UPSB v3

Naming Committee / [topic][5.30] Taps

  1. Freeman
    Date: Thu, Apr 8 2010 15:30:22

    This thread discusses a complete notation for all tricks that involve a tap.

    For now we know these ones:

    · Halftap/Fulltap

    · Baktap

    · Palmtap

    · Inverse Baktap

    · FL Halftap / Fulltap

    · FL Palmtap

    · And all their reverses


    The first problem is the Halftap/Fulltap: the same trick with different revolutions changes its name.

    It can be simplified with a general name: Fingertap

    Why? well, it's a trick that spins on the fingers, as the Baktap spins on the Backhand and the Palmtap on the Palm.

    So some examples could be:


    Cont Fingertap 0.5 T1-T1

    Fingertap 1.5 T1-T1


    Another point is that all this tap tricks can be described as Topspins


    A Halftap/Fulltap is, in fact, a ThumbIndexspin. I think Sketching proposed, in some other thread, to classify the taps as "Tapped Topspins" or "Flicked Topspins". Ignoring the type of push, I think we can use the Expanded Trick Notation instead of using and introducing those new modifiers.

    So a regular Halftap 0.5 T1-T1 would be:

    TIS 0.5 T1-T1 [p 1]

    And a Fulltap 1.0 T2-T2 [p 2]:

    TMS 1.0 T2-T2 [p 2]

    ^ Notice that in this last case we have a ThumbMiddlespin, because the Index finger is stretched.


    Replace the x in [p x] with another finger if the push is done with the x finger. x contains 1,2,3,4, also T', 1', 2', 3', 4', wrist', arm', elbow'... (W', A', E'... if we had a wider expanded notation) and combinations of this elements.


    For the Fingerless / Reverse variations just add FL / Rev respecting the name convention.


    Some rare versions of the Halftap could be described in this way:

    Halftap 0.5 11-11 would be an Indexspin 0.5 11-11 [p 1]

    Halftap 1.0 12-12 would be a Middlespin 1.0 12-12 [p 2] if performed correctly.


    The same for the other tricks:


    With the Baktap we could introduce the Backhand Spin, acting as the inverse of a Palmspin. So a Baktap 1.0 B12-B12 would be:

    Fingerless Backhand Spin 1.0 B12-B12

    It could be non-fingerless if the push is done with the other hand. Example:

    Bakchand Spin 1.0 B12-B12 [p 2']


    Both Palmtap and Inverse Baktap are different ways of performing "tapped Palmspins", but both can be described in a similar way:

    Palmtap 0.5 P-P [p 1] would be a Palmspin 0.5 P-P [p 1]


    Recognizing Inverse Baktaps and Fingerless Palmtaps can be more difficult with this proposed notation:

    Fingerless Palmtap 1.0 P-P [p 1] would be FL Palmspin 1.0 P-P [p 1]

    Inverse Baktap 1.0 P12-P12 would be FL Palmspin 1.0 P12-P12

    These tricks can be also non-fingerless if the push is done with the other hand.


    Finally, this notation could also be applied to the Fingerless Side Spin that spins on the Palm.

    So a FL Side Spin 5.0 TF-P would be:

    FL Palmspin 5.0 TF-P

  2. Look Into the Sun
    Date: Fri, Apr 9 2010 04:12:28

    I've always had a similar idea for taps and their relation to just spin tricks so I can see where you're going. But I must say that one thing that's deterred me is the initial push which is quite different from a normal spin trick.

  3. Freeman
    Date: Fri, Apr 9 2010 15:14:15

    You're right, with this notation a Halftap 1.5 T1-T1 can't be differentiated of a regular Thumbspin 1.5.

    Another idea is to add a modifier to notate when the pen is in a fingerslot (held by 2+ fingers) or resting on two fingers (basically a notation for this second case, which corresponds to the initial position of the Halftap).

  4. strat1227
    Date: Fri, Apr 9 2010 18:07:52

    What problem does this notation change solve?

    In my opinion we should only ever introduce a new system if the old one has irreconcilable flaws. I agree that yours makes better sense than what's there already, but what's there already works just fine, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

    That being said, if there IS a flaw that I'm just not seeing, I see no problem with the one you're suggesting

  5. Freeman
    Date: Fri, Apr 9 2010 19:25:19

    Actually the only problem is with the Halftap/Fulltap name.

    The change to Topspin is just a form of removing unnecessary names.

    We could fix the first thing though.

  6. strat1227
    Date: Fri, Apr 9 2010 19:40:16

    Well there are similar "problems" with things like bak rev vs bust vs fl ia and lots of other old naming conventions, but they're only "problems" in the sense that if you think about it it doesn't make much sense. But it doesn't actively affect breakdowns or anything, it doesn't really do any harm, so there's no real reason to fix it.

    Just my opinion

  7. Frip
    Date: Sun, Apr 11 2010 02:55:20

    I think it's too late to rename old tricks by now. People got used to them the way they are. The focus should be shifted on creating "good" names for new tricks.

  8. Hippo2626
    Date: Sun, Apr 11 2010 03:25:24

    I have to agree with Frip and disagree with Strat. I think we should also change our old naming systems to something more systematic other than just fixing problem in past notation systems.

  9. strat1227
    Date: Sun, Apr 11 2010 06:17:37

    QUOTE (Hippo2626 @ Apr 10 2010, 11:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
    I have to agree with Frip and disagree with Strat. I think we should also change our old naming systems to something more systematic other than just fixing problem in past notation systems.


    huh? Frip and I said the same thing pretty much ... don't change it ...

  10. Hippo2626
    Date: Mon, Apr 12 2010 11:18:21

    Oh man I misread but I still feel the same way, We would create a much more professional PSing world.

  11. Mats
    Date: Mon, Apr 12 2010 12:58:33

    Professional only describes if you do something for money or not. If you are paid to do a job, you are a professional in whatever that job is. If you're not getting paid, you're an amatuer.

    I agree this is unneccassary complication - We don't need it.

  12. Look Into the Sun
    Date: Tue, Apr 13 2010 07:24:40

    I like the idea of clearing away excess information, but there's a lot of tricks to ameliorate. Frankly, it'd cause a revolution.

    An example would be the spider spin. A spiderspin, in reality is simply a fingerspin done palm up. In more familiar terms, a fl rev spiderspin is like a midbakspin (fl middle spin reverse) done palm up. I've had a few other notions but decided it wasn't worth the effort.

  13. strat1227
    Date: Tue, Apr 13 2010 07:45:24

    QUOTE (Look Into the Sun @ Apr 13 2010, 03:24 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
    I like the idea of clearing away excess information, but there's a lot of tricks to ameliorate. Frankly, it'd cause a revolution.

    Exactly, and without a flaw in the current system, such a "revolution" is pointless, "revolutions" never come easy, without pressing need for change I'd strongly advise against trying to revolutionize

  14. Hippo2626
    Date: Tue, Apr 13 2010 11:56:20

    I think the revolution would be worth it and short lived if we were to make changes to the naming. It would be very beneficial in the longer run.

  15. Look Into the Sun
    Date: Thu, Apr 15 2010 00:01:40

    Perhaps but...it's also a lot of work. :]

  16. Hippo2626
    Date: Thu, Apr 15 2010 14:04:34

    QUOTE (Look Into the Sun @ Apr 15 2010, 08:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
    Perhaps but...it's also a lot of work. :]

    I wouldn't mind the work but this, if it were to happen, would probably require a joint effort from all boards.

  17. Look Into the Sun
    Date: Thu, Apr 15 2010 23:48:14

    QUOTE (Hippo2626 @ Apr 15 2010, 07:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
    I wouldn't mind the work but this, if it were to happen, would probably require a joint effort from all boards.

    Also a lot of work just to gather everyone and not to mention we have differing nomenclature.