UPSB v3
Advanced Tricks / IndexAround 2.0 Discussion
Split from Rare Tricks List
-
Date: Sat, Sep 15 2007 01:52:40QUOTE (sketching @ Sep 14 2007, 08:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
So would a IA 2.0 be a
IA~>FL IA?? -
Date: Sat, Sep 15 2007 01:58:32
Indexaround 2.0 would be an Indexaround that goes around twice in one push.
-
Date: Sat, Sep 15 2007 02:02:12
That seems like it would be a pain in the ass...
-
Date: Sat, Sep 15 2007 02:37:37
Yeah, I can't do it.
-
Date: Sat, Sep 15 2007 13:26:56QUOTE (sketching @ Sep 14 2007, 09:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Indexaround 2.0 would be an Indexaround that goes around twice in one push.
uuh... erm... wouldn't IndexAround 2.0 be a single IA that goes around the finger only once, but has 2.0 rotations in doing so?
much like a Bak 2.0? only in the other direction?
if you're right, then IA 2.0 is the only trick that has that type of notation, instead of "Double IA" or something like that... it just doesnt make sense for that ONE trick to be different
-
Date: Sat, Sep 15 2007 14:50:59QUOTE (strat1227 @ Sep 15 2007, 09:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>uuh... erm... wouldn't IndexAround 2.0 be a single IA that goes around the finger only once, but has 2.0 rotations in doing so?
much like a Bak 2.0? only in the other direction?
if you're right, then IA 2.0 is the only trick that has that type of notation, instead of "Double IA" or something like that... it just doesnt make sense for that ONE trick to be different
You're correct strat. IA 2.0 can only mean one push with 2.0 revolutions before being caught. An IA followed by a FL IA should be notated as IA > FL IA
If both me and strat are wrong, then this notation is very inconsistent. -
Date: Sat, Sep 15 2007 15:11:00QUOTE (strat1227 @ Sep 15 2007, 02:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>uuh... erm... wouldn't IndexAround 2.0 be a single IA that goes around the finger only once, but has 2.0 rotations in doing so?
much like a Bak 2.0? only in the other direction?
if you're right, then IA 2.0 is the only trick that has that type of notation, instead of "Double IA" or something like that... it just doesnt make sense for that ONE trick to be different
An IndexAround 2.0 would go AROUND the finger twice. A Bak 2.0 refers to a spin trick that goes onto the back of the hand (0.5) spins on the back of the hand (1.0) then goes from the back of the hand back to starting position (0.5). A Bak 2.0 should be called something like BackSpin 2.0, and there is a thread in the NC about it, but there is a small problem with introducing it. A BackAround 2.0 would go around that part of the hand twice with one push (no fingerless pushes or anything extra). So:
IndexAround 2.0 = Goes around index finger twice with one push
Double IndexAround = IndexAround > Fingerless IndexAround
For it to only go around once but do two rotations, it would have to be an IndexAround Release or IndexSpin. -
Date: Sat, Sep 15 2007 16:19:36QUOTE (Mats @ Sep 15 2007, 05:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>IndexAround 2.0 = Goes around index finger twice with one push
Double IndexAround = IndexAround > Fingerless IndexAround
I don't really get that. The only way it makes sense is if IA 2.0 isn't allowed to use movement from the hand(like the FL tricks), but then, IA 2.0 would be impossible to do due to gravity...
In Double IA then pen also goes around the indexfinger twice with one push?
Explanation please =) -
Date: Sat, Sep 15 2007 16:25:59
if TA 2.0 is possible, why not IA 2.0? same thing.
-
Date: Sat, Sep 15 2007 16:26:06QUOTE (Ceedgee @ Sep 15 2007, 05:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I don't really get that. The only way it makes sense is if IA 2.0 isn't allowed to use movement from the hand(like the FL tricks), but then, IA 2.0 would be impossible to do due to gravity...
In Double IA then pen also goes around the indexfinger twice with one push?
Explanation please =)
IndexAround 2.0 may well be impossible (perhaps it is possible if you tilt you indexfinger to the vertical before you start). Double IA has two pushes. It is a combo of two tricks: IndexAround and Fingerless IndexAround. The last few posts really belong in questions for the naming committee. -
Date: Sat, Sep 15 2007 17:17:20QUOTE (Mats @ Sep 15 2007, 06:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Double IA has two pushes. It is a combo of two tricks: IndexAround and Fingerless IndexAround.
I think I understand what you mean, but it doesn't make any sense imo.
IA 2.0 = IA -> FL IA with no handmovement
Double IA = IA -> FL IA
Am I right? -
Date: Sat, Sep 15 2007 17:34:58QUOTE (Ceedgee @ Sep 15 2007, 06:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I think I understand what you mean, but it doesn't make any sense imo.
IA 2.0 = IA -> FL IA with no handmovement
Double IA = IA -> FL IA
Am I right?
No.
IA 2.0 = One push. Just an IndexAround, and the pen goes around twice.
IA 2.0 is just an IndexAround, with no further pushes, fingerless or otherwise.
IA 2.0 = IndexAround that goes around the index finger twice with no further movement other than the initial push.
Would be 3 ways of explaining it.
Double IA you were right about though. -
Date: Sat, Sep 15 2007 17:41:53QUOTE (Ceedgee)I think I understand what you mean, but it doesn't make any sense imo.
IA 2.0 = IA -> FL IA with no handmovement
Double IA = IA -> FL IA
Am I right?
sort of. Indexaround 2.0 is a trick, not a combo. The arrow indicates two different tricks, so it wouldn't be proper to use that in notating the Indexaround 2.0.QUOTE (Zombo)if TA 2.0 is possible, why not IA 2.0? same thing.
As far as I know, TA 2.0 is possible only in theory, when one spins a long enough instrument (this'll have to be extremely long btw). My guess on this would be that in its initial position, the instrument must be held at a distance from the COG, that which is greater than the circumference of the thumb. Only then might TA 2.0(/IA 2.0) be possible. -
Date: Sat, Sep 15 2007 18:16:04
At first i thought i misread the indexaround 2.0 since it seemed impossible but it seems i didn't. Would love to see this in a video but since its not really possible...
-
Date: Sat, Sep 15 2007 19:19:24
really doesn't seem possible to me...
It's not a matter of skill anymore, more of a matter of how a pen's cop has to be in order for an around motion to be completed.
After an index around, the cop just is not in a position for another one, unless you do some sort of repositioning, which is not alllowed due to the restriction of hand movement.
I think it should be removed altogether. when I hear indexaround 2.0, i think of a misnamed rev bak 1.5.
And is TA 2.0 really possible? video? name of person who made claim? -
Date: Sat, Sep 15 2007 21:18:29
Sorry for the late reply. I can only perform IA 1.5 by moving my hand a bit to allow the pen to perform the extra 0.5 rotation. I've seen a video of an actual Thumbaround 2.0, but I can't remember where. I post a link if I find it.
Double Thumbaround = Thumbaround ~> FL TA
Double Indexaround = Indexaround ~> FL IA
Thumbaround & Indexaround 2.0 are different than the above hybrid combos. They are single tricks that have the pen rotating around the finger with only onr push.
Backaround 1.5, 2.0, etc.. are misnamed and the issue has been brought up before but we have yet to find an acceptable alternative.
An around trick should only have the pen moving around the part of the hand, which is why the name Thumbspin was made, it is a Thumbaround with an added topspin, making it different. Either Backaround 1.5+ needs a new name, or it and Thumbspin should just be changed to hybrids. -
Date: Sat, Sep 15 2007 22:00:13
If I can do an Indexaround 1.5, I see reason why I can't do an Indexaround 2.0 if I actually cared enough to get it done. I move my hand a bit to allow the extra 0.5 rotation, so more hand movement could make 2.0.
Just because you think it's impossible now, doesn't mean you should rule out the possibility that someone won't find a way to make it consistently later on. -
Date: Sat, Sep 15 2007 22:15:07
lengthy, but interesting, off-topic discussion on IA 2.0 has been split in its own thread.
-
Date: Sat, Sep 15 2007 22:16:29
Okay so for an IA 2.0 you can only have 1 push...but moving your hand/finger so long as its not another push is allowed?
edit: Or what if you did a trick that linked into a FL IA but then you followed up with another FL IA. Technically it would be 2 IA with 1 push. -
Date: Sat, Sep 15 2007 22:24:23
A fingerless IA still has a push consisting of moving the pen with hand movement. Multiple Fingerless pushes would still mean multiple pushes.
-
Date: Sat, Sep 15 2007 23:53:22QUOTE (sketching @ Sep 16 2007, 12:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>If I can do an Indexaround 1.5, I see reason why I can't do an Indexaround 2.0 if I actually cared enough to get it done. I move my hand a bit to allow the extra 0.5 rotation, so more hand movement could make 2.0.QUOTE (sketching @ Sep 16 2007, 12:24 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>A fingerless IA still has a push consisting of moving the pen with hand movement. Multiple Fingerless pushes would still mean multiple pushes.
So IA 2.0 is allowed to have handmovement as long as it doesn't affect the movement of the pen? If then, you can just twirl your finger around the pen when you do it? -
Date: Sat, Sep 15 2007 23:54:53QUOTEOkay so for an IA 2.0 you can only have 1 push...but moving your hand/finger so long as its not another push is allowed?
This is a tricky one. If I place the pen on the back of my hand, then tilt my arm, the pen will move. Is this is a push? Naming committee needs a clear definition of what defines a 'push' and a 'trick' really (and we are working on it). For now this is a grey area, but I would say personally, moving the hand shouldn't count as a push. In a Weisen BackAround, the hand is tilted after the push, but this does not constitute a further push to the trick.
One should note however, if you move the index finger sharply downwards just before when you would normally catch it after an indexaround, the pen will go around twice (I can fluke one on cam if someone doesn't believe this to be possible). This is a combo however, as moving the index sharply down pushes the pen. It's IndexAround ~ IndexAround(Index-push).QUOTEedit: Or what if you did a trick that linked into a FL IA but then you followed up with another FL IA. Technically it would be 2 IA with 1 push.
FL IA > FL IA is sometimes seen in videos. You will see it broken down as Korean Baks most likely. It is a two (if it's just FL IA > FL IA) trick combo with two pushes. Fingerless pushes count also.
IndexAround 2.0 seems to be a question of speed. My IAs land almost exactly where they started, so the COP is in the precise place for another IA to immediatly follow. The problem lies in that the pen does not have enough speed to go around again. If I could learn to do an IndexAround Normal with significantly more speed, still make it so that after 1 time around the COP is in the same place, and miss out the catch, it should go around twice. The difficulty seems to lie in the pen not flying into the air when you put such speed on it. I'll practice this though and see where it goes, if I fluke just one, I'll try and get one on cam. -
Date: Sun, Sep 16 2007 00:07:01
sorry, not a question of speed.
it's a question of COP positions.
it is only caught in its original position due to the reposition that happens when you catch the pen.
or if you do the indexaround slowly, the pen will fall down again (barrel slides down finger) into its original position.
But slowly = not enough force for two rotations.
But fast = too fast for the reposition to come to play, due to centrifugal force.
I'll make a video if somebody argues against me after this post.
or somebody can just request it. -
Date: Sun, Sep 16 2007 00:34:16
*argues against*
You dare question someone who finished physics in college already and whose favourite trick is IndexAround?
This means war toast!
Get out that camera nao and prove me wrong!
*pulls out own camera to film some shit too*
Seems you can send a pen round the index medium or fast speed (but not slow) and it will land in the same place (got that on cam for ya Toasty). When the pen goes for the second round, there is a time when it's angular velocity is down, and gravity is pulling down, this seems to be the point where it falls (forgot about gravity
). I think this means the hand is going to have to be moved down (from the wrist, not just the index finger) to allow the pen to fall a bit. I think there are two techniques that might work for this trick:
1) Using an incorrect COP for the first IndexAround so that for the second time around the COP is in the correct place
2) Moving the whole hand down the right amount and the right time so that the pen can fall a bit and carry on going around
Both seem unbelievably hard *continues trying stuff out* -
Date: Sun, Sep 16 2007 01:04:42
Ok, heres the video
sorry, the link is fucked up. reuploading now
About the two things you just edited into your post about
1) I don't think starting in the wrong position will do anything
2) any movement should not be required according to your arguments. A push for an around requires no hand movement. (when the trick is mastered anyways. -
Date: Sun, Sep 16 2007 01:18:01
Showing (perhaps needlessly) that IAs can be done at different speeds and land in the same place:
http://www.zippyvideos.com/1335922117241246/fastslow/
Showing the two techniques that I think might work:
http://www.zippyvideos.com/2329268197241256/possibleways/
These techniques show the idea, not the actual positions the pen would have to be in exactly (since this is an unknown for now). And trying to do unknown positions at great speed is proving very hard atm -
Date: Sun, Sep 16 2007 01:19:28
Would this be it?:
http://sleekupload.com/uploads/double_indexaroundby_xz64.avi -
Date: Sun, Sep 16 2007 01:23:41
Either the video is cut off, or that only does 1.5 spins?
-
Date: Sun, Sep 16 2007 01:25:37
http://www.mediafire.com/?agxmm9y9dhp there it is
And xz63, thats a double indexaround (indexaround>fl indexaround) not indexaround 2.0. Awesome clip though.
edit: now that mats pointed that out...
I can't really tell, the framerates too low. doesnt matter anyways. -
Date: Sun, Sep 16 2007 01:26:08
It is 2.0 spins but I guess my cruddy webcam couldn't capture it clearly. Look at how much the brass end of the pencil rotates in the video.
-
Date: Sun, Sep 16 2007 01:30:19
Did you push the pen at all after the first rotation, or are you just moving your Index finger out of the pen's way?
-
Date: Sun, Sep 16 2007 01:37:22
Looks to me like instead of catching, you move your hand up, and push back down on the pencil with the index, making it wrap around again (IndexAround ~ (indexpush)IndexAround), although I could be mistaken, I'm fairly sure.
Response to Toast's video:
Your entire argument is based on the fact that if you do an IndexAround at high speed (the pen must be pushed at very high speed for the pen to have the power to go twice around the finger in one push), the COP will not be in the correct place to do another IndexAround. All you gotta do is send the pen around with a hella lot of force, and make sure that the COP is correct when you've done it (step 1). (and save the gum for after the video next time, you shouldn't talk with your mouth full) -
Date: Sun, Sep 16 2007 01:53:55
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqIx8BG2ebk
Error in my video
I talk about how hard you push the pen asusming the pen is in the correct cop position for an indexaround. I shouldve mentioned that.
I realize that once the pen is far away from the cop (in the correct direction) it does not matter how hard you push the pen, it will react like you pushed it lightly. (due to the lever mechanics)
edit: i understand that mats, but i also mentioned making sure the pen lands in that position either means handmovement, or lack of power. and lack of power isn't going to get you anywhere.
Anyways, I gotta eat dinner. brb -
Date: Sun, Sep 16 2007 02:18:24QUOTEedit: i understand that mats, but i also mentioned making sure the pen lands in that position either means handmovement, or lack of power. and lack of power isn't going to get you anywhere.
Starting with an bad COP for the first IA (which you can force to work with a bad COP), that means the 2nd time around gets a good COP might work.
I agree a 2nd technique could use hand movement (that doesn't push the pen). -
Date: Sun, Sep 16 2007 02:26:10QUOTE (Mats @ Sep 15 2007, 10:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Starting with an bad COP for the first IA (which you can force to work with a bad COP), that means the 2nd time around gets a good COP might work.
I agree a 2nd technique could use hand movement (that doesn't push the pen).
Well a bad cop...
You have to be more specific. I have two things in mind. Is it on the right side but too far away from the cop? Or is it on the wrong side of the COP? -
Date: Sun, Sep 16 2007 04:22:55
While I am inclined to agree with toast on this one, I feel that there are some holes in his argument, and that "impossible" may be an absolute we shouldn't throw around so easily.
Toast, you observe (correctly) that you need to start the first spin of the IA 2.0 in a certain position (I'll call it the "good side" of the COP), and that after the first spin has been completed, the index finger is in contact with the pen on the "bad side", if you will, of the COP. You conclude that completing a second spin is impossible from this position. And if the pen "slips" and so ends up on the "good side" for the second spin, it has run out of power.
This is a justified observation, but unfortunately it is specific to the length of your pen. Try to execute an IA 2.0 with a drumstick and you'll find it much easier, because you can start more than two finger circumferences from the COP and still be comfortably far from the end of the stick. You could even (with a really strong middle finger) execute an IA 3.0 or even IA 4.0 with a baton, or a very long wooden dowel.
I know some of these are so far removed from what we conventionally define as a "pen" that the point is moot. But imagine some of the longer mods you've seen. I'm thinking of the unsharpened pencils with 1.5" metal caps on the ends. Or a pen like Aki-Maru used in the World Tournament.
With shorter pens it's definitely preposterously difficult and maybe "impossible" is a good descriptor. But with longer pens it could be done.
Note: I'm speculating here. I have no long wooden dowels handy so I wasn't able to test my theory. -
Date: Sun, Sep 16 2007 05:09:25QUOTE (sketching)Backaround 1.5, 2.0, etc.. are misnamed and the issue has been brought up before but we have yet to find an acceptable alternative.
sorry, but i disagree COMPLETELY. bak 2.0 makes PERFECT sense to me ... its a back around with 2 revolutions... bingo....
but there's absolutly no point in arguing about it, nothing ever gets resolved so whatever... IA 2.0 will always be 1 around with 2 spins in my book, its what makes sense.
EDIT: and you guys are way off topic again lol -
Date: Sun, Sep 16 2007 05:32:36
Did you guys see this post I made in the Rare Trick List Thread?
QUOTE (Flip @ Sep 15 2007, 12:11 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Double MiddleAround Reverse 12-12
or
MiddleAround Reverse 12-1 ~> Fingerless MiddleAround Reverse 1-12
Link to Video [let the video load completely before watching]
The pen doesn't not come in contact with the Index Finger during the spin, only at the start and end of the trick. -
Date: Sun, Sep 16 2007 05:39:52
oh! flip!
you agree with me, because in our tack-on battle you did a "backaround 1.5 -> IA 1.5" (which was just the reverse of the first trick) -
Date: Sun, Sep 16 2007 05:40:43
uhh what? that's not MA rev, you're going downwards! This is the figure nink used to call "Crazy 8". (at least part of it).
-
Date: Sun, Sep 16 2007 05:49:43QUOTE (strat1227 @ Sep 16 2007, 12:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>oh! flip!
you agree with me, because in our tack-on battle you did a "backaround 1.5 -> IA 1.5" (which was just the reverse of the first trick)
No, I didn't do an IndexAround 1.5, but a Fingerless IndexSpin 1.5/Korean Backaround Reverse 1.5.QUOTE (Zombo @ Sep 16 2007, 12:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>uhh what? that's not MA rev, you're going downwards! This is the figure nink used to call "Crazy 8". (at least part of it).
How is it not a MiddleAround Reverse? It travels in the same direction, only it starts in 12 instead of 23. [And it still goes around the Middle Finger] -
Date: Sun, Sep 16 2007 06:39:56
I think IA 2.0 it's just not right name for IndexSpin 2.0 or Double IA
-
Date: Sun, Sep 16 2007 09:38:17QUOTEFingerless IndexSpin 1.5/Korean Backaround Reverse 1.5.
That proves once and for all that the trick 'BackAround 1.5' is misnamed. Both are talking about the same trick, yet one states it is a spin family trick, the other states it's an around trick. One has to be incorrect, and in this case it is the around one (that is incorrectly named).QUOTEI think IA 2.0 it's just not right name for IndexSpin 2.0 or Double IA
IndexAround 2.0 goes twice around the finger with one push.
IndexSpin 2.0 does .5 rotations to get on top of the index finger, 1.0 on top of the index finger, and 0.5 to finish going around the index finger.
Double IndexAround is a combo of IndexAround > Fingerless IndexAround.
I agree with Nate completely. With a shorter pen this is going to be fantastically difficult, but lengthen the object and the task becomes easier. If you can do it with a longer object, chances are, with practice, you could learn to do it with a much shorter object. I hope Toast now realises he was wrong
~edited for clarifications -
Date: Sun, Sep 16 2007 13:56:56QUOTE (Flip @ Sep 16 2007, 01:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>No, I didn't do an IndexAround 1.5, but a Fingerless IndexSpin 1.5/Korean Backaround Reverse 1.5.
How is it not a MiddleAround Reverse? It travels in the same direction, only it starts in 12 instead of 23. [And it still goes around the Middle Finger]
because the rotation is different. It draws a circle from the top back to the top.
a MA rev draws a circle from the bottom back to the bottom. -
Date: Sun, Sep 16 2007 13:59:28
I'm sorry, I still do not see how I am wrong.
My claims would work on a longer object...
No matter how long the object is, it shouldn't be possible... No matter how you execute an around, the pen just HAS to end on the other side of the cop at the end of the trick, (one properly executed without repositioning/hand movement/finger movement) or else the pen cannot rotate...
indexaround 1.5 on the other hand, i can totally see happening, as the catch in t1 comes before the pen has to teetor totter over the top of the index.
Also, regarding backarounds.
Its called a BACKAROUND for a reason. It's not a regular around, since it can involve spins. (this was the argument i used on the korean bak/weis bak argument, that I lost anyways =_=) We shouldn't treat it like a regular around because they are very different things.
While backaround 1.5 is possible (which is backaround that spins 1.5 times AROUND) I do not see it's use, and worth the hassle it is to rename all backarounds with multiple spins. I mean, Backaround>pass serves the same purpose, albeit a little repositioning.
But the backAROUND 1.5 is counted as SPINS? Whats the reason for that? why can't we have BackSpin 1.5?
Merely because it is already accepted. Consider pen spinning a language, where there are many rules that probably doesn't make much sense at all, but you don't see people trying to change them. For the number of times backaround 1.5 will EVER be used...it's just not worth all the hassle. -
Date: Sun, Sep 16 2007 14:09:07
if i was forced to pick sides, i would pick toasts, he's making alot of sense people
index around "2.0" is a bunch of garbage, when you put a number at the end of a trick, it says hos many times it SPINS not how many times it goes AROUND
bak 2.0 is not a trick where it goes around the index finger twice with one push, its ONE bak with TWO spins
i am with toast, this trick is impossible -
Date: Sun, Sep 16 2007 14:53:39
ok, if u gyus saing that IA 2.0 goes around index finger two times from one push, i want to see the video with IA 2.0, i can't imagine how it looks.
-
Date: Sun, Sep 16 2007 15:35:47
haha, i still dont understand why you think an IA 2.0 should go around the finger twice... its always been
CODE[modifier][trick name][(rev)][finger slots][number of rotations]
meaning that its the SINGLE trick, then the "2.0" says that that ONE trick, not modifyed at all, has 2 rotations ... -
Date: Sun, Sep 16 2007 16:03:01
I don't understand your argument Strat
@Toast (on BackArounds)QUOTEIts called a BACKAROUND for a reason. It's not a regular around, since it can involve spins.
All Arounds can involve spins. You execute a BackAround and keep the hand down and it spins, you execute a ThumbAround and tuck the thumb in and it spins. You can turn any around into a spin (with the exception perhaps of PassArounds). BackAround seems no different from most other arounds in the fact that it can have spins. Where it is different however, is that all other arounds, when they are turned into spins, are calledspin. BackAround doesn't have this, since there is an issue in that a BackSpin refers to an Inverse PalmAround. QUOTEindex around "2.0" is a bunch of garbage, when you put a number at the end of a trick, it says hos many times it SPINS not how many times it goes AROUND
Index - says where the trick is
Around - says it will be going AROUND the aforementioned area (in this case, the index finger)
2.0 - Tells us how many rotations in total the pen will make
At no point does it mention the pen will do any kind of top spin. If we wanted an IndexAround that had 2 spins and went around once, it would be called an IndexSpin. IndexAround 2.0 going around the finger twice follows the logic of naming conventions.
Funny how a simple discussion as to weather a trick is possible can lead on to a huge discussion about trick naming, even now including other tricks that are almost nothing to do with the original argument. Shall we try to stay on topic now?QUOTEok, if u gyus saing that IA 2.0 goes around index finger two times from one push, i want to see the video with IA 2.0, i can't imagine how it looks.
The problem lies in this trick being exceptionally difficult (assuming it is possible). You might be waiting sometime for that video. You can however see a TA 1.5 in UCPSB's 'Request a trick thread' performed by Eriror if you doubt that around tricks can not go more than once around. -
Date: Sun, Sep 16 2007 16:53:21
I see Eriror's TA 1.5, but i don't understand how IA 2.0 or 1.5 looks. Maybe someone create video where he do it with help from another hand, only to show how pen must spin
-
Date: Sun, Sep 16 2007 19:22:51
This is madness! No, but really...
- A Midbak 1.5 should actually be called a MidBackspin 1.5
- That an IA 2.0 is an IA that goes around the indexfinger sounds reasonable to me
- It is possible, though hard
- An IA 1.5 is even more possible, I can do it though the pen slightly touches my middlefinger as it passes
- An IndexSpin would actually be more of a Reverse Backspin
-
Date: Sun, Sep 16 2007 19:57:03
Just the fact that we use Thumbaround and Thumbspin should tell you that the current naming of Backaround 1.5+ should be changed. So far, single tricks have a specific spin type. If that spin type changes, then either a new name should be applied or it is changed to a hybrid. That was the main reasoning behind renaming Sonic 1.5 to Shadow, the pen had a different spin type added to it. The trick no longer had just a Conical spin, there was also a Top spin. Sonic just had a Conical spin, so Sonic 1.5 needed to be changed.
What most of you are currently calling Indexaround 2.0 already has a name: Indexspin 2.0, no need to also call it Indexaround 2.0. The spin in the title tells you that it is different than Indexaround, which only goes around the finger.
Again, I believe that Backaround 1.5+ should be renamed since it involves a spin type other around that makes the trick unique. If Thumbaround and Thumbspin have different names, Fingeraround and Fingerspin have different names, then Backaround and "..." should have different names. -
Date: Sun, Sep 16 2007 21:02:19
naming issues -> feedback section of RD -> questions for NC.
-
Date: Mon, Sep 17 2007 18:38:22
Well the naming change is the exact reason that i posted in this thread.
I think changing all the names to "backspin 1.5" is not needed, since there is no such thing as an around that goes around twice with one push...
Also, mats, arounds just can't spin. The only reason the thumb can be tucked down into a thumbspin is because it is opposable. Other tricks must revert to a backaround/korean backaround position to complete any amount of spins.
So yea guys, eliminate around tricks with two or more rotations as a possible trick? If we do, we can just ignore all the backspin, backaround stuff. There are tons of things wrong with the naming system, but this is already accepted, and it's not going to cause any confusion (in fact, it will cause less since we don't have to change the name). -
Date: Mon, Sep 17 2007 23:44:12QUOTE (toast @ Sep 17 2007, 07:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Also, mats, arounds just can't spin. The only reason the thumb can be tucked down into a thumbspin is because it is opposable. Other tricks must revert to a backaround/korean backaround position to complete any amount of spins.
I don't know what you're getting at here, but anyways...QUOTESo yea guys, eliminate around tricks with two or more rotations as a possible trick?
Hey, let's just eliminate anything that's not been done yet and label it as impossible to avoided any naming issues. -
Date: Mon, Sep 17 2007 23:49:16
naming shouldn't care if it's feasible or not. Even if you don't think it's possible, it needs to remain an abstract concept (cannot eliminate it). You can infer and discover many general rules by looking at those abstract ideas, which you can then extrapolate to concrete examples.