footbag.org

[Jon Robison (narfman0)]

Boooring... It all makes sense, we just have to remember if you do a "paradox" that is really just another trick if you define it another way, (new trick,) it would not be paradox. There are exceptions of course, as there are in many sports, but basically the trick should be harder than its non-paradox counterpart.

[Vadim Dukhovny (dohovenus)]

Perhaps more pressing than Spinning Paradox, which seems to have been resolved for a while, is something like this:
CLIP > SAME BACK SWIRL > SAME IN > OP TOE
Someone has already claimed to have hit a toe-set Swirling "Paradox" Mirage, and I'm sure Vasek has done this kind of stuff, judging by his Fairy Swirling Swirl from one of the Telocvicnas.
Anyway, using Steve's response to the Spinning Paradox question, I think that this trick should rightly be called Swirling (or whatever the name is for swirling sets) Paradox Mirage. Am I right?

Regards,

Vadim.

[Gregory Raymond (gjr)]

Heyo, everyone.

There's something that I've been thinking about the last few days about Paradox in higher add moves. In moves like Blur and Blurry Whirl, the Paradox add seems to be attached to a smaller component within the move, rather than the move in its entirety ( in this case, PDX Mirage and PDX Whirl ).

I can understand how the move breaks down, but can the set ever change the state of a Paradox? For example, a PDX Mirage is normally performed without planting the setting foot. But when coming out of a Step set while hitting Blur, both feet are planted before the Mirage is completed, which seems to increase stability and negate some of the difficulty from the original PDX add.

Similarly with Blurry Whirl, both feet are planted before performing the Whirl, which makes performing the Whirl component a lot easier. I don't feel a real difference in difficulty between Ripwalk and Blurry Whirl, but the latter gets an extra add. If it comes down to being able to feel the PDX, I don't feel it as strongly coming out of a Step set than I do performing the PDX move on its own.

I don't really know where I'm going with this. I suppose I'm just trying to flesh out my understanding of PDX, which is shaky at best. I know the "NO PLANT WHILE" is not a necessary component of PDX, but I don't think it is entirely separate from it, either.

Anywho, that's what's been on my mind while busting lately. Take it easy, folks.

Greg

[Rasmus Rendsvig (rrendsvig)]

Another Question for somebody qualified:

If you take move, in this case Paradox Mirage, and reverse the hole move, will it not still BE Paradox?

Paradox Mirage: Clip > Same In (pdx,dex) > Op Toe (del)

and reverse it to: Toe > Op Out (dex) > Same Clip (xbd,del)

You would do the same double hips movement. There's alot more of these, take every Paradox move and reverse it....
Is this move (and all the others) not Pradox? Do they not deserve to be regonised as being Paradox (I think that was a good way of not saying: should it not get the add? )?

[James McCullough (footbagislife)]

I ranted about this in modified, how stepping negates pdx and whatnot but it's really pointless to argue, or try to change anything.
I also wrote how downtime grifters should get PDX too; that was the move you were describing up there Rasmus, but like I said, nothing will change.

[Steve Goldberg (brat)]

C'mon, people! How many times do I have to say this?

Paradox is not an add. It's a description of a type of move.

If you are wondering whether certain moves should be acknowledged as having additional levels of difficulty than they currently are listed as having, then yes that's a fine question! But it's pointless (pointless) to keep hacking on the old system. The corpse is dead.

Let's define a new system that works! But until we have constructive discussions of new ways to model difficulty, please don't get upset because your favorite move (in the old system which as I've said over and over again has outlived its usefulness) is 1 add lower than you think it should be!

Sheesh.

Steve

[Vadim Dukhovny (dohovenus)]

This has probably already been discussed, but I haven't seen it. Are we sure that we want only a difficulty-based system? Shouldn't it be at least largely about the aesthetic aspect? Should the aesthetic aspect have its own system? Or, at the least, shouldn't we have a system that is descriptive? I don't mean "presentation," which is more choreographically focused, I mean real style.

For example: Someone puts a Blurry Ducking Barrage into a routine, but, well, let's just say there's a portrait in an attic somewhere of that move getting cleaner. I know someone is going to say "that's what Sick 3 is for," but doesn't this apply to Sick 3 as well? Isn't a really beautifully done Fusion "sicker" than Your ugly Mom? So, yeah. With the evolution of our range of motion, it's not so clear what's more difficult, it seems. Especially now that Sick 3 can't be based on adds alone.

For example: I really love leggy Quantum sets. Sunil's most of all. Shouldn't there be a different shorthand for the leggy Quantum? That's an entirely different trick. This would be that descriptive system.

To wit: a footbag ToE seems outdated, the players are too good and varied for it, aesthetic value is important, Hamlet kills the king and they all die.

Regards,

Vadim.

P.S. So what about Swirling Same Mirage?

[Jeremy OWheel (owheelj)]

Ok, going by Steve's definition of what parradox is - A move set from the "harder" clipper, I think that that should mean that a stepping set switches the side the parradox move is on. Stepping whirl is the parradox version of blurry whirl etc. I mean you honestly finds stepping ss moves easier then the stepping "parradox" version. I also think that Bubba is the true "parradox" illusion and that farside illusion is not (since it's easier). Or else perhaps a better definition of parradox is needed...

[Grischa Tellenbach (grischa.tellenbach)]

So you can "unparadox" a paradox mirage by planting the setting leg before doing the miraging dex ?

clip set (plant) > same in dex > op toe del.

So does it increase or decrease the difficulty of the trick ?

G*

[Chris May (zorrov2)]

Am i really mistaken? Didn't we already go into the "plant negate paradox" thing? I mean, steve said in his tutorial of paradox's that planting doesn't "unparadox" and it was already determined earlier in the thread that it didn't "unparadox" something...i don't want to sound like a know it all if i'm wrong, but if im not mistaken, thats what has already happened.

And personally, how many paradox moves are there when the immediate next part of the move is an out to in dex of the same leg? It always seems like a paradox move's next component is an in to out dex. For that case, i think paradox illusion shouldn't exist (like a paradox legover, doesn't exist)...I've sort of stumbled upon a little theory...maybe you can have torso paradox's and leg paradox's...A far legover is more of your leg doing an awkward twist rather than your body. And a paradox mirage is more of your body doing the akward twisting...i'm not sure, but i like the sound of that. Maybe paradox consists of two different species: A low paradox and a high paradox...paradox is so confusing, i'm probably just sounding like an idiot.

And steve, please don't tell me to go read the tutorial because i have and that would just make me feel like an idiot (even though that theory didn't make much sense either). And don't bite my head off (Grischa), i was only making a statement. No harm meant to anyone or anything about paradox (i'm only saying this because i've read this whole paradox debate and, well, i'm not all satisfied with the replies most received).

Chris

[Chris May (zorrov2)]

In short:

You can have many spinning moves (gyro, spinning, inspinning)
You can have many dex moves (in to out, out to in, swirl)
You can have many delays (toe, clipper, inside, outside)
You can have many body type moves (ducking, diving, weaving)
Symposium stands alone if i'm not mistaken

But why can't paradox be consisted of more than one element?

Chris

[Byrin Wylie (Morphix)]

Just something that I would like to add to this debate...

I want to compare two moves. Far Leg Over and Paradox Illusion.


Paradox Illusion:

Clip > Same Out > Op Toe

Far Leg Over:

Clip > Same Out > Same Toe


These two moves are very similar in structure, yet one is classified as Paradox and the other isn't. What makes the difference? Well, looks like the ending delay does.

I just want to reference some more Paradox tricks...

Paradox Whirl:
Clip > Same In > Op Clip

Paradox Mirage:
Clip > Same In > Op Toe


What do all these Paradox moves have in common? Well, they all start with a Clipping set for starters. The setting leg completes a dex, which requires a twist in the hip to help performt he dex (in one way or another) and they all end on an opposite delay.

When compared to Far Pick - Up (Clip > Same In > Same Toe) which is essentially the same as the Paradox Mirage, you can see that the difference is that on the PM, it ends on the op toe whilr the FPU ends on the same toe.


Please tell me if I'm stupid, but I think there is some connection between Paradox and a clipper set with a same dex following afterwards and ending on an opposite delay.

[Jeremy OWheel (owheelj)]

Pdx drifter: clip>same in>same clip.
toe set spinning parradox mirage: toe>spin(back)>same in>op toe.
Why worry about what gets parradox? people will respect a move if it's hard - not if it has a high add count. The add system doesn't work, I don't think it will ever work (I have spent hours in the past attempting to come up with a better system). I think it's important to learn the add system, just like it's important to learn Newtonian physics if you want to learn Quantum physics - but don't get caught up (like I did) trying to improve it.

[Chris May (zorrov2)]

Did anyone read my posts?

[Allan Haggett (allan)]