpose. Just do whatever floats your boat, but seriously, shut up about it.



OH yeah, what's with all the horrible kickers out there? You can shred but you can't kick? You wouldn't want the pillsbury bloughboy to school you do ya?
Kicking is hella fun.

[Asmus]

I really like how the discussion has evolved and I enjoyed reading all of your posts.
I have also heard from footbaggers that usually think modified is stupid that they really enjoyed this thread.

I want to share a little video made by a juggler named Wes Peden.
The video is called "What the duck?" and is very much related to this discussion I think.
I think some of his points are quite interesting.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eb7Qq8yHuKk[/youtube]



FOOTBAG!!!

[kidzanshin]

looking at footbag as a creative entity and a form of self expression, say we can call it an art form in the modern and open sense of the word

i thin every artist needs 3 things:

1) CREATIVITY and IMAGINATION
2) The TECHNICAL ABILITY with which to implement their ideas
3) RECOGNITION and SUPPORT from an audience or the public

i think its the same with footbaggers and footbag as a sport

without creativity, the sport becomes dead, boring perhaps and loses the essence of footbag

without technical ability, you cannot expand to new tricks, find unique combinations and variety required to be freely imaginative, if someone cannot paint, how can they paint a great piece of art?

without recognition and support from outside, they cannot expand, progress and let their art grow and become more widespread, and the art itself dies

i think footbag is very much the same

we need to concentrate on a BALANCE between all 3, disregard 1 and you get stuck, over emphasise one and the same thing happens, i think all are important

[Rieferman]

Rawsko

the public's mind works maybe a bit like muscle memory. "Footbag is bad, footbag is bad, footbag is bad, foobag is good, footbag is bad" Thus a negative impression of footbag is enstilled...I'm of the oppinion that Bad Lights should be avoided if possible. There IS such thing as bad exposure.

Jorden

I was able to tell people about footbag and how it isn't Hacky Sack.

The best example of the "bad light" is Hacky Sack. In Europe (from what I'm told.. I haven't been there to ask for myself) the concept of "Hacky Slacker" and a hippie game never existed.. So footbag was introduced as footbag intsead. In the US (and surrounding) we're STILL trying to outrun the stereotype of Hacky Sack. i.e. Exposure for the sake of exposure is not a good thing in my opinion. It can backfire.

You know that "footbag at the office" lame video where the guy grabs the bag with his butt cheeks? EVERY person that I know that has any clue that I play footbag (a few hundred people) have seen that video and ask me "oh yeah? But can you do thisssss? [then they send me the link to that stupid video". It's a mockery. i.e. Exposure for the sake of exposure is not a good thing in my opinion. It can backfire.


Slowsis

they really enjoy footbag when it is put up on a pedestle as 'cool'.

David wrote a very nice post about the "death of Flipsider" that illustrated this exact point. Flipsider was based on the skater culture (for lack of better term) and therefore had instant street cred with the young, impressionable kids that came across it. In my opinion, and using my experience in marketing strategy for a crutch, activities like this website are among the most effective ways to spread the word. Kids today are internet savants. The right website with the right web optimization will attract many young eyes.


James

Heck, I can barely stand watching footbag for longer than 5 minutes at a time

Continuing from my point immediately above... "The right website with the right web optimization will attract many young eyes." James also wrote that playing is what's fun more so than watching. Absolutely. I've been playing for a long time, and I still can't bring myself to watch more than a 4-5 minute shred video. And even those that I watch, I find my eyes and mind blurring out/zoning out. It's 10 times more fun to play than to watch. In my opinion, if your intent is growth, you're best off marketing and getting them to try the sport - young people walk past shred circles all the time.. they can't understand it, and it's not presented as "cool".


Kidzanshin

without recognition and support from outside, they cannot expand, progress and let their art grow and become more widespread, and the art itself dies

But what I really want to say is: If we're seemingly doing such a horrible job, why is it that the sport continues to grow? I don't know that I care if the sport grows faster than it is already. In the past 5 years, I have been able to have a session with skilled players on every vacation I've taken. I can readily get my hands on information and videos and trick tips. If interested (I'm not) I can book demo's, or fill a tournament with 100+ skilled players (again, not interested). What does bigger really get us (the big us, not just the few guys that are the absolute top players in the world)? Who cares about recognition? If the sport was huge, the only recognition most of us would get is that we are not as good as the top players. Woop dee doo.