cause if u say i hit butterfly swirl, that could be same side toe set or opp.Stephen Barnes wrote:Can't we just call it all Butterfly? Why is there so much varying terminology for the same concept? That's just ridiculous.
In My Humble Opineeon.
New Set Challenge
-
ShredStylez
- Republican
- Posts: 851
- Joined: 16 Feb 2003 19:37
- Location: Michigan
- Contact:
There is always a bigger trick.
Go watch a vid. of Dylan Fry.
-Mark "The Force" Schwartz
Go watch a vid. of Dylan Fry.
-Mark "The Force" Schwartz
Just to clarify something...
Names are abstract - they aren't real. If you call a "spade" a "shovel" it doesn't change the nature of tool at all.
If I call my far butterflies "Nemesis'" then even though it will confuse people who don't know I'm doing that, I'll still be hitting far butterflies - whatever their name.
So they important thing about names is that people know what you're talking about.
I can see absolutly no difference between and infinity swirl set and a nuclear swirling set. A set is always up time, an infinity swirl is a far butterfly swirl and has the exact same jobs notation as nuclear ss swirl.
Wether or not the infinity swirl comes after a butterfly is irrelevant. I really don't care if someone hits butterfly>infinity swirl or clipper>infinity swirl - it's the second move that is impressive - not the first.
So this whole debate over infinties and far butterflies is pointless in my opinion. You know what somebody means when they use either term, and do you really care if they hit a butterfly before the infinity or not?
Why don't we use common sense instead of wasting our time on arguements that will not achieve anything with either outcome.
I hope those argueing that infinities are consecutive butterflies are also aware that:
Quantum butterfly = dimwalk
Symposium blurrier = blackula
blurry moves are moves with an in to out dex on both legs (so smear is a blurry move)
Gyro is a backspinning near side dexing move with no plant
Spyro is a backspinning near side dexing move with a plant
Names are abstract - they aren't real. If you call a "spade" a "shovel" it doesn't change the nature of tool at all.
If I call my far butterflies "Nemesis'" then even though it will confuse people who don't know I'm doing that, I'll still be hitting far butterflies - whatever their name.
So they important thing about names is that people know what you're talking about.
I can see absolutly no difference between and infinity swirl set and a nuclear swirling set. A set is always up time, an infinity swirl is a far butterfly swirl and has the exact same jobs notation as nuclear ss swirl.
Wether or not the infinity swirl comes after a butterfly is irrelevant. I really don't care if someone hits butterfly>infinity swirl or clipper>infinity swirl - it's the second move that is impressive - not the first.
So this whole debate over infinties and far butterflies is pointless in my opinion. You know what somebody means when they use either term, and do you really care if they hit a butterfly before the infinity or not?
Why don't we use common sense instead of wasting our time on arguements that will not achieve anything with either outcome.
I hope those argueing that infinities are consecutive butterflies are also aware that:
Quantum butterfly = dimwalk
Symposium blurrier = blackula
blurry moves are moves with an in to out dex on both legs (so smear is a blurry move)
Gyro is a backspinning near side dexing move with no plant
Spyro is a backspinning near side dexing move with a plant
Okay I am going to attempt to answer some questions as succinctly as possible.
The reason I gave Max "the nod" on calling it an "infinity swirling set" was because I knew it would allow the set to make sense in his head.
Most people don't seem to make the connection that Nuclear is supposed to necessitate a Paradox so I called it a Nuclear Swirling set because it allows the move to make sense in other peoples minds.
Technically speaking it is a clipper set uptime op butterfly swirling....whatever.
In response to Flex's question about why I didn't at least catch a toe stall on my one semi-successful attempt I said that the move I was thinking in my head was Nuclear Swirling Butterfly.
I called it Nuclear Swirling there because I was intending to hit clip > same out > op back to front > same out > op clip. It is my belief that since the set is followed by a component on the side from whence it came, it can be described as Nuclear Swirling.
In my head and what was it's original intention Nuclear cannot truly be assigned until after the trick is determined (which means nothing due to the rampant subjectivity in move names and concepts). Here's an example of what I mean: Had I tried the move this way; clip > same out > op back to front > op out > op clip, I would have been hitting a Clipper set Tapping Swirling Butterfly because, while ridiculously hard (and once again in my meaningless mind) there is no paradox, thus no Nuclear.
The final dex of these two moves was the component that determined whether or not a paradox would have occurred to create a Nuclearing set.
Oh and someone (wolfpac?) compared it to phasing... that is exactly the connection I made in order to come up with the set idea. To me Fear is a very similar move to Sumo and after attempting Phasing Op side Mirage I thought of this set as being the clipper set version of Phasing and Voi-frickin'-la I invented yet another damn set I can't hit.
I hope this clears things up for most people or just utterly blows your brain out of it's shell. It's unfortunate that this is what needs to be done all the freakin' time because we can't just agree on what's what to begin with.
The reason I gave Max "the nod" on calling it an "infinity swirling set" was because I knew it would allow the set to make sense in his head.
Most people don't seem to make the connection that Nuclear is supposed to necessitate a Paradox so I called it a Nuclear Swirling set because it allows the move to make sense in other peoples minds.
Technically speaking it is a clipper set uptime op butterfly swirling....whatever.
In response to Flex's question about why I didn't at least catch a toe stall on my one semi-successful attempt I said that the move I was thinking in my head was Nuclear Swirling Butterfly.
I called it Nuclear Swirling there because I was intending to hit clip > same out > op back to front > same out > op clip. It is my belief that since the set is followed by a component on the side from whence it came, it can be described as Nuclear Swirling.
In my head and what was it's original intention Nuclear cannot truly be assigned until after the trick is determined (which means nothing due to the rampant subjectivity in move names and concepts). Here's an example of what I mean: Had I tried the move this way; clip > same out > op back to front > op out > op clip, I would have been hitting a Clipper set Tapping Swirling Butterfly because, while ridiculously hard (and once again in my meaningless mind) there is no paradox, thus no Nuclear.
The final dex of these two moves was the component that determined whether or not a paradox would have occurred to create a Nuclearing set.
Oh and someone (wolfpac?) compared it to phasing... that is exactly the connection I made in order to come up with the set idea. To me Fear is a very similar move to Sumo and after attempting Phasing Op side Mirage I thought of this set as being the clipper set version of Phasing and Voi-frickin'-la I invented yet another damn set I can't hit.
I hope this clears things up for most people or just utterly blows your brain out of it's shell. It's unfortunate that this is what needs to be done all the freakin' time because we can't just agree on what's what to begin with.
Old Skool
-
comastalker
- BSOS Beast
- Posts: 373
- Joined: 02 Mar 2004 10:00
- Location: germany - leverkusen
- Contact:
In fact, I'm the last person generally arguing about terms, but I like move-names which describe what it looks like to do them, for example dragon, whirling derwish and infinity. why ain't a far legover named ? dunno, but I read post with several people arguing about "pixie" being used as a muted ss mirage, and I could also say "if I say terrage is a double pixie, everyone understands what I mean and I don't have to say pixie muted ss mirage. Being term-exact is a really fucked up habit, but I remember I have not been that annoying before I started posting on the board.
It's like the "shall pdx symple have it's own shortcut" - debate.
There are several various opinions about that and no consense.
Every second says "we don't need one, everyone knows ps blender is symple", but then di it THAT WAY, don't use psy blender in the beginner forum. I don't want to fulfill my rights, I want everyone to say it the same way, because then the newbies will understand it.
It's like the "shall pdx symple have it's own shortcut" - debate.
There are several various opinions about that and no consense.
Every second says "we don't need one, everyone knows ps blender is symple", but then di it THAT WAY, don't use psy blender in the beginner forum. I don't want to fulfill my rights, I want everyone to say it the same way, because then the newbies will understand it.
-Richard Vock-
"And today the great Yertle, The Marvelous he,
Is King of the Mud. That is all he can see.
And the turtles, of course...all turtles are free
As turtles and, maybe, all creatures should be."
- Dr. Seuss
"And today the great Yertle, The Marvelous he,
Is King of the Mud. That is all he can see.
And the turtles, of course...all turtles are free
As turtles and, maybe, all creatures should be."
- Dr. Seuss
-
QuantumBalance
- 100-Watt Warlock
- Posts: 5092
- Joined: 22 Apr 2002 14:24
- Location: fractal tyedye nebulae
- Contact:
-
max
- Australofrenchbrityorkus
- Posts: 3751
- Joined: 24 Apr 2002 00:12
- Location: Bondi Beach, Australia
- Contact:
errm.. ok I retract my comment!
Maybe I should have said something like:
So it's a pdx tapping swirling set IF you do an op component, or just your average run-of-the-mill non paradox, same out-to-in dex set from cross body followed by a quick op foot (symple or symposium probably) front swirl dexterity, then followed by a same side component?
I personally think both are pretty close enough to being CORRECT, but one is quicker to say and easier to fathom.
damn nitpickers
Maybe I should have said something like:
So it's a pdx tapping swirling set IF you do an op component, or just your average run-of-the-mill non paradox, same out-to-in dex set from cross body followed by a quick op foot (symple or symposium probably) front swirl dexterity, then followed by a same side component?
I personally think both are pretty close enough to being CORRECT, but one is quicker to say and easier to fathom.
damn nitpickers
Maxime Boucoiran
French ConneXion
BFC
French ConneXion
BFC
Wow...thank you for interjecting such an elaborate, well thought out, and articulate response for this thread. I was riveted by your literary style and grace. I mean I read it in it's entirety the first time and then I couldn't help but read it a second, third, fourth and even fifth time.QuantumBalance wrote:This set is old news.
Thank you for bringing so much light to this darkened thread.
Old Skool
-
ShredStylez
- Republican
- Posts: 851
- Joined: 16 Feb 2003 19:37
- Location: Michigan
- Contact:
Sam has a way of doing thatSplint wrote:Wow...thank you for interjecting such an elaborate, well thought out, and articulate response for this thread. I was riveted by your literary style and grace. I mean I read it in it's entirety the first time and then I couldn't help but read it a second, third, fourth and even fifth time.QuantumBalance wrote:This set is old news.
Thank you for bringing so much light to this darkened thread.
But i do agree with him, i heard months ago of folks in cali hitting atomic swirling and starting Nuclear swirling.
There is always a bigger trick.
Go watch a vid. of Dylan Fry.
-Mark "The Force" Schwartz
Go watch a vid. of Dylan Fry.
-Mark "The Force" Schwartz
.
-
Senor Grommet
- Post Master General
- Posts: 3394
- Joined: 18 Oct 2002 20:25
- Location: Greater Santa Cruz, CA
First of all:
This is not a new set.
Sam Colclough and I have been attempting this set for more than 2 years.
Secondly, I know Sam has hit it cleanly at least a few times, and I have also hit the set cleanly twice. I believe that neither one of us has hit anything out of it yet, but I have heard of other people trying this set and that someone had hit something from it. That is all heresay though.
This is not a new set. But it will lead to new tricks being hit.
This is not a new set.
Sam Colclough and I have been attempting this set for more than 2 years.
Secondly, I know Sam has hit it cleanly at least a few times, and I have also hit the set cleanly twice. I believe that neither one of us has hit anything out of it yet, but I have heard of other people trying this set and that someone had hit something from it. That is all heresay though.
This is not a new set. But it will lead to new tricks being hit.
My name: Jeremy Mirken, AKA Chocolatey Shatner, AKA jerk enemy rim.
I kick it with trunk chef elf and liz luck key my.
I kick it with trunk chef elf and liz luck key my.