The was a discussion about the cleanliness of variour peoples whirl, and what made a dex clean or not going onIn This Thread
....but since it was a thread about a video, I thought I'd move the discussion over this way. My idea of how clean a dex is is based on cones....here is a visual representation.
The idea is that a cone extends from your knee down to the end of your foot, and depending on the angle of the mid point of the dex (represented by the rectangular legs in the image) you get a conical area in which the dex is clean.
I'm sure I'm stating the obvious to some degree, but since there was a discussion regarding it, and I was bored and wanted to use Paint, i thought I'd throw this up.
that drawing is a perfect representation of what I feel makes a leggy dex clean. same applies for the "inner" version of whirl / rev whirl (leggy mirage / illusion).
just thought I'd throw my opinion in on adam's verification system...
I agree with those images, but none of them represent the whirr Vasek hit.
For a whirl to be clean the bag needs to perpendicular to the line drawn from the end of the foot to the knee (or above the knee I guess - I haven't really thought about it being higher than that). In Vasek's whirr from that topic if you rotate the image so that the shin is pointing directly downwards, the bag is below the foot. If you rotate it so the shin is pointing left, the bag is further left than the foot etc. It's outside of those circles you've drawn in your images.
I'm not sure if you're suggesting that the whirr was clean, but your definition of cleanliness is exactly the same as mine, and what I described in that topic.
Some of Vasek's whirrs are like that, although with a different plane of dex. The one I commented on from that routine was not like that, in that the bag was outside of his dexing circle. Therefore it was not clean.
"the" and "thin" are two very important terms here, and "thin" hasn't been used at all, hmmmm strange!!!
i consider thin clean.... not as pretty, but there is still a dex!!!!
I feel like a quarter of vaseks whirrs are the, a quarter are thin, and half are AWESOME (the best in the world in my opinion)... which means 3/4 are legit.
his barroques seem pretty fifty-fifty...
I also feel like in a live performance it can be really hard to tell whether its thin or the (especially depending on the angle you view it from)... and with a trick like whirr, i'm going to give the benefit of the doubt, since its a pretty hard trick (to put that much exertion into a trick and still stall it is impressive). Soo, I am not supporting "thin" dexes and definitely not "the" dexes, but if they miss the dex by an inch and have a really solid motion, it's close to impossible to tell whether it's thin or the live. Maybe this is just me, but I have never been the judge of a live performance...
Last edited by brianbear on 12 Apr 2009 00:10, edited 1 time in total.
Sure, nobody is saying that the cleanliness of the whirr should have had a significant impact on anything, or that people should or shouldn't have noticed live. This discussion came about because somebody posted a *video* of the routine, somebody else said the whirr was 'the' and then other people, with the benefit of the video continued to argue that it was clean, despite their easy ability to see that the bag is outside of the dexing circle.
As I said initially, it was a great routine despite having 1 'the' trick in it, and this discussion has not been a criticism of Vasek, just a debate about whether the whirr is 'the' or not, given the advantage of being able to look at it on video rather than live.
Being 'the' has almost nothing to do with whether it looked awesome, the crowd loved it and it difficult or not.
this new discussion is about cleanliness of tricks.... not about a certain vid... i was commenting on vaseks style in general, not about a specific video. sorry if i should be addressing a video that was discussed outside of this topic in the video section,
I do agree that it LOOKED "the", BUT I was not there and trust honza, because he is super critical and was there live. Why not trust Honza???
he told me my bags were like pancakes not balls (he wouldn't play with them when he came to stanford, and then my bags became better, as well as my style.
so just saying whether it was "the" or "thin" i do believe honza has more valid opinion about it then 90-99% of the footbaggers out theree: especially because he was there.
opinions should not be solely based on what you saw in a video either, in person vasek blows more minds than anyone.
period. (al
this new discussion is about cleanliness of tricks.... not about a certain vid... i was commenting on vaseks style in general, not about a specific video. sorry if i should be addressing a video that was discussed outside of this topic in the video section,
I do agree that it LOOKED "the", BUT I was not there and trust honza, because he is super critical and was there live. Why not trust Honza???
he told me my bags were like pancakes not balls (he wouldn't play with them when he came to stanford, and then my bags became better, as well as my style.
so just saying whether it was "the" or "thin" i do believe honza has more valid opinion about it then 90-99% of the footbaggers out theree: especially because he was there.
opinions should not be solely based on what you saw in a video either, in person vasek blows more minds than anyone.
period. (although dave clavens was RIDICULOUS when I saw him at NYJ).
1. I've never seen any evidence that his opinion is any more accurate than anybody else's.
2. I can see for myself from the video that the trick is 'the.' It wouldn't matter which people said it was or wasn't - the evidence is conclusive.
I'd also point out that whether Vasek is awesome or not and whether he blows minds or not is completely irrelevant. As I said in the initial topic - it's a great routine, and I think the only person to deny that is Kyle Hewitt.
Instead of arguing that the whirr is clean based on the logical fallacy of an argumentum ad verecundium (argument from authority), why not review the video and tell me through a set of logical statements how it is clean? Also feel free to tell me what a 'the' whirl would look like, and the difference between his whirr and a 'the' one. I keep asking, and the only answer I got was an explanation that was the same as my explanation for the trick in question.
Jeremy wrote:I'm not sure if you're suggesting that the whirr was clean, but your definition of cleanliness is exactly the same as mine, and what I described in that topic.
My feeling was that it was 'the'. In the first image the bag is deffinently outside of the 'cone of cleanliness'.
And I was considering this a disccusion of not only that particular whirr, but all whirrs, and other strange/fast dexes that are often 'the' (quantums/flails/rev whirls/double downs). I simply intended this to be a bit of a guide for anyone who had questions about cleanliness.
Our sport is unique in the way that the object of our game is so small and everything is based on its location in relation to our legs and other parts of our bodies.
Jeremy, you got me: I should have said Honza's opinion is more valid in this case than 90% of footbaggers BECAUSE he was there.
The cleanliness of that trick in the video is super borderline though, although I am leaning towards it being the.
And my main point was that it doesn't have much of an effect on the judging if it's super close to thin BUT the, because it's nearly impossible to tell.
If it looked clean to honza, then it probably looked clean to the judges too.
Soo, these cones clearly represent clean dexes, but I was just trying to raise a point about being able to see the difference between borderline "the" and "thin" tricks.
which leads me to ask... i'm going to start a new topic.
Nobody is saying the judges made a mistake. Nobody has said the judges did or did not call it 'the' and nobody has suggested the result would have been any different if they did call it 'the.' In fact apart from Kyle Hewitt, everybody has said it was a great routine and I am sure that even if 100% of people agreed that it was 'the,' it would still be considered a great routine that certainly deserved to win, and would probably win at any footbag event in the history of footbag as well (discounting his own previous routines).
We can see from the video that it is not clean. We don't need to worry about who saw it, what they thought, the quality of the routine, Vasek's footbag ability, the position of Mars in the sky, or the name of Obama's girls' new dog. These things are all irrelevant to whether the move is clean or not.
You are right that it's interesting nobody has commented about it being thin. The two positions seem to mine - which is that it's clearly 'the,' without any doubt - with the evidence provided by the screen shot I posted that shows the bag is clearly outside of the cones of dex, if that's how we're thinking about it now, and Honza's position, that it's clearly clean, without any doubt, with the evidence provided that he was there and saw it himself, and never makes mistakes*.
I'm not going to compromise my position and say that it's not 'the,' it's 'thin' because I can see from the video with my own eyes that it really is 'the.' If Honza and the people who support him are happy with their own rational behind calling the move absolutely clean, I therefore cannot really ask them, or expect them to compromise and say that it is; "pretty damn thin." Our argument seems ultimately, as all my arguments appear to be these days, on what we constitute as a good reason for holding an opinion. I say that we should only base our opinions on external observational evidence. Other people think it's fine to base them on personal experiences and memories, even though the scientific evidence shows memories are fairly easy to corrupt.
*This is obviously a logical fallacy, but is said completely in jest, which means I don't actually think the last part of this statement is true.
Last edited by Jeremy on 13 Apr 2009 00:47, edited 1 time in total.
A dex is clean if you can draw a line perpendicular to the dexing leg, and that line goes through the bag, for all parts of the dex. Or something like that.
i usually just figured that if the dex is by the ankle then it's clean, and if it's by the heel it's thin (or 'the'). ideally, the entire shoe or foot should be below the bag for every type of dex.
Pinkus wrote:i usually just figured that if the dex is by the ankle then it's clean, and if it's by the heel it's thin (or 'the'). ideally, the entire shoe or foot should be below the bag for every type of dex.
Exactly my thoughts.
"It's a punk one!" - Auntie Val, after being shown a spikey footbag
Correct me if I am wrong here Jeremy (I know you will )
logical fallacy of an argumentum ad verecundium (argument from authority)
Argumentum ad Verecundiam: (authority) the fallacy of appealing to the testimony of an authority outside his special field. Anyone can give opinions or advice; the fallacy only occurs when the reason for assenting to the conclusion is based on following the improper authority.
Honza in this case is NOT an improper authority, but rather an expert on the subject. Which means your falacy of logic is flawed. pwnage!!! LOL (I am just messing with you Jeremy).
Back on topic:
I find that a dex is clean if it falls inside the dexing window. The window is basically a triangle formed by the thigh, lower leg to the ankle, and an imaginary line between the ankle and lower buttock. Similar to the cone, but the window includes hippy dexes, as well as, leggy dexes.
That's not the definition I've been taught in debating competitions etc. An argumentum ad verecundium is when you say; "Here is my position, and it's correct because this person of authority says that it's correct." It's not logical to state that because somebody is an expert in that field they are therefore always right about it. It would be logical to ask them why they thought the statement was correct, and then put forward their actual evidence - if it's good then it should support the statement as well. An argument from authority stifles debate because it means you're arguing that something is true (or false) without providing the primary reasons for it to be true. If I'm on the opposing side of an argument from authority I can't question the logic or reasoning of the person of authority, because that hasn't been presented. Using experts to support your arguments is a good thing, but not if don't include the reasons why the expert supports your argument, and it should never be considered too highly. It's like saying that the majority of people in the world also support your argument - that does support it, but it certainly is a long way from demonstrating that it's actually true.
In this case, looking at the images I posted in the other topic, I am much more prepared to accept that Honza is wrong, either on those particular whirls, or even on his whole definition of what a 'the' whirl is, than I'm prepared to accept that he is such a phenomenal expert that we should accept everything he says about the cleanliness of moves without question.
edit;
Here is the image of the whirl that Honza stated was definitely clean, and Brainbear stated that he was sure was clean because Honza said so. I have no question, having viewed the video evidence, that it's 'the.' If I'm wrong, my whole definition of what a 'the' trick is is also wrong.
)