footbag.org

[Dave Landis (mudbogger)]

[Michael Park (parkinsons)]

Either way, I'm sorry, but it still does not. Even for Down Double Down, one dex is full, one dex is like a butterfly, a "half dex" as it were. And for Stepping Whirl, it does not recieve XDEX because Stepping Set is a half dex, no matter what component follows. If the dex leg has to come in under the bag for something, such as a SS component, that motion is part of the second dex, not part of the first dex, therefore the stepping set is still not a full dex, so it doesnt contribute to XDEX. Stepping Mirage does not recieve XDEX, and neither does Stepping Whirl.

[Colin Kennedy (ckennedy)]

Stepping same whirl pretty clearly passes the 'vertical line' of the bag 4 times though, unlike stepping same mirage. Once on the step, and thrice on the whirl.

[Adam Keith (AK)]

While I agree with you assessment that the bag does break the plane four times during stepping whirl or stepping blender, there is one crucial issue at the heart of this statement, and that is deciding if where the set ends and the downtime component begins is important or not.

For instance if during stepping whirl the stepping set is considered the dex and the clearing of the knee to go back to the outside position, then it is a full dex, then the whirl on the way down is another full dex, they both are given x-dex, and it is a 5 add move.
However, if the stepping set is only the clearing of the dex and then it ends, the bag is still in the middle position (between the legs), and the stepping set does not get x-dex. The bag then passes the plane 3 times during the whirl (as it does with paradox whirl), and the move is a 4 add.
In either case blazing same whirl and whirr would get 2 x-dexes (5 adds each).

You can see the problem, this theoretical breaking of the move has never been agreed upon. If where the set ends does not matter, then a new host of moves needs to be awarded the x-dex. Pixie same whirl and blender would also merit this. Another set of moves would be pixie paralax, stepping paralax, pixie bullwhip, etc.

Another point about this theory. If the end of the set does matter then it must be debated where the end of the set comes. For instance in tapping same in moves does the set end when the bag clears the dex (the bag only breaks the plane once) or after the dexing leg touches the ground (the bag breaks the plane twice). Take Tap for example: if the set ends directly after the dex, the set is only a half dex, and the mirage on the way down is only a half dex. This is then a three add move. If the set ends after the foot plants, the set gets an x-dex, and the mirage gets an x-dex too (the bag has to pass back through the same two planes because it is a rewind of itself). The move is now a 4 add.
If these do not recieve an x-dex there are a host of moves that would also not recieve it: fairy > same in, nuclear > same in, etc.

I tend to agree that neither tap nor stepping whirl should recieve the x-dex adds, thereby saying that the end of the set does matter, and just because a component that only breaks the plane once is placed next to a component that breaks the plane three times does not mean the move should merit an extra body add. Though I do not know the intent in these cases of Eric's original proposal.

A few other points about x-dex. The components must be looked at closely for some of these point. For instance mirages only get an x-dex if they come across the body first, gyro mirage only breaks the plane once, so it should not recieve x-dex. By this logic barrage only recieves two x-dexes if the bag comes across the body first, otherwise it would only have one complete dex. Furious set would be up for the same debate as stepping set for conditions which could cause it to recieve 2 x-dexes instead of the normal one. Quantum set would always get one x-dex. Down double down and bullwhip should recieve 2 x-dexes, thereby being one add more than other double down moves because the plane is cleared 4 times during the same component.

Adam Keith

[Ville Laakso (ville)]

[Rasmus Rendsvig (rrendsvig)]

Or, Eric Wulffs concept is good enough and not in need of changing, that is, the theory is good, but the things (dexes) the theory talks about are not well enough defined.

The idea of Physics is good even though the constant of "X in physics" is not the same as "X in real life", why the result from the equation would not match true life experience.

So, to revive this debate (Yeah, theoretical footbag!), when should dexes be defined as being done, finished?
And when do they begin?

Is a Clip > Op Out > Op Clip (Clipper set SS Butterfly) a full dex (the leg DOES pass the plane twice), or does the dex not begin untill you HAVE to start it (thus rendering it a half dex)?

Same thing with Atomic; Is the dex finished once you finished dexing (the bag has passed the leg) or does the bag passing over the leg (if you do a VERY good Atomic set, then 30feet in the air) also constitute part of the dex?

I belive that re-defining dexes, full and half, is a very important instance of creating a new system which more precisly describes freestyle footbag.
I do not believe it is possible doing this perfectly, but I do believe that the first draft of such a theory, the add-system, is a very good starting point, but the discussion is flying, everybody has done some thinking, and I believe we can do it quite a lot better.

...

..

anyone?

[Rasmus Rendsvig (rrendsvig)]

Here you go: a system defining half dexes vs. dexes, when what is what wrt. uptime/downtime, etc.

http://www.footbag.org/gallery/show/11217