I say of course they aren't and James picks his nose and eats it
Obviously we are aware that one starts on a toe and the dexes are done with the other foot and the other starts on a clipper and the dexes are done with the same foot.
I agree, they are different moves in my book since they are executed differently.
Barfly is all about set cuz If your set sucks, you won't be good at hitting barflies, but it's a different story with paradons, you don't need to be much concerned with set.
It is all about the setting surface of the trick...
from clipper a double dex to clipper feels completely diferent than a double dex from toe....
My sets on barflies are more angular to. (not really a good thing)
If ( Barfly == DDD) {
void=vortex;
drifter = paraddox drifter;
paradox torque = blender;
dyno = butterfly;
...
}else ( sanity){
/** the world is normal
nothing to see here
**/
}
Last edited by Tsiangkun on 30 Nov 2004 16:09, edited 1 time in total.
I don't know if I am doing it all wrong but every single one of them feel different to me!
Am I eating crazy pills??
I think it would make the most sense to have them all count as unique because they are exactly the definition of the word unique! They all start and end with a different permutation of the toe or clipper option in the start or ending spot.
Yes, they all contain the double down motion, but they are all still unique.
Start --------------- End
TOE ---> SAME SIDE CLIPPER = Double Over Down
TOE ---> OP SIDE CLIPPER = Paradon
CLIPPER ---> SS CLIPPER = Down Double Down
CLIPPER ---> OS CLIPPER = Barfly
how the heck are those all equal?
Come on, I think it is almost being cocky calling them all the same. I am just trying to be logical here. They are all different tricks that live within the family of moves that combine the double down motion.
Hey James, isn't that sort of along the lines of the thinking you have been doing? Doesn't this make sense then too?
Last edited by mosher on 30 Nov 2004 16:11, edited 1 time in total.
james wrote:
I repeat: Set location does not play a part in the determination of a unique core move
Prove it, because I have a whole lot of code that demonstrates that set location is everything in determining uniqueness of strings within strings, moves within strings, and components within moves
Naturally set location will affect the 'feel' of a move and the positioning is different from each set location.
If you set from a forehead stall you have to time your dexes differently than if it was from a same clipper. These differences are too minute to DEFINE a new move.
james wrote:
I repeat: Set location does not play a part in the determination of a unique core move
Prove it, because I have a whole lot of code that demonstrates that set location is everything in determining uniqueness of strings within strings, moves within strings, and components within moves
Atomic is a dex opposite the setting leg, while a nuclear is always a dex with the setting leg. Same distinction as barfly from DDD and paradon from DoD.
Different tricks in all instances.
One could go so far as to say that this same difference is what seperates a paradox torque from a blender. ALL other components in that trick are identical, and the sole difference is the first dex relative to the setting leg.
If all those who agree that barfly and paradon are the same trick think that setting surface means nothing...try a legbeater and then try a nuclear butterfly....they have the same dexes and jobs! But they are COMPLETELY different tricks. I know that i can lay down a legbeater in a string but nuclear butterfly is a whole different cup of tea.
I think James is stuck in the 90s! Go Ace of Bass!!
Seriously the idea that set does not determine difficulty is an old and outdated concept that existed in the days when footbag was a lot different to the way it is played now!! It's obvious now that both uptime and downtime moves are effected by the set. For example how much harder is flapper set whirl - compared with the same move from a clipper. Or an inside set pixie set - as opposed to a toe set.
There have been attempts to correct the fallacy that sets don't effect the difficulty - first with the introduction of the pdx add and the with the introduction of the x-dex. Both of these are demonstrating that what happens before a component changes it's difficulty. For example a mirage is worth 2 adds. A far side mirage from a clip set is worth 3 adds. A far side mirage out of an atomic set is worth 3 adds. - Yet the mirage movement is the same.
Compare the difference between spinning off a clipper and inspinning off and inside set - these are obviously completely different moves. Yet the only difference is which side of the support leg the bag is stalled on.
Do we want to bring back Billy Ray Cyrus or can we finally move on?
I didn't say set location didn't effect the difficulty, I said it doesn't DEFINE a new core move. Flapper set whirl is still a whirl. Yes it's harder, but it's STILL A WHIRL!
You either have to say that all set variations make new moves or none do. Which makes more sense?
So if I do a pickup from my left knuckle it's a different move than if it's set from a knee? You're still DOING A PICKUP. The pickup is defined by an in-out dex caught on the same leg that does the dex.
THAT'S where the relativity of dex leg and catching leg comes into play.
AGAIN you're making reference to an actual SET (spinning and inspinning). I'm not talking about SETS, I'm talking about DOWNTIME moves (core moves).
I may be a bit slow in reading this but, I would think, with a barfly you don't need to plant your setting foot, where as a paradon there is a small window where you dexing leg doesn't really do any movement
Well I'm gonna wiggle mah foot a little extra 'afor I do my next legover and that's gonna be called 'covenant' because it's a NEW move. And if I plant twice real loud THEN wiggle it's ANOTHER move and I'm calling it 'plasma rifle'.
