pretty vs. playable

mc · Post by mc » 19 Aug 2006 07:53

I, too, have had some pretty bags that didn't break it. It often seems like a filler issue to me with the pretty ones (not heavy enough, too full).

I try to make pretty bags that play well.

I think a lot of people that design or make functional things also like to make them attractive to the eye. It makes your product more sellable, and speaks for you as an artist, not only as a crafter of functional product.

"but whats with the intense focus on the beauty of your bag as opposed to how it plays?" - bluntobj3ct

I'm with tom, it's not mutually exclusive. Maybe one might make a few really pretty bags, but then discover that they don't play well. I would think the logical response to that would be to make some changes that affect playability but don't compromise appearance.

Can anyone think of a change that would improve playability, but compromise appearance? it might just be my inexperience with stitching, but I can't think of anything aside from not using certain colors of facile because they're too delicate.

Prettiness only compromises speed of production, in that you have to go slower to make pretty bags. I don't see why there can't be both playability and prettiness. I'm such a small-time stitcher that I have the luxury of going slow and making pretty bags. I hope my situation stays that way, because footbags are little treasures to the people that buy them, and I know that, personally, I really enjoy the aesthetics of a beautiful footbag (and even more so of one photographed creatively and beautifully; some pics by Cod and Toby have been my desktops for months!).

to each their own. We've all got our priorities, and I don't think anyone's priorities are fucked up right now. Who wants to spend hours and be left with sore arms and fingers over a bag that won't play? that's just depressing.

bluntobj3ct · Post by **bluntobj3ct** » 19 Aug 2006 08:22

ive tried to make it clear that i dont believe they are mutually exclusive. that is obviously not true-

let me try and rephrase with an analogy-

what correlation is there between being a (in societies standards, no matter for what reasons) beautiful person, and what kind of a human being you are?

id never say the two go "hand in hand"

all im trying to say is that the outward appearance is the least important thing about a footbag- as there are so many variables such as flange, filler material, stitch style, hole placement, number of holes, filler ratio- etc. to answer matts question i can tell you that wrapping around the flange in various places (abandoning the ever popular 6 hole pent) will distort the look of your panels but in my experience produce quite the change in performance one way or another. also, staggering stiches or shortening gaps can produce a less geometric look- and can affect the playability of the bag as well.

i guess what im trying to say is that instead of striving to make a perfectly geometric evenly stitched bag- mix it up! theres lots to be tried out there, and pursuing a goal of the standard polygon is just not... the point!

ill agree its obviously in the best monetary interest of a stitcher trying to market their product to the desires of the masses- to have it appear cute and fuzzy and shiny and geometric and even or whatever- but my point is that you shouldn't judge a book by its cover. there are plenty of reviews out there but what sparked this rant/debate by me is that in searching for real reviews about any bag- a vast 90% of what i found is visual reviews as opposed to playing reviews (yes, they ARE pictures, i know). even the playing reviews i found were from initial kicking and not after break in. its also logical that people are stoaked with a new bag and review it right away and dont nessecarily think of comin back on after a month or so to give a report- and thats fine im not complaining- only questioning!

I sure as hell want to produce a good looking bag but not in compromise of its shred dynamic- im not trying to condemn anyone here, im not trying to fight the whole forum and it would just be stupid to say that you cant make a pretty bag that plays well... so i hope those words never get put into my mouth.

im going to use an example that might let you know what i mean. richie abshire makes several bags a day, and has been doing so for thousands of bags. the guy has tried everything there is to try (not to say his way works best for everyone (gotta preemtively defend sheesh)). his bags although awesomely gorgeous i would say dont fit into the aesthetic ideal category- but they're hands down among the very best out there (best i think

) another example would be dorschbags which are, no doubt, things of beauty, they sure have a little shock-value to the style! BOTH of these stitchers bags are fantastic - while they arent nessecarily americas next top models. id say theres a much higher percentage of pretty bags that blow than ugly ones that dont!

i understand that on teh internet you cant break a bag in and review it. im not trying to accuse anyone specific of being a material girl (u bunch of sissies

) and i dont want everyone to get too up in arms to try and understand what im tryin to say-

know what im sayin?

Toby · Post by **Toby** » 19 Aug 2006 08:23

True(to Mosher). I think performance and appearance are definatly related. But i think it's true to say that people on this forum pretty much only talk about bag appearance. No one seems to talk about what makes a good 32 apart from neatness and bag fill. Why do we gather so much? Why is 6&8 holes per side better than 4&6? Why does the fill size matter? You would think that the basics of bag performance would come up at least occasionally.

bluntobj3ct · Post by **bluntobj3ct** » 19 Aug 2006 08:32

toby you've been one of the most experimental people ive seen on this forum and i very much respect that!

ive never ever ever made two bags that were the same. i dont believe itll be soon that i decide on a style and stick with it. there is too much to try- and i even find myself wanting to make changes halfway/quarterway thru a bag.

(ok actually some bags i make a couple of to test together so as to eliminate lurking/confounding variables) but as far as styles of bags, each time i go to stitch a bag or two its with a new idea.

edit: good thing someone sees that the topics are rarely performance related- i was starting to think im crazy... yep, im pretty much nuts anyway but hey thats not the point

Toby · Post by **Toby** » 19 Aug 2006 08:39

Matt Cross wrote: Can anyone think of a change that would improve playability, but compromise appearance? it might just be my inexperience with stitching, but I can't think of anything aside from not using certain colors of facile because they're too delicate.

I can.

If you give a bag a crap load of gather, and manage to break it in, it can become an awesome and grippy bag. One disadvantage is that the seems become massive when you gather them so much. However, if you use "unclean gather" this is where you manipulate the stitch holes so that they force more material into the seams. The result is more gather and smaller seems. The problem with this is it is very hard to do and the footbag is almost certain to look worse.

bluntobj3ct wrote:there is too much to try- and i even find myself wanting to make changes halfway/quarterway thru a bag.

I know the feeling. I have a large pile slightly completed footbags.

Wasabi · Post by **Wasabi** » 19 Aug 2006 08:49

There's a purpose for aesthestics, and it is very minute. When you have every hex and pent close to even without much of a wrinkle or distortion to the design of the bag, it will have a very even break-in. Anyone can make a bag based solely on performance, but whether or not that bag can truly break-in as well as one that has the stitches and needle placement much more evenly distributed is hard to compare.

Felix Zenger, Ilja, Toby, Chris Miller, Tom & Peng, Jeremy Mirken - those names come into mind whom I look up to in their quality stitching. It's not only the fact that they make bags "pretty," which is far from it, but they look into how well they're product performs. Like I said, aesthetics plays a part, but not a major one. However, it's not so much of a debate to discuss about aesthetics and performance, because you can have BOTH qualities in a bag that makes for a great shred bag.

And really, you have to agree with Toby here. Where's the basis? This is the internet, this is modified. Pictures are worth a thousand words.

And on a final note: there's never a point where creativity should be neglected in bag stitching or filler making. Definitely mix it up! If you find a method that affects performance greatly to your expectations, then go for it! The same goes for filler. That's what stitching should be partly about - to make a quality product that shredders can enjoy, like you have when you stitched it and broken it in. It may take some time to observe and test, but once you've found it, it's a keeper.

bluntobj3ct · Post by **bluntobj3ct** » 19 Aug 2006 09:20

lol im sure im not the only person who props my bags up when im done and fluffs em out and makes sure they're round when i take that picture to post up on modified. i dont post pictures of them so people can review their playability. its very true that the bags ive made thread is a picture thread- what else could it be? and yep, you're very observant to notice we're both on the internet and modified.

ive addressed the photo situation twice now, in detail.

"discuss" was the last word in my post! its all just food for thought!

maybe i havent searched far enough into the catacombs of modified to search for reviews of bags etc, i know they exist. and it would be dumb and pointless to restrict comments about bags to shredability as opposed to beauty.

what im questioning is not the purpose of the thread, or the ability of a picture to convey shredability

.

im questioning the goals of modern stitchers! not accusing! questioning!

Roy · Post by **Roy** » 19 Aug 2006 10:37

BenRea wrote:but once you have the bag, the color (in my opinion) or style doesnt matter as much at all.

The color has so much to do with a bags performance. I feel. Each color to me is like a whole different material. If the two best performing colors were both the same shade of gray. All my bags would be gray. ...Dull, huh?

brinard · Post by **brinard** » 19 Aug 2006 12:36

i guess MY bag is what i PERSONALly like best. its only my OPINION on what makes the bag perfect.

fil and gather make a big difference, but everyone likes something different.

i dont really think a bag has to be pretty, or colorful. what makes a good bag is how it plays. being cool or pretty or whatever is a plus.

jrstubs · Post by **jrstubs** » 19 Aug 2006 12:52

I'm with sam on this one ive made the shittiest looking bags in the world and they played much much better than my 6 stitched perfect 32 panel bags or perfect with parenthesis? "perfect"

yeh there are too many things to try ive tried different stitching techniques on each side of the pent on one of my non finished bags

and fuck adidas what a bunch of [Mod edit: derogatory language. --Moxie] working there. fucking big company selling their shit all over the world and customer servise is only open from 7A.M. to 6 P.M.

thats a real piss off for me, how about the people that sleep all day and are up all night, idk, im just randomly typing so eh, I just cant stop. Reebok is way sicker than adidas, but I still like my rods.

bluntobj3ct · Post by **bluntobj3ct** » 19 Aug 2006 13:10

gangsta · Post by **gangsta** » 19 Aug 2006 13:22

jrstubs wrote: and fuck adidas what a bunch of [Mod edit: derogatory language. --Moxie] working there. fucking big company selling their shit all over the world and customer servise is only open from 7A.M. to 6 P.M.

Need tech-support for your rods, Andrew? Have you tried rebooting?

Footy Buddies look ugly, and don't play good (or at all!)
The bags I made back in the early days are lopsided and ugly, and don't set straight or stall well.

As for pretty bags... The bag in my avatar is Very consistent, But its very tiny, and therefore very light, and is taking FOREVER to break in. But I think once it does, it'll be niiice.
Other than that 'exception,' (i'll call it that, even though it's not broken-in, so i can definitively say...) i've personally never had expirience with 'pretty' bags that don't play well. However, i'm sure someone could make a sexy-looking bag out of a sub-standard fabric like denim, that would not play well (for freestyle. Im sure it would be a great circle-hack)

Oh yea, I think if any Bag is broken in enough and soft enough, itll stall great! I have a Crochet bag from hot topic thats almost 2 years old and I can shred the fuck outta that sucker!

bluntobj3ct · Post by **bluntobj3ct** » 19 Aug 2006 16:25

maybe you just dont have a sophisticated palate

james_dean · Post by **james_dean** » 19 Aug 2006 20:23

I think a better way to market your bags is to get them out there and get yourself a reputation. People will talk about bags they love, I know I do.

RawSko · Post by **RawSko** » 20 Aug 2006 18:29

name all the best stitchers. I'll start with a few prime ones, just as an example... Hania, Richie Abshire, Carol, Felix, Lonn Irish... they make the most shredable bags that exist. All thier bags are gorgeous!!

Beauty is simply a perk of having perfect stitching. Does it not make sense that Perfect bag would ultimately play better that one that is filled with flaws?

Neatness and Playability definately DO go hand in hand.

Xain · Post by **Xain** » 20 Aug 2006 18:57

as where visual beauty is less important to me than playability, one visual factor that I do think about when buying a bag is visibility; so that the person watching can see more clearly.

Kyle Hewitt · Post by **Kyle Hewitt** » 20 Aug 2006 19:43

I didnt like Hania bags..... so small and full

but Jeremy Mirken makes the best bags ever IMO and his look and play great!

BalinorNZ · Post by **BalinorNZ** » 20 Aug 2006 21:03

Of course playability is more important than bag appearance, but if a bag has a good appearance because it's stitched to be playable (which is often the case with good bags) then that's just a sideeffect.

Toby · Post by **Toby** » 21 Aug 2006 00:53

bluntobj3ct wrote:all im trying to say is that the outward appearance is the least important thing about a footbag- as there are so many variables such as flange, filler material, stitch style, hole placement, number of holes, filler ratio- etc. to answer matts question i can tell you that wrapping around the flange in various places (abandoning the ever popular 6 hole pent) will distort the look of your panels but in my experience produce quite the change in performance one way or another. also, staggering stiches or shortening gaps can produce a less geometric look- and can affect the playability of the bag as well.

i guess what im trying to say is that instead of striving to make a perfectly geometric evenly stitched bag- mix it up! theres lots to be tried out there, and pursuing a goal of the standard polygon is just not... the point!

Wow, i just read this. I think this thread is a little f**ked(fucked). It seems to me that you have confused geometric typical-ness with prettiness

IMO, a pretty bag is a bag that has consistent stitching throughout(don't mean straight) and is perfectly round. It could have any number of stitches per side, and it doesn't matter what shapes it's made from. I haven't made and posted a typical 6-hole-pent bag for a long time, yet i've had alot of nice comments about the bags i've made.

bluntobj3ct wrote:what im questioning is not the purpose of the thread, or the ability of a picture to convey shredability .

im questioning the goals of modern stitchers! not accusing! questioning!

You do have a point. It looks like alot of people have been playing around with colour patterns recently, but i don't think anyones really been playing with their stitching(apart from things like flange, gather, bleed holes and materials).

bluntobj3ct · Post by **bluntobj3ct** » 21 Aug 2006 08:19

Wow, i just read this. I think this thread is a little f**ked(fucked). It seems to me that you have confused geometric typical-ness with prettiness

I'VE confused geometric typical-ness with prettiness????

TOBY MY MAN! you've officially zeroed in on MY POINT

this misplacement of focus is exactly what im ranting about... many stitchers seem to concentrate on your so called "geometric typical-ness" and therein lies everyones standards of a "pretty bag"

my own standards of beauty are much much different but thats a whole seperate issue

im sorry you think the thread is "fucked"- if you disagree with what im ranting about just say so, all im presenting is an opinion so i believe you'll have trouble trying to find inconsistencies/errors- if thats all you're focusing on... you're focusing on the wrong part of the thread.

modified

pretty vs. playable

my bag is fuzzy and cute and pretty!!!

ARG!!!

Re: ARG!!!