UPSB v4
Linkages & Combos / Structure of a combo
-
Date: Mon, May 20 2013 13:35:36
Ohaio community ! Here is a short "article" I wrote on FPSB a few days ago, I thought it could be interesting so I post it here because I think structure really is a concept that is not taken in consideration enough when judging a combo. Enjoy your reading !
Structure is a concept which is not about the consistency of the combo itself, but rather the construction. This transverse concept is related to all the “criteria” of the current judging (and that’s why I think they are irrelevant). We can distinguish several dimensions to structure : [B]The aesthetic aspect[/B] : how harmoniously tricks are linked togeteher, which makes a trick or a linkage beautiful not just because it is beautiful in itself but because « it’s placed here ». We can obviously think about s777 but also about the old Koreans (this is one of the only reasons that makes me like what they usually do), and we can feel it by how they place their fingers (so it’s also about the execution). This aspect is obviously the most subjective so I’m not gonna talk about it more than that. [B]The difficulty aspect[/B] : that’s a flaw which is encountered very often in many spinners’ combos. Let’s consider a tournament combo : everybody knows that it usually takes a long time to construct and record these kinds of combos (for example it took Ivabra 30 hours for his WC R4 combo). In that case if a trick or a linkage which is extremely hard is executed at the beginning of a combo, it becomes less valued than a trick or a linkage which is put at the end ; if you already spent hours to record a combo you know that you better start with the hardest parts and then do the easiest things at the end so that you get more chances to manage to film it quickly. So we can define a « difficulty coefficient » of a trick put in a combo, which becomes harder if put later in a combo. For example we can think about the japs who used to start their combos with bust continuous x5 (which used to be hard back then) and then continue their combo then. We can also talk about Eagle’s combo for WT13 R2, the first trick is actually very good but it’s easier since it’s executed at the beginning of the combo. However the finisher which is a charge t1 rev > back is clearly a lack of difficulty, while the finisher is the moment of the combo where the « difficulty coeffecient » grows significantly. This is the reason why during the WT09 Spinnerpeem revolutionized the notion of difficulty because of his finishers that we had never seen before. An other theory from Eriror & i.suk (I think) during our debates actually state the opposite : when you actually execute a hard part of a combo this makes it harder to put hard things right afterwards because of the difficulty of the first part. As far as I’m concerned I don’t agree with this vision : not that I deny the thing but this aspect seems less important than the coefficient of difficulty. (But still, difficulty is actually related to structure). Another thing that must be considered : when you do a really hard finish, it can be considered easier than what it is, because you can catch it pretty much as you want, as you don’t have to continue your combo after it [B]The originality aspect[/B] : This is where the construction of a combo becomes important. Indeed when you judge the originality of a combo you can’t consider the tricks one by one, you also have to judge how the tricks are linked together, if the way you link them is logical, this is a proof that the combo has been planned as a whole combo and not as several parts that you linked together. -First, the originality can be in the fact that the tricks are linked in a certain way. Let’s take one of Key3’s combo as an example, in a combo he executes a : TA>middleback>TA rev>IA" (clic), the tricks are actually easy but the way they’re linked defines what I call « the structure originality » (moreover it’s really hard and it requires a perfect execution : we can see that difficulty, execution, originality and structure are linked, so nowadays criteria can’t really judge a combo) -An other dimension of the « structure originality » is the concept of « filling in »/spamming, and that’s the main reason why I criticize some spinners such as Sutomo & A13x (except for the R5), and that’s why I think they both don’t deserve to be in the finals of the WT13. This is IMO particuliarly obvious in the 4th combo of sutomo, there are obviously some really hard & really original things, but between these things there are some things that suck compared to the hard things, such as the demon sonic that a13x did in his 3rd round, or the whole part from 0 :02 to 0 :15 of sutomo (still round 4) which is kinda useless. This proves that the combo has been thought part by part, by “highlights” and not as a whole combo, so our vision is based on the ability to impress people. On the other hand I’ll take any combo by F2F as an example of the complete opposite of Sutomo & A13x because none of the tricks are useless, just like RPD, even though he still needs to improve. It makes no doubt that F2F is the best in that category and I guarantee you that penspinning is likely to go towards that direction. IMO, the most important thing that f2f brought is not just creative tricks, it’s a whole new way to construct combos. So we can notice that the notion of structure is, in penspinning nowadays, absolutely decisive to judge a combo : the time when we could judge combos by how they looked and trick by trick or linkage by linkage is over. We need to begin a new reflexion to totally revolutionize the criteria so that they can integrate new subtleties of current penspinning : not only the structure as a transverse concept but also the strong links between difficulty and execution, or different aspects of “originality”.
(Thanks to Ivabra and Chozo for the translation) -
Date: Mon, May 20 2013 13:53:38
I do agree with the Eriror conspiracy : it's harder to pull off a hard trick or link and then keep the momentum going without any rhythm problem. Rhythm is probably the other "horizontal" concept I would apply to penspinning along with structure.
-
Date: Mon, May 20 2013 13:54:44
I think we should have an Originality in the WT criteria,and not the vague creativity...
-
Date: Mon, May 20 2013 14:24:37
Fel2Fram intentionally breaks his combo to make it look the way it does. Part of the reason we can't see it for example is because he does exactly what we do not expect him to. You can do this with conventional tricks, by linking together tricks that should neve rand would never classically go together rather than making 'classical' links that follow the way you expect them to. However, Fel's structure's advantage is its disadvantage, if you make your structure so unusual that people cannot follow it, you could argue that you could lose points, as it becomes unclear what is happening. While this is appropriate at certain parts of the combo to 'wow' the audience, all the way through the combo it requires a researcher to break down the entire combo in 500% slomo because the eyes cannot track it as they predict the pen to go along traditional routes. So fel is very unconventional and very controversial in whether his structure makes his combos great or what makes them unwatchable. It is not merely his creativity as you pointed out, for example Ponkotu, stuhl and Freeman have a lot of creativity, but are clearer to see.
-
Date: Mon, May 20 2013 15:50:39
I agree. For a person like me, who always use pd arounds continuously without any filler or any means to break the flow (like adding a shadow immediately after it to make the speed constant), it is actually extremely hard because you would tend to overwork your finger and the final position your pen lands on is crucial as most of these tricks requires very specific motions. In short, one component that tend to always be leave out in judging is this sense of difficulty from the executional flow pointed out by eriror. Its not fair just to judge on tricks alone but should be done based on how the tricks are structured in the combo.
-
Date: Mon, May 20 2013 20:28:36
I find really interesting how the final render of a combo is linked with that three concepts. Even if this posts explains it, still a bit mysterious for me. For example, I prefer badly executed combos over perfect execution. But not all "bad execution" is the same, and I just dont understand this. A badly executed combo of a spinner that has the ability of creating a nice executed combo is totally different to the bad execution of someone that has been training that aspect. May I say, Miyat and Hex, vs fel or some blue combos. Even when difficulty and creativity can be the same on both (just an example) the aesthetic aspect changes a lot. Also, we can say the same for spinners with flawless execution (dont blame me if I say something stupid here, I dont know a lot about this style). S777 planned combos cant be compared with some spinners that usually upload freestyles, like ccw (?)
Even when difficulty and creativity can be the same on both, the aesthetic aspect changes a lot.
What do you think about this? did I went full retard? (sun)