Do you count X-dex?

C-Fan · Post by **C-Fan** » 18 May 2005 17:35

My impression at the moment, is that most people accept x-dex as a way of making the add system reflect difficulty more accurately. There are several players who think x-dex doesn`t achieve that goal, or creates more problems than it solves. Personally, I think x-dex is a decent patch for the system, and should be counted in competition.

Feel free to state your own opinion (or not) in this thread, but at the very least please vote in the poll.

bigdirtyfoot · Post by **bigdirtyfoot** » 18 May 2005 17:43

I think X-Dex is a good idea and only needs to perhaps be explained in a better way. (I know I still don't *completely* understand it)

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 18 May 2005 19:09

Yeah David said it well. I'm all for x dex and for it's usage in competitions but the way I always explain x dex and pdx is: A far full dex. With the exception of fairy sets - this covers pretty much everything. ie. Atomsmasher is an atomic set and then a far mirage. Sumo is a far dex, followed by another far dex etc.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 19 May 2005 03:46

no, I don't use x-dex or count x-dex.

I don't believe in making adds reflect difficulty.

Tuukka · Post by **Tuukka** » 19 May 2005 04:53

ptaku · Post by **ptaku** » 19 May 2005 07:42

Yes. I think it's doing it's job. And even if not perfect, then always...

Outsider · Post by **Outsider** » 19 May 2005 10:22

I didn't vote, since I didn't feel that any of the choices exactly reflect my opinion.

In general I like the idea of x-dex, in that it says "not all dexterity moves are equal, and some combinations of harder dexterities deserve greater reward." Well, thats how I'd like it to read.

My problem is simply that I think that what constitutes a "Full Dex" is poorly defined. Some people like to see it as a movement that passes both In Front of and Behind the bag. Others (like me) would prefer to think of the relevant motions being both Over and Under the bag.

Whats more, some types of dexes that are considered Full in some cases should not be considered full dexes in others. For example, Atomic sets are generally considered a full dex, and I'd agree that the first dex of atom smasher goes all the way around the bag, but in an atomic spinning set, the dex circles the bag only as much as that of a butterfly. Similarly, a fairy set can sometimes be full and sometimes its not. For instance, in Fear or Fairy Op Whirl the leg that does the fairy set comes up over the bag and back down under it again, but in Frankenstein or Fairy Same Whirl the leg/foot that sets goes over but does not ever really come back under the bag.

I think that many freestylers just assume that since an atomic is a full dex in some cases that it is simply considered full in all cases, and I don't like that assumption for the above reasons.

Last, I think that the same thing more-or-less applies to whirls. I don't want to get into this in minute detail, but I think whirl is only a full dex if the trick is set from in front of the support leg, thus toe whirl and paradox whirl are full, but your typical clipper-set whirl isn't. Yeah, maybe a regular clipper-set whirl is really a full dex, but a toe whirl or a paradox whirl is FULLER and the important thing, I think, is to distinguish between the relative completeness of a dex and the relative difficulty.

I would like X-Dex to be used in competition, but only after we settle on definitions of full dexes, and I think those definitions should have a very high standard of which dexes are full before we start handing out any extra points.

One other problem I have with X-Dex, in brief, is simply that there are lots of things that make a difference between the difficulty of certain similar tricks. X-dex addresses only a very limited sample of all the differences in difficulty between so many kinds of tricks. X-Dex is just one patch in a boat that has many leaks.

Basically, yeah, lets use X-Dex, but lets not give it to everything that just barely maybe kinda might have two full dexes. Lets say "these ones are for sure, and they get the X-dex, and these ones are debateable, so until the debate is settled they don't."

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 19 May 2005 10:44

Lets say "these ones are for sure, and they get the X-dex, and these ones are debateable, so until the debate is settled they don't.

Sounds like a job for new difficulty system, rather than a system designed to count components.

Adding difficulty corrections to the add system is like adding a water pump to a cell phone; increased functionality put entirely in the wrong place.

bob · Post by **bob** » 19 May 2005 11:56

My view on xdex is strictly with atomics and quantums. i think that anything that would be blurry if set from the clipper, should get the same add count if from toe. blur and toe blur are the easiest examples. now i take that logic and apply it to atomic. just reverse the first dex.

I think that at least THIS should be added into competition because i think we can all see that toe blur is at least EQUAL in difficutly to clip set blur.

bob

junkyardjew · Post by **junkyardjew** » 19 May 2005 13:12

and this, my friends, is why footbag will never be an olympic sport. footbag net maybe, but never freestyle.

Outsider · Post by **Outsider** » 19 May 2005 19:51

junkyardjew wrote:

and this, my friends, is why footbag will never be an olympic sport. footbag net maybe, but never freestyle.

Bah! Did you see what happened to the American Men's Gymnastics team in the most recent Summer Olympics?
Basically, the governing body of their sport waited until two days before their first round of competition to inform them that they had recently changed the rules, devaluing some of the moves in their routines. After years of training, the guys on the team had to change their routines at the last minute in order to stay competitive.

All we're doing here is trying to work out our rules before we get all the way to Athens. I don't think we're so different from other established Olympic sports. Despite our differences of opinion, I think we can differentiate ourselves from those other sports by not pulling that kind of bullshit.

professor · Post by **professor** » 20 May 2005 20:09

I know this is off topic, but:

Sounds like a job for new difficulty system, rather than a system designed to count components.

No one seems to be listening to what Tsiangkun is saying.

We need to decide if we want the adds system to be for judging difficulty or to count components. Because as it is it only counts components. Your trying to make a system that was designed for one thing do an entirely different task.

Instead of changing our add system (used to add up components) to be a difficulty system, we need to come up with an entirely new system to judge the difficulty.

Colin · Post by **Colin** » 21 May 2005 06:48

Tuukka wrote:no

Good argument... Care to say why you think x-dex decreases the accuracy of the add system?

FootbagginBum · Post by **FootbagginBum** » 06 Jun 2005 09:00

It's not an argument I believe, I think it just says that they don't really use xdex in finland...I don't think the proper explanation has been delivers to the propper group of fins...I'm sure you'd like it Tuuka if you did more toe stuff...

Great thread Ken, its a great way to show how we feel and get together to make this happen. John is right, we need to full define our full dexes (I think swirls would be the best issue to display vagueness of x dex), but I automatically count x dex, never report any adds without using it, and fell it needs to be standard until...

We have a new system. Many people have worked and worked on this, Steve supposedly had something, others had some half dex stuff, but nothing is usuable but adds and jobs with all of our crappy fixes strapped on to them.

Since Ben is animated about a new system, it seems I really finally have a serious shredder to "freelosophize" (engaging in freestyle philosophy) with, so maybe we'll put our heads together and try to come up with something of our own...

Peace,
Bum

Paul Agostinelli · Post by **Paul Agostinelli** » 06 Jun 2005 10:32

i want in on that too, and i think because of my newness to the sport and my relatively firm grasp on the concepts that I will bring something to the table that an experienced footbag player may lack, and thats a fresh outlook on the entire sport. i havent been jaded by the inadequite system as of yet because it is still fresh to me, and in my mind, easily changeable.

let me know how shit is going, whether or not you want my input, i would still definately like to be party to the discussions.

~NEL~

Krafty · Post by **Krafty** » 16 Jun 2005 11:41

Outsider wrote: Bah! Did you see what happened to the American Men's Gymnastics team in the most recent Summer Olympics?
Basically, the governing body of their sport waited until two days before their first round of competition to inform them that they had recently changed the rules, devaluing some of the moves in their routines. After years of training, the guys on the team had to change their routines at the last minute in order to stay competitive.

Sorry to be off topic, but actually, it was the US coaches' fault for not knowing that the rules had been changed. The rules that "the governing body of their sport waited until two days before their first round of competition to inform" had actually been changed quite a while ago. In fact, every 4 years, the Code of Points is revised . So, every four years, some moves get devalued while some moves get a higher value. The judge only tried to help the US team because he realized that they had not known about the rule change. American media is very biased and the media made it out to seem like the head judge was at fault when in actuality, the US team and coaches were at fault.

What is the Code of Points?

The Code of Points is the criteria for each event which has been set out by the Federation Internationale de Gymnastique (FIG). These rules cover all aspects of a gymnast's performance. The Code assigns values of difficulty ranging from A to E, and demonstrates the requirements of each move with illustrations (such as the angle of handstand that a gymnast must reach on bars). The Code also has rules for how one qualifies to become a judge, the various categories of judges, seating arrangements for judges at competitions, and the specific functions of the judges. The Code also requires "norms of conduct" for both gymnasts and coaches.

Why is the Code revised every four years?

The FIG revises the Code every 4 years for several reasons. One, gymnasts and coaches from the leading countries are able to meet the requirements of a new Code fairly easily after 4 years and would receive excessively high scores if the Code were not adjusted to meet the level of the gymnasts. Two, by regularly changing the requirements, the FIG tries to ensure that the sport will continue to evolve.

I just wanted to clear that up; the governing body was not at fault for the coaches' mistake.

Now, to stay on topic (

), I agree with David that the x-dex does need to be explained better because I still don't understand the full dexes and half dexes idea.

Muffinman · Post by **Muffinman** » 16 Jun 2005 17:18

I agree that x-dex helps define difficultly more accurately, but I really don't like it and I like calling the moves with the same amout of adds as I used to. Pixie whirl is a 4, witchdoctor is definately a 4, atom smasher is definately a 3. I know everyone seems to think adds don't matter, but I use them every day so they matter to me -- even if they don't affect the moves that I hit. I suppose it's more helpful in competition, and I think I voted FOR x-dex in comp, but outside of competition I really dislike it. I don't have an arguement, I just don't like it :p

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 17 Jun 2005 08:23

shreddaily · Post by **shreddaily** » 17 Jun 2005 12:16

Adds do try to reflect difficulty. Hasn't anyone heard of paradox??? Or x-body??? These things were invented, back when things could be invented w/o chastizing half of the comunity, to help adds better reflect difficulty.
Chastizing probably isn't the right word but I'm sticking with it.
As far as x-dex goes, ehhhh I don't realy care, I get 3 adds when I throw inspinning clipper in shred 30s. If it realy bothered me I'd throw a different move. If you throw a move in your shred 30 its probably pretty easy for ya, so if you can find an easier move with the same add go for it.
And outside compatition who cares about adds. Chan makes a good point about how they are important because we think about them every day, but hes from Canada so thats that.... style is everything, big add moves don't have style unless they are easy for you, if they are easy adds shouldn't matter.
I should win a freekin award for this post.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 17 Jun 2005 12:43

modified

Do you count X-dex?

Does x-dex help the ADD system reflect difficulty more accurately?

Do you count X-dex?