i've been lurking about these forums for some time now & never really felt i was at an appropriate mental understanding of the game to constructively support people's arguments.
this is kind of an attempt at revitalizing the "Development of Shred" thread, but with a focus purely on tightening up the technical aspects of the sport. ( i would like to see a similar thread dedicated purely to promotion & publicity of freestyle, to keep these two important issues distinct from one another )
i know others are closer to the heart of what is changing within this sport, i hope to get better educated with respect to this.
i realize progress is being made already on much of what i am going to say. the advent of request contest, STP & circle comp are moving things in a seemingly positive direction.
it seems one of the primary concerns is regarding the ADD system, & attempting to determine just what the hell it is in the first place.
the pioneers attempted to create a system that encompassed both definition & difficulty. certain components were judged to be "worthy" of an ADD, while others were not ( symposium vs symple ). other ADDs were created to fill the gap between description & difficulty ( XDEX, XSPIN ).
these should have been the earliest warning signs that this system could not cater to both description & difficulty.
imo, the ADD system works flawlessly as a DESCRIPTIVE system. ADDs tell the story of the trick.
if we were to disregard difficulty entirely from the ADD system, would there be a problem with double leg over being a 4 component trick? ( barring shred 30...i feel this event should disappear, although i <3 the objectivity of it )
a good example ( if my understanding is correct
) of the dichotomy between description & difficulty is Ners' trick, "Critical Mass". symposium whirling nuclear set seems easier than whirling nuclear set, so a higher ADD value is actually of a lesser difficulty ( unless i'm offbase, & whirling nuke is easier ).so...if ADDs are purely descriptive, how in the world are we meant to discern difficulty?
String Composition? an example already in effect is Circle Comp. each competitor gets 3-5 runs with the bag, & it is the overall composition of that player's game that determines whether they will advance. Sick 3 is composition. Routines are composition.
when we are shredding in a circle with others, it is the overall trick selection & execution over the course of a session that gives the impression of what level a player is at.
can variety & creativity form a foundation for judging difficulty?
"Genuine" is a solid attempt at representing difficulty, but my HUGE BEEF with Genuine is the boycotting of tricks. nothing in the game should restrict the creative potential for trick selection, imo.
"Unique" is another good attempt, but is restrictive with respect to repeats.
i feel like i'm searching for a term that falls somewhere between these two, something that emphasizes a) less bails & b) good string composition. but butterfly, osis & paradox mirage should not be prejudiced against because they are overused in our footbag culture. instead, players should be revitalizing these tricks by using them tastefully in string composition. eg. kozlov's osis links.
anyways, sorry for the rantish post, these are thoughts that run through my head a lot. i hope this wasn't too overbearing to stimulate conversation. please tear my thoughts a new hole if my understanding is incorrect.
i still feel we can make better creative use of bops when we use them though, to equalize them against other 3s.
