UPSB v4
Naming Committee / Full trick name convention expansion
-
Date: Mon, Feb 27 2012 20:41:32
Pen spinning has grown a lot in the last years and we keep the same trick name convention, but I think it could be expanded. The current one on use is: (Modifier) (Trick Name) (Direction) (number of spins) (starting position)-(ending position) I think we could cover at least 3 more points, and therefore get this structure: (Hand position) (Modifier) (Trick name) (Direction) (Aerial modifier) (number of spins) (starting position)-(ending position) · Hand position would include only basic hand positions: Palm Up, Palm Down, Palm Side and Back Side, maybe abbreviated to PU, PD, PS and BS. · Modifier could include Isolated for covering tricks done with the isolation technique. Possibility to have all 3 known modifiers at the same time. Ex: Isolated Inverse Fingerless Shadow. Ideas for other modifiers? · Aerial modifier could include Release and Riser, and maybe others. Also, the aerial modifier can be placed in two ways: Thumbaround Reverse Release vs Thumbaround Release Reverse.
-
Date: Mon, Feb 27 2012 21:43:41
I definitely agree on the stance that we need to clear up some ambiguities, and I certainly have an opinion as far as that goes (don't have time right now to write out exactly what I have to say, I'll edit this post later today or tomorrow when I get that time :)). For now, though: 1) Yes, hand positions are needed, and abbreviated as you have there seems just fine to me ^^ 2) I agree, we need Isolated and some other similar modifiers. However, note that that introduces another (albeit simple) factor into the (starting position)-(ending position) notation or elsewhere; namely, the side of the pen at which the center of rotation will be. For wiper-type tricks, this will always be the side which is not held, as otherwise it's just a regular wiper! But, note that if I do an isolated sonic 23-12, I can make the center of rotation at the tip of the pen which is pointed away from my palm, OR the tip that's pointing towards my palm and is near the thumb. That's not really a big deal to factor in, as said extra notation is only present when the Isolated modifier is also present for a non-wiper trick, but what is difficult is finding a way to notate clearly and concisely which tip/side of the pen the center of rotation will be for the isolation, perhaps something like I for inside and O for outside, anything that makes it clear which tip you're picking based on the starting position of the trick. For that example, Isolated Inverse Sonic Reverse I 12-23 would be an inverse sonic 12-23, but isolated so that it would look something like if you were to pivot the pen only around the side starting initially towards the inside of the palm and towards the thumb. Also note that isolations for non-wiper tricks are quite difficult, and while they wouldn't get widespread use for a while, this notation would be great for when someone does said isolation with the center of rotation anchored on a desk or their other palm, etc. 3) Don't we already have Release/Riser modifiers? We could possibly benefit from a bit more widespread understanding of the difference between releases and risers, e.g. if I do a TA ~ Palmspin .5 but sort of use the momentum and an opening hand movement to pop the pen up via my TFish webbing area, or somewhere around the thumb/index pads, that's a riser and not a release. When I get the time to speak my full mind, I would like to address a comprehensive type of notation for multiple (or single) pen, multiple hand spinning, assisted, or any compound spinning. I've already made an article on it, but I think I can convey my main points a little less densely, and the concept can be better refined given the main objective that I feel we should have, that being the following: We need not necessarily have a single, exact, and universal notation for everything. What we need, though, is to have spinners understand what it takes to notate things via the modifiers and information we're discussing, and to simply define their terms or "breakdown language" before. What am I getting at there? I don't think it's an imperative that we decide spreads need to be notated either "index spread > middle spread > pinky spread x 3" OR "sp23555" like JEB would. It IS, however, an imperative that a breakdown using something like "sp2355" contain something akin to this at the start: Let spABCDE.. = A spread > B spread > C spread > D spread > E spread > ... where A, B, C, D, E = 1 (thumb), 2 (index), 3 (middle), 4 (ring), 5 (pinky), respectively. Similarly, if I come from a country very fond of lists where we notate spreads like this for whatever reason: spread = [A, B, C, D, E, ...] What's important is that before my breakdowns where I use this, I say the following: Let "spread = [A, B, C, D, E, ...]" = A spread > B spread > C spread > D spread > E spread > ... where A, B, C, D, E = 1 (thumb), 2 (index), 3 (middle), 4 (ring), 5 (pinky), respectively. The implications of that concept, merely defining the "language" of one's breakdown before using anything that could lead to possible ambiguity, is enough to make anyone's breakdown instantly legible by any other person regardless of potential differences in notation cross-culturally or the like. While this essentially is embracing the idea of non-universal notation, it is also addressing the issue at a different and perhaps more feasible angle: providing a means of universal legibility, despite any inconsistencies in notation. The examples I gave of defining one's given breakdown terms/ambiguities, as well as the concept, may seem a bit dense or far too analytical/math-oriented, but I honestly feel that if anyone can easily and quickly grasp our current means of notation, it isn't much of a stretch to say that this idea could also be legible for any spinner, with a bit practice and exposure to it. This may seem like too much, or unneeded, as some say, "just look at the video and figure out any ambiguities, breakdowns shouldn't be or don't have to be perfect", but given the context of the thread that's what we're going for, right? ;D I don't think it's too unreasonable myself, especially considering the more long-form notations will come up far less often. Now, with that said, I do still feel that if a universal and comprehensive means of notation is something that we can arrive at, and something that can be given widespread support by major components of each board/community so that the more conservative/stubborn and casual/lay spinners will realize that this is in fact not a horrible idea, and also realize that it is in their best interests to notate using the determined universal standard rather than simply using their depreciated and preferred method, it would be something we should work at. We can't simply say "hey, this is a universal way to notate, wanna use it guys?", though, for obvious reasons. Sorry for the wall of text, but I'll be explaining a bit more of the general ideas I have for 1p2h, 2p2h, etc., when I can make the time later today or tomorrow :) I'd like to know what you think about the overall premise, so I'll get to that as soon as I can. It partly continues with the theme of using operators in the current, math-like way to notate any of these types of compound breakdowns. This is a project that I'm VERY interested in, it's something that seems relatively easily universalized and explored, with a little work, discussion, simple logic, and derivation of new modifiers or notations by analogy and previous axioms. I feel like it gets brushed aside as impossible, unwanted, or a tall order, but it's really far simpler than it seems to come up with; the only partly challenging aspect is agreement upon the shorthand notation methods themselves, and getting widespread support sufficient to make the idea a reality. -Iota
-
Date: Wed, Feb 29 2012 14:24:53
I will help contribute to this at some point in the future. Might just be you and I Iota <_<
-
Date: Wed, Feb 29 2012 15:07:40
Yeah, I noticed that v.v >Posts 1200 word wall of text on topic, not including whenever I edit in or talk about the other things I mentioned and was considering before >*crickets*
-
Date: Wed, Feb 29 2012 17:12:58
Iota wrote: Yeah, I noticed that v.v >Posts 1200 word wall of text on topic, not including whenever I edit in or talk about the other things I mentioned and was considering before >*crickets*
That's often times how the RD goes. Everyone else gets on board when the longer discussions are coming to an end and the final stages are approaching. Perhaps Zombo or Strat might get involved though. -
Date: Wed, Feb 29 2012 17:34:08
@Mats, "you and me*"
-
Date: Wed, Feb 29 2012 17:34:24
@Mats, "you and me*"
-
Date: Wed, Feb 29 2012 20:39:02
Right, @shoeman, but that's kind of what I'm getting at as well in a sense. Also, I agree that if you wanted to notate the palm turned 45 degrees, you'd have to expand further or not notate that to be perfect, BUT, I see that as a line not needing to be crossed in a way. What's important is that we have a way to clear up any ambiguities, and the type of palm notations freeman proposed and the type of isolation notations I gave as an example of some things, those are there for that reason, not so much to have the exact and perfect orientation of the hand broken down. At a certain point it WILL require a vid to be identical, you could say, and I don't see that as a bad thing. What is important, though, is being able to clear up certain things that otherwise would require the video to even do the combo/tricksequence correctly, if you follow what I mean. Also, those modifiers he mentioned and the things I proposed aren't really superfluous, but rather a way to notate something that currently can't be described in the PS breakdown language. Isolations cannot be broken down or communicated without separate written description, or just saying "Isolated wiper blahblahblah (see vid)", and it's simple enough to allow for future use.
-
Date: Wed, Feb 29 2012 20:40:42
Right, @shoeman, but that's kind of what I'm getting at as well in a sense. Also, I agree that if you wanted to notate the palm turned 45 degrees, you'd have to expand further or not notate that to be perfect, BUT, I see that as a line not needing to be crossed in a way. What's important is that we have a way to clear up any ambiguities, and the type of palm notations freeman proposed and the type of isolation notations I gave as an example of some things, those are there for that reason, not so much to have the exact and perfect orientation of the hand broken down. At a certain point it WILL require a vid to be identical, you could say, and I don't see that as a bad thing. What is important, though, is being able to clear up certain things that otherwise would require the video to even do the combo/tricksequence correctly, if you follow what I mean. Also, those modifiers he mentioned and the things I proposed aren't really superfluous, but rather a way to notate something that currently can't be described in the PS breakdown language. Isolations cannot be broken down or communicated without separate written description, or just saying "Isolated wiper blahblahblah (see vid)", and it's simple enough to allow for future use.
-
Date: Thu, Mar 1 2012 12:17:20
shoeman6 wrote: but haveing
@shoeman6 "Having" I think we would be best here drawing up a bullet point list of all the issues there are in current naming and then take them one by one. -
Date: Thu, Mar 1 2012 19:59:00
Well there aren't exactly issues, and I thought I sort of did that and/or addressed everything. It isn't solving problems, just expanding.
-
Date: Thu, Mar 1 2012 20:15:49
Iota wrote: Well there aren't exactly issues, and I thought I sort of did that and/or addressed everything. It isn't solving problems, just expanding.
If you cannot provide a bullet list of what is being looked at, this will not get done. You must be able to break things down into simple terms for solutions to be found. -
Date: Thu, Mar 1 2012 20:38:24
That just isn't true..especially if I'm the one doing things haha. I've yet to hear a response from anyone else, and a bullet list isn't possible nor appropriate for the occasion.
-
Date: Sun, Mar 4 2012 04:31:48
Mats wrote: Perhaps Zombo or Strat might get involved though.
I always hop on board projects I feel necessary/have a large impact on PS, but I think more specific naming conventions wont help at this point imo -
Date: Tue, Mar 6 2012 00:40:42
Iota wrote: That just isn't true..especially if I'm the one doing things haha. I've yet to hear a response from anyone else, and a bullet list isn't possible nor appropriate for the occasion.
You know, you should be able to say what exactly needs to change in a quick list. If you can't, you are perhaps being a bit finickity with this. -
Date: Tue, Mar 6 2012 02:25:21
@Mats Again, as I've said like two or three times now, it isn't about changes in things. What needs to happen isn't something that you can just bullet point. It's trying to discuss with others who are capable and willing of doing so, the following: - A concept for how to easily amend notation. - A concept for how to allow any notation, regardless of cultural/board differences, to be understood by anyone else. - A concept for how to, if desirable, create a unified means of notation. - A concept for how to notate in particular, the following: 1) Isolations 2) Assisted/compound/1p2h spinning, tricks, hybrids and combos 3) multiple pen, multiple handed spinning, tricks, hybrids and combos Does that make sense? It doesn't work to just say some random way I want it done, and to expect that everyone agree to it, and then to expect that we can get everyone to do it (obviously). The idea is to discuss it, but it doesn't seem to be an area that anyone/many feel is important. There's a bullet list, now please stop bugging me about it and deal with the tl;drs if you're actually interested in helping XD
-
Date: Tue, Mar 6 2012 08:25:30
Iota wrote: - A concept for how to allow any notation, regardless of cultural/board differences, to be understood by anyone else.
This one isn't happening. The language barrier will prevent it.- A concept for how to, if desirable, create a unified means of notation.
Related to the above. I think all English speaking boards will follow the standards set by UPSB though.- A concept for how to notate in particular, the following: 1) Isolations 2) Assisted/compound/1p2h spinning, tricks, hybrids and combos 3) multiple pen, multiple handed spinning, tricks, hybrids and combos
Hybrids are covered by interrupted trick notation already and combos have been notated since forever. So multiple pen, multiple hand and isolations seem to be the key areas we can make progress on? -
Date: Tue, Mar 6 2012 22:45:11
You never even read my first post, did you? The first one is possible simply if one identifies one's terms, in effect, defines the idioms of their cultural "PS language". You didn't understand those last two, hybrids and combos, tricks and spinning, WITHIN multiple pen multiple hand as well as 1p2h, and then also isolations...
-
Date: Wed, Mar 7 2012 11:27:10
Iota wrote: You never even read my first post, did you? The first one is possible simply if one identifies one's terms, in effect, defines the idioms of their cultural "PS language".
The barriers go beyond this. Different languages use different characters. You can't just make a cross continental standard so easily, you need to essentially invent a language to do this in. That's so long and complicated and bound to fall on its arse sideways (Esperanto!).You didn't understand those last two, hybrids and combos, tricks and spinning, WITHIN multiple pen multiple hand as well as 1p2h, and then also isolations...
The syntax for combos and hybrids themselves is set. If you can decide how to notate tricks that are 1p2h and multiple pen tricks, the conventions for combos and hybrids will still remain the same. -
Date: Wed, Mar 7 2012 19:21:49
The trick names are most often given in english (e.g. Sonic is Sonic), characters rarely appear. Also, even if this is only implemented to avoid ambiguities in personal differences in notation within each culture, not over all of them, it's still useful. You still aren't getting the second part, the convention is the same, but you can expand it in certain ways to notate a desynchronous 2p2h combo, a combination of spinning in left, right, and compound hands with one pen, etc. That aspect of the notation would not be totally the same, though the syntax would roughly be.
-
Date: Thu, Mar 8 2012 18:08:36
Ok, let's tackle two pens being used, in two separate hands. I favour this option at the moment: Where two pens execute the same trick in sync. [Sonic -> Thumbaround -> Fingerless Thumbaround] So in the above combo, two pens are both doing Sonic -> Thumbaround -> Fingerless Thumbaround. Where two pens execute different tricks, in sync. [Sonic 34-23][Thumbaround] -> [Sonic 23-12][Fingerless Thumbaround] -> [Backaround][Fingerless Thumbaround] In the above, pen A is executing a Sonic Rise -> Backaround while pen B is doing a Triple Thumbaround. The two bracketed tricks sitting side by side indicate the tricks being done simultaneously. Where two pens execute tricks at different times. [Sonic 32-23] -> [Sonic 23-12] -> [Fingerless Indexaround] -> [Fingerpass] Thumbspin 2.5 -> Twisted Sonic -> Sonic In the above example, pen A is written on line 1 and pen B written on line 2. The presence of square brackets [] indicates it is two pens, but the lack of the brackets being grouped [trick][trick] -> [trick][trick] as they were in the second example, shows that the tricks are not being done in sync. So basically, the presence of square brackets indicates two pens are being used. Exactly how the pens are being used is dependent upon use of the brackets.
-
Date: Thu, Mar 8 2012 21:08:50
I suppose that's one way of doing it, yeah. When I approached this type of notation (it's in another thread), I also wanted to find a way to notate things as efficiently as possible while removing ambiguity as to which bracket means which hand, when it changes from one hand or pen to the other, etc. Part of this, imo, involves saying which hand does what: you use multiple lines, L1 = mainhaind, L2 = offhand; I used brackets or parenthesis around things where applicable, and the operators: ^ for mainhand, v for offhand. So, what you notated in the first example would be as follows: 1) Synchronous spinning: [Sonic 23-12-> Thumbaround T1-TF ~ Fingerless Thumbaround TF-TF]^v The other possible variants as well as the ones you give (with more precision and less ambiguity as well, in some cases) are mentioned in my other thread specifically on this type of thing, but I don't necessarily think the goal atm should be this alone, as the idea wasn't really received well. Tbh, it seems pretty clear that the majority don't really care about this nor see it as important or realistic atm :/
-
Date: Fri, Feb 1 2013 17:48:08
is anyone still interested in this? Im not talking about changing things, is just setting a solid breakdown for future improvements. After my last post ive seen that we actually dont need an official xpxh notation or so, maybe in some months. IMO we really need to make a clear standard for the modifiers and tricks (for example, the ones that freeman said at first post) that we use in almost every ps bd. I have lots of ideas (and time also), so, if someone wants to do this with me, it would be nice :3
-
Date: Mon, Feb 11 2013 17:46:35
@Iota What do you have in mind? UPSBRD has been kind of slow lately but I'd be glad to lend a hand.
-
Date: Mon, Feb 11 2013 17:50:11
Same, I'd be interested in working/discussing it with you as well @RPD If you'd refresh my memory, what in general (or just the specific cases if you think they cover all bases for what should be made clearer/breakable) are some concepts/modifiers/new tricks that need clear breakdowns?
-
Date: Mon, Feb 11 2013 22:32:55
Well, here's a list of everything that i think it should be discussed. I know no other way to explain this... Tl;Dr, go next comment
Spoiler
[B]Some definitions that i dont put here, are clear. But i'm to lazy to write them all.[/B] [B]Combo breakdown structure[/B]: I just changed some things about Freeman's structure.hand_position main_modifier [B]trick_name[/B] direction secondary_modifier number_of_spins fingerslots [p] [fc] [s] [fc] [c] [fc]
[B]Hand position[/B]: PU → Palm up PD → Palm down PS → Palm side BS → Back side [B]Main modifier[/B]: Favourite part :boing: Deprecated ones IMO Mirrored → Never understood it, never used it. Moonwalk → Track modifier + direction modifier replaces it. Normal ones: Fingerless → Definition? Inverse → Definition? Tipped → Definition? New ones, usefulness-confirmation needed: Isolated → Definition? Side → Definition?Initially, its only used in side sonic, but it can be useful to notate side flush sonic, side pass, and maybe other tricks. Not sure if this should be a separate modifier.
Track → Definition?It could solve problems like eurocracy's "moonwalk ta", by specifying separately track and spin direction. For example: TA nor → normal track - normal spin TA rev → reverse track - reverse spin Eurocracy TA → reverse track - normal spin I dont know how could we write this, but i think it can be useful.
Finger → Definition?This is hard to explain. Finger modifier would be fingers that modify the trick and not depend to a certain slot... For example, in a midbak, we can do: Middlebak 23-23 Middlebak 34-23 Middlebak 34-34 etc... Then, "middle" is the finger modifier. In some tricks, we just write the trick and the slots, leaving there a blank. Following last example: Bak 23-23 So it would be a more specific way of notating tricks. keeping the old one obv, it would be like part of formal notation. Examples. 2-Bak 23-23 (insted of midbak) 2-Around 34-34 (instead of MA) Txz-Spin 23-23 (instead of thumbspin) Tx-Spin 23-23 (instead of sidespin) P-Spin 23-23 (instead of palmspin) [B]IM-Sideflip T1-T1[/B] (instead of just sideflip. and yes, i think that sideflip can be an official trick) [B]3xy-Lever 34-34[/B] (instead of just lever)
[B]Secondary/aerial modifiers:[/B] Riser → trick impulse - aerial impulse - optional aerial spin - aerial catch - spin - trick catch Release → trick impulse - spin - aerial impulse - optional aerial spin - aerial catch - optional spin - trick catch Bounce → bounce definition is pretty hard. I thought of it as an hybrid of a release and a fingerswitch. Basically, continuous release pushes when not doing any specific trick, it becames a bounce push. Something like: trick impulse - Cont [aerial impulse - optional aerial spin - aerial catch] - trick catch We could also use bounce release and bounce riser to specify if there are secondary spins being executed. Still → The starting position and the ending position are the same, so ending position is omitted. [B]Sorted/unsorted slots:[/B] The sorted/unsorted slot concept is something that isnt useful for notating anything, but it is for explaining advanced concepts IMO, like fingercrossing extended notation and f2f's slot notation using the pen as a reference. Sorted slots → Most common type. These are the ones that follow the finger hierarchy. (W > H > B > P > F > T > 1 > 2 > 3 > 4) Unsorted slots → The ones that don't follow the finger hierarchy because most important reasons. For example, in f2f slot notation, the fingers are written in an specific order, so its not useful to sort them. 13.42 and that stuff~ [B]Specifying all body parts:[/B] There have been lots of ideas for this. This is my opinion. The only hand parts that should have an specific name are fingers, hand and arm. Moar lists RPD pls From wrist to shoulder (full arm) -> [B]A[/B]. No more specification. I thought about this, and :shake: Wrist -> [B]W[/B] From BP to 4 (full hand) -> [B]H[/B] Thumb -> [B]T[/B], plus phalanx modifiers, Tx, Tz, Txz Thumbflap -> [B]tf[/B] From 1 to 4 (full fingers) -> [B]F[/B] Fingers -> [B]1[/B] to [B]4[/B], plus phalanx modifiers, x, y, z, xy, xz Air -> [B]*[/B] Nondominant hand -> [B]'[/B] Every other part should be written between [B]brackets[/B]. For example, [mouth] [table] [foot] [B]Fingercrossing + formal notation[/B] How could interact actual formal notation with fc notation.[p] [fc] [s] [fc] [c] [fc]
In the general structure, the [fc] modifier could go after the slots, and between [p] [s] [c] if needed (to specify when the fingercrossing [B]starts[/B]) If there are no [p] [s] [c] modifiers, we can assume that the crossing [B]starts while starting the trick[/B]. If the next linked trick doesn't has a [fc] modifier, we can suppose that the crossing [B]finishes while finishing first trick[/B]. [B]Fingercrossing extended notation[/B] This was proposed a long time ago at spsc, by kurotsuki and freeman, and I think it can be usefull.[fc unsorted_slot]
unsorted_slot → The fingers in the slot are written depending how fingers are crossed. In PU, the top finger is written before than the bottom finger. So that way we can differentiate [fc 21] and [fc 12] [B]New tricks and controversy[/B] People can write the bd as they want, [B]but our work is to give them standards so they can understand other people bd.[/B] An idea can be writing a list of how to write it "correctly" and "powertricker", so if they want to write well they can, and also they can have a resource to understand that other notation. Tricks that can be included here. Hai tua Punkan Pun new Musclearound Advanced spider spin Xbak pop spin Some official tricks aren't really useful IMO, and they should be deprecated. Tricks that can be included here. Angel sonics Demon sonics Other unnoficial (not sure if all of them aren't aproved by NC) tricks are useful (IMO again) and they should be made official. Tricks that can be included here. Spreads Swivels Levers Sideflips Armaround Swuck Powerpasses Meh, I think that's all. :boing: -
Date: Wed, Feb 13 2013 22:08:01
Sorry for making such long and unuseful posts. I just realized that I was answering questions that i never wrote here, and therefore it is difficult to give other opinions on the subject. The only thing that can be done with my previous post was writing if you liked my opinion or not, and that's not what I want. I want to hear other people ones (sun) Again, sorry for such posts as this is the second time I do it in the RD, and it seems like I did not realize the error. I dont usually double post, but I wanted to do it this time.
What in general (or just the specific cases if you think they cover all bases for what should be made clearer/breakable) are some concepts/modifiers/new tricks that need clear breakdowns?
There are lots of names for "easy" tricks, and not many for more complex hybrids. Actually, almost any trick can be notated, but some of them are pain to write and pain to read and understand. I think we need to update the actual breakdown. Remove some old things and add some other new (Even if old ones are rarely used and new ones aren't used at all at the moment) So, some things that should be updated: [B]Fingercrossings[/B]. With the actual one, not all the possibilities can be notated. For example, the difference between crossing 2 over 1 and 1 over 2. [B]Slots[/B]. With the basic and most common notation, there are some slots that are not clear. Nowadays, we have great improvements like phalanx notation or f2fs relative slot notation, but they have not been enough discussed and promoted. So they may have errors and things to improve. [B]Modifiers[/B]. I wrote a lot about them at my last post because this really needs help. This should be updated so complex tricks can be notated better, with less consecutive tricks as possible for only one movement and without using formal notation (push from x trick ~ spin from a and b ~ catch from z) Some tricks that aren't clear actually: Eurocracy TA. Such easy trick shouldnt be hard to notate, and it is. Adding a track modifier and removing moonwalk and mirrored modifiers can be helpful. Levers and swivels. In lever bd syntax, we say starting position and ending position, but not where the pen rests in the balance, it needs to be added as an intermediate slot. Its like saying Around 23-2*-23. For example. Lever 34-3xy-34 Adding a new modifier before trick name can be helpful. For example: 3xy-lever 34 B-lever 34 3*-swivel 34 321-swivel 34 [B]Tricks[/B]. As i said before, some tricks should be "removed" or at least, NC can say that they are not recommended because they dont really help when notating a trick, and the alternative notation is easier to understand. For example, punkan, punnew, demon/angel sonics. Other trick names should be "recommended" like swuck, armaround... I hope this is clearer than the other post, and not butt-pain to read. @Mats -
Date: Wed, Feb 13 2013 22:36:18
Is it already too late to try and change the name of tricks like punkan? Is it a good idea to throw a second 'official' name on it? :hmm: I'm not sure. :dunno: We need to look at what we are aiming for in a breakdown here. Do we want all these extra modifiers to be able to breakdown every combo that is possible? I've never seen someone learn someone's entire combo from simply reading the breakdown and never watching the video. I'm not sure people are interested in doing that and until they are (if ever), we don't need such detailed breakdowns?
-
Date: Wed, Feb 13 2013 22:50:00
Yeah, it can be cool to, instead of changing the power names that random people made (no sarcasm lol) just making them official with the old official name. So saying punkan or armaround, haitua or HA, would be official both ways.
We need to look at what we are aiming for in a breakdown here.
This is a really interesting point. For example, I use the breakdown to save my links/combos for later (bad memory) and sometimes to send them to other spinners. Also, I always think of breakdown as a complementary way of explaining a combo. For example, my WT R1 video. In the video we have how it looks like and the trick that looks like, and in the BD, the trick I wanted to do. So it shouldnt be a complex breakdown, it should be a complete/easy-to-read breakdown, right? -
Date: Sun, Feb 17 2013 04:06:08
So is this on hold for now?