[Jokse]

Is whirr really 5 adds? Just curious, always thought it was a 4 add trick..

[Radek]

[quote="Jokse"]Is whirr really 5 adds? Just curious, always thought it was a 4 add trick.. :)[/quote]

It has x-dex. It's 5 adds. ;)

[sidekick]

Okay, so I got called out by Milan for calling sumo a 5 add, even though it has "x-dex" I guess some people see it as a 4. That being said, Whirr has no x-dex in my mind, and it is a 4 to almost everyone I talk to, where as Sumo is widely excepted as a 5 to the freestylers I talk with.

My understanding of x-dex = after a second complete hip pivot you get this point for extra movement based on shifting of balance and therefore making the move more difficult...

from this understanding I do think Atom smasher (and by association, Sumo) gets x-dex. Whirr on the other hand requires no extra hip pivot, and therefore does not get x-dex. If you do paradox whirr, maybe you could argue that it gets it, making it a six, but regular whirr is not a 5 to me.

Anyone have different perception of x-dex, or is this the correct one?

[C-Fan]

My understanding of x-dex is as follows:

1. Some tricks have a double hip pivot. This makes the trick harder, since your hips go one way, and then in the same move have to move back. This earns a body add.

2. The most common example of this double hip pivot, is the paradox add. In most paradox tricks (torque, dlo, drifter), your hips pivot towards the bag, and then have to pivot back to get the first dex. Whirl and swirl lack this double hip pivot, but for some inexplicable reason, whirl gets paradox add.

3. By the mid 90s, paradox was widely accepted. Most people didn't think about it's origin in the double hip pivot, which is why a lot of people had trouble explaining why certain tricks got paradox and others didn't. Because 99% of double hip pivot tricks at this time started on clipper, many people assumed toe tricks could not receive a double hip pivot body add.

4. By the late 90s, people started hitting tricks like atom smasher, which have a double hip pivot, but were not set from clipper. Taking atom smasher as our example, after the first dex the bag is on the far side of your hips, so to do an opposite leg mirage, your hips have to double hip pivot. To do a same side mirage, no double hip pivot is required. This explains why tap is easier (and receives one less add) than atom smasher.

5. Since "paradox" had been ingrained in freestyler's minds as needing to come from clipper, the concept of x-dex was introduced. The way I see it, x-dex is a body add caused by a preceding dexterity. In some tricks, the position of the bag after the first dex requires a double hip pivot. Doing so gives you x-dex.

This probably just confused everybody, but I thought I'd give my perspective/understanding.

[Jeremy]

Sorry for a late and off topic post.

X-dex is defined as an add for each full dex after the first full dex. It doesn't matter about hip pivots or which legs the dexes are completed with. Since whirr is two full dexes, it gets an x-dex. I don't really know much about the early discussion, but this is the same definition Eric Wulf used when he first proposed x-dex to the freestyle community online. A definition of x-dex and full dex can be found in the IFPA rules, although they contain a disclaimer that x-dex is not yet officially approved for competitions (so it can be used at the judges discretion).

[Slowsis]

Ripped>BW>BW>Blurriest

BW>Blurriest>Symp Whirling Swirl

3. X-Dex: an additional element of difficulty when a move contains at least two "full dexes" as described above (e.g., "atomic illusion", "double reverse-swirl", etc.). If a move has more than two full dexes, then there is an additional X-Dex element for each of the subsequent full dexes in the move (e.g., "atomic barroque" is considered to have two X-Dex elements). Today, none of the official add-values in competition includes the X-Dex element. The concept is described here only to document difficulty theory, not to indicate that it must be considered in competition.

This came as a bit of a surprise for me, as I believed the definition was a lot closer to what Ken described. The double hip pivot on toe tricks (toe paradox) seemed to make a lot more sense. I had also never heard of the double X-dex clause. Atomic Merlin (not ss merlin) is an 7 under that rule. (Dex>Dex>Xdex>Dex>Symp>Xdex>Delay)

Also, there is an error in this paragraph. Double swirls, reverse or otherwise, are only 1 1/2 dexes. If swirls were full dexes, and everything with two full dexes gets an xdex, whirling swirl would be a five.

[Jeremy]

Perhaps mods could take these xdex posts and make a new topic out of them.

The theory behind xdex as I understood it, was that for some moves you have to go around the bag more than for others. Xdex was supposed to mean "extra dex." I can't find the original email about this, but as I recall one of the examples Eric Wulff gave was triple atw as a 5 add, so it was always intended to be given to moves where you have to go around the bag more than the add value reflected.

One of the reasons that the IFPA definition has that disclaimer is that there are still some issues where there is enough debate that there isn't a completely accepted definition. The problem is with the definition of "full dex."

In the original email Eric listed fairy set as a full dex, but many people don't agree. Some people also don't think you can arbitrarily break up the dexes in double dex moves in order to make one a full dex and get an xdex. So for example some people give nemesis an x dex, but neither barrage or double down contain 2 full dexes. Instead if you arbitarly divide the dexes you can say that each has one half dex and one full dex, but in some people's opinion, each is a single component where you get 2 adds for 2 dexes that are a total of 1 and a half dexes, so dividing the dexes up equally wouldn't give you a full dex. There is also debate about whether swirl moves are full dexes or not - which is why they're included in the definition.

So you shouldn't take the IFPA definition too seriously, or ignore the disclaimer. At the same time, the broad definition of xdex, at least since it was made public, was always to give extra adds to moves where you have to go around the bag more than you're rewarded for.

Adds are pretty antiquated now, and only used for one event, so I don't know if the IFC will have much motivation to flesh out a definite definition. The trend seems to more a move away from adds altogether than really caring about the intricate details and patching up what is such a rough system.

[Empty]

pogo pdx mirage has 4 adds just like normal blur, pogo doesn't get add for symp.

[C-Fan]

Good stuff Mark. I was surprised by some of the concepts you were throwing midstring, like surging and furious, both which look very good.

yo ken....do you consider pogo blur a 5 ?

When I started playing in the late 90s, some of the older players considered pogo a 2 add set. But that was in the mid 90s, and even then most people didn't. Once Shred30 caught on, it became more important to have adds be universally agreed upon, and at that point most people felt that pogo didn't justify an extra add.

In terms of difficulty (i.e. how hard it "feels), I definitely don't feel pogo justifies an add over regular stepping.

On the other hand, understanding that adds don't reflect difficulty, I actually do think that pogo should get an add, because by the strict definition it IS symposium, even if it isn't harder. Similarly, dada curve doesn't feel hard, and most people give it 4 adds, but in the purest sense of adds, it's impossible to argue that it doesn't have 5 adds.

Make sense?

While I'm here, I hit a few more fearless sick 3s, but my camera died early again. So the first 7 combos here are new, but then the rest of the video is the same as the one I posted last time.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbR1AjqbLOY[/youtube]

[Jeremy]

"Add" is an acronym for "additional degree of difficulty." The system was invented by Kenny Shults and Rick Reese specifically to be a difficulty system. It's obviously quite a low resolution system, but I think if you compared every move with every other move, the vast majority of comparisons would be accurate.

[C-Fan]

"Add" is an acronym for "additional degree of difficulty."

Really?!?! I never knew that! Thanks for teaching me something so basic about footbag that I didn't know Jeremy. [/sarcasm]

I think if you compared every move with every other move, the vast majority of comparisons would be accurate.

I never claimed otherwise. All I was pointing out, is that there are some moves which deserve an add under the current system, which do not receive that add because they don't "feel" like they deserve the extra point for difficulty. Superfly is a five, and symp butterfly supposedly doesn't exist and is a three. Dada curve is a "four" because of this. All I was pointing out, is that pogo doesn't feel to me like it deserves an extra add (and that's the consensus in footbag as well), but that it technically should get a symp add.

Stop trolling, get a life.

[Jeremy]

Trolling is when you put forward opinions you don't actually agree with in order to make people angry. I've always had a commitment to dispelling misconceptions in footbag. The idea that adds don't reflect difficulty is one of those misconceptions. Yes there are a number of exceptions, but overall adds were both designed to reflect difficult and do.

adds don't reflect difficulty

= "Additional degree of difficult doesn't reflect difficulty."

I know it wasn't the main point you were making, but many people try to make this claim about there not being a relationship between adds and difficulty. They are clearly wrong.

[drillbit]

personally i am really thankful Jeremy knows everything......this way i don't have to.

[sen]

I feel the general footbag playing population's view of add's has changed over the years, regardless of what it was originally designed to do.

It does not correctly identify the difficulty of a trick. There are too many exceptions for that to be true. Even it was designed to do that. Footbag changed and it doesn't ring true anymore.

I feel adds are viewed more as a trick component counter now. It's the only real classification system we have so it often is related to difficulty, but the current add system does not properly define the difficulty of any given trick.

[Jeremy]

If I were to go through the last 10 footbag videos posted on modified and write down the most frequently hit moves of each add value, and then compare each move with the other moves of different add values, what percentage of exceptions do you think there would be, and what percentage of exceptions do you think is too many?

Here's a guess at the 5 most frequent moves of each add category from 2 to 6.

2;
clipper, atw, mirage, pixie, legover

3; osis, butterfly, pdx mirage, ducking clipper, spinning clipper

4; Ripwalk, blur, dimwalk, ducking butterfly, spinning osis

5; Blurry whirl, PS Whirl, tomahawk, pdx torque, phoenix

6; Mullet, whirlwind, food processor, spender, ducking pdx blender

I'd be surprised if more than 5% of comparisons across adds in the experiment I suggested, or an even wider one, would be exceptions.

[sen]

Just looking at the two adds you listed.

For me:

atw is harder than clipper (any move with a dex is harder than clipper)
pixie is easier than mirage and legover
atw is easier than pixie

illusion isn't on the list of 2's hit often because it is considerably harder to hit than most other 2's. Interesting. Also note that I listed how they compare "For me" which is quite likely different for you and everyone else. Difficulty is subjective.

[Corey]

ADDS only work when you are a talking at a basic level. You can not compare moves on different "paths" I mean you can not compare food processor to pdx fluxscrew. Obviously moves along the same can be compared. (eg torque & marius) But then again I can find multiple exceptions in Jeremy's list.

Here are a few to compare
fusing clipper (4 adds) to symposium marius (7 adds)
grifter (3 adds) to alpine spender (7 adds)
ingyro rev swirl (4 adds) to alpine marius (7 adds)

IMO the three easier moves are the 7 adds. Explain that one.



Anyway some Fearless shit.
pendulous double dyno> sd dyno
gyro diving osis x2
sd xbody rake> pend double dyno

[Jeremy]

Just looking at the two adds you listed.

For me:

atw is harder than clipper (any move with a dex is harder than clipper)
pixie is easier than mirage and legover
atw is easier than pixie

illusion isn't on the list of 2's hit often because it is considerably harder to hit than most other 2's. Interesting. Also note that I listed how they compare "For me" which is quite likely different for you and everyone else. Difficulty is subjective.

Difficulty is subjective and the examples you gave are of the same add value. If the system were accurate then moves where the difficulty is similar would be of the same value. The system scores probably thousands of moves with an integer between roughly 0 and 10. That would mean there's hundreds of moves at each value, and so of course some moves of the same value will be of slightly different difficulty. It's clearly not a precise system, and I would say that those moves are all very similar in difficulty, so are examples of the system working. If you've listed exceptions to the add difficulty relationship, what add value would those moves better be suited to be in?

@Footbagger007
I think you're entirely missing the point. I'm not saying there aren't exceptions. There are lots of exceptions. A better example would be every stepping paradox move is of a higher add value than every stepping same side version of the same trick, and yet in all the cases I can think of, the same side version is harder (or at least of comparable difficulty).

The point I'm making is that if instead of cherry picking the data to just find the exceptions, you scientifically analysed all of it, or as wide an arbitrary selection as possible, you'd find that the vast majority of moves confirm to the add system difficulty rating.

You've given me 3 examples (I don't agree with the second two, and I'm unsure about the first, but that's irrelevant). Let me give you some counter examples.

Toe delay compared with every move of 2 adds and up.
Inside delay compared with every move of 2 adds an up.
Neck delay compared with every move of 2 adds and up.
Lap catch/toilet stall compared with every move of 2 adds and up.

Of course I'm cherry picking data too, but you can see that the number of cherry picked examples I've given you is a total of every footbag move of 2 adds and up times 4, which is obviously a much bigger number than the 3 examples you gave me.

I don't think anybody would deny, or is denying that there is a casual relationship between adds and difficulty. If you scatter graphed every move with it's "real" difficulty and add value, there'd obviously be a positive correlation. The question I'm posing is, how strong would that correlation be? I think it would be very strong.

[Muffinman]

You guys should make a new thread. You're ruining this one.

[Jeremy]

You guys should make a new thread. You're ruining this one.

I've asked a mod to split these responses. We just need to wait until one reads this topic.