is freestyle really free?

donnygrubb · Post by **donnygrubb** » 17 May 2006 10:39

how can freestyle be called freestyle if you have required moves in many tournements? why dont you see a lot of other moves like shoulder stalls back stalls head stalls...ect? are thoes taboo,or are people to scared to say "fuck it" and do something different? im not a hater. ive just seem to notice a lot of people starting to be stuck in their ways.

Anz · Post by **Anz** » 17 May 2006 10:51

People don't have imagination.

I personally don't do head stall or anything like that (except in routines) because the break the flow. I think many players think like that.

mosher · Post by **mosher** » 17 May 2006 10:57

Dude, there aren't required tricks in ANY competitions, let alone 'many'.

You really are free to do whatever you want.

People don't do wierd stalls (usually) because they don't flow or have good timing to be used in strings.

There are lots of people that do wierd stalls and stuff, it's just not the kind of thing you generally do in strings.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 17 May 2006 11:08

Nobody does those tricks because they are hard to make legit, difficult to play out of, and not that much fun.

Catching the bag on the back or neck is roughly as difficult as sitting on a couch and not falling off.

Zeke · Post by **Zeke** » 17 May 2006 11:11

Matt Churney and Steve Blough are not afraid to say, "fuck it" and do something different.

Shredfish · Post by **Shredfish** » 17 May 2006 12:28

Tsiangkun wrote:Catching the bag on the back or neck is roughly as difficult as sitting on a couch and not falling off.

So well said!! In my opinion it's not because of flow, it's because it's not even footbag!!! Neckbag? Shoulderbag? Oh wait that's called hackysack. Thinking up how many places you can stall the bag is alot less "free" than thinking up a new trick that's never been done before and/or hitting one that you've never hit before. Then, in your own way whenever you feel like it, add it in your combos! = freestyle

Outsider · Post by **Outsider** » 17 May 2006 13:48

http://www.footbag.org/gallery/show/8413

Jan Struz makes good use of forehead stalls, back stalls, lap catch, etc.

With more of those kinds of moves than just about anyone else in his show, he performed his way into finals at Worlds last year.

Maybe some people might feel that he didn't deserve to make it into finals (I'm not one of those people), but whatever you want to say about his skills and his show, one cannot deny that his routines certainly stood out from those of all the other competitors.

Matt Churney and Steve Blough are not afraid to say, "fuck it" and do something different.

I haven't seen Matt Churney in a long time, and he was never gonna be world champion, but I remember this about Worlds 1999 as clearly as anything else that week: when it was Churney's turn to compete, EVERYBODY stopped what they were doing and quickly crowded around to watch. I don't recall them doing that for any of the other dozens of intermediate competitors that day, or even alot of the pros.

People don't do wierd stalls (usually) because they don't flow or have good timing to be used in strings.

They don't flow or have good timing because you haven't practiced them enough. Mirages and Spinning Clippers flow because you've skooled the hell out of them. If you had practiced them only as much as you practice your head and back stalls, people might say "those tricks don't flow well" Face it, you've done a thousand tricks involving the toe stall for every one that lands on your head or back. If you had put your time in the same way with your side-of-the-head stalls, they might flow too. I've seen Greg Nelson and Peter Shunny flow pretty smoothly stalling back and forth from one temple to the other. I remember Ryan Mulroney complaining that Symposium Whirls didn't flow and threw off his timing. I've seen lots of them in other peoples' routines lately.

Catching the bag on the back or neck is roughly as difficult as sitting on a couch and not falling off

Catching the bag on your toe is just as easy. Easier, I'd say. I've done hundreds of toe stalls in a row, but just try doing a hundred back stalls in a row and we'll see which is hard. People don't avoid doing the back stall because its too easy. If it were too easy, people would do them all the time, like they do with toe stalls and cross-body inside stalls. In actuallity, you're so dependant on the two easiest stalling surfaces in the game that you can't play worth a damn without them. You want difficulty? Challenge yourself to do guiltless strings (or even tiltless) without using toes and clippers. You can actually get pretty far, if you're willing to skool.

Wasabi · Post by **Wasabi** » 17 May 2006 14:13

In last year's Funtastiks, I've seen plenty of ass stalls during comp, but I guess that was just poking for fun.

Especially for Steve Goldberg!!!

Bander87 · Post by **Bander87** » 17 May 2006 14:17

Its pretty old school if you ask me. I think people don't do it because they are "afraid" to, but don't do it because they don't like it.

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 17 May 2006 15:59

I tend to have problems with consistency with unusuals and flyers - many are hard on my body, so i don't drill them. I do find that some do break the flow of a run, but sometimes they are perfect to punctaute a run, so it works both ways. I think that if I were to reach a higher level of shuffle, and shred, I would look to these moves to really set me apart.
I think there are a number of players who use unusuals and flyers really well - I always think of a few of Ellis' runs which are peppered with well timed flyers.
As for the notion of required moves, in routines there are no required moves, and furthermore originality, creativity, and performance are all highly valued. I think as more and more players take up the sport and compete, there will be more players at a closer skill level, and more intricate and various combos will emerge as a necessity.

janis · Post by **janis** » 17 May 2006 22:09

footbag definatelty imposes a conformity on players, particulary through shred 30. there is a definative style of play, and whilst most people follow that, there is great room for creativity if you want to give it a go

I couldn't care less what other people think about non mainstream moves, I find them fun and hence why I do them

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 17 May 2006 22:40

I think the term "freestyle" is used fairly loosely - it just means that your doing tricks and being creative as opposed to net footbag or golf. The same goes for every other sport that calls it's self "freestyle" - there have to be bounderies in competition or it would be impossible to judge. Outside of competition you are completely free (at least in terms of footbag) to do whatever you want. People do what they think is cool - and I'd put forward the opinion that you don't see many head stalls because they're just too easy and not considered cool by many people. I could do head stalls before I knew that the sport was called footbag and I know people who can't kick the bag up 10 times and can do head stalls.

Flipsider · Post by **Flipsider** » 17 May 2006 23:46

what is breaking the flow to most is breaking the monotony to me. I am so bored with standard shred it's not even funny. I can't watch.

Buh-Bye

p.s. I really need to change my screenname, so it doesn't look like my opinions represent Flipsider(.com). I'm just the administrator of a website, and I have the right to free speech like everyone else.

In fact, I'm going to start using 'blitz' from now on.

blitz · Post by **blitz** » 17 May 2006 23:52

Flipsider wrote:what is breaking the flow to most is breaking the monotony to me.

Yeah, I totally agree.

janis · Post by **janis** » 18 May 2006 00:04

ok Jeremy, about the head stall then, it's a bit like saying toe stall is easy(duh), the point is you do other move elements as well as a toe stall. The only reason why head stalls are "easy" is because ppl don't tend to do anything into or out of them. perhaps try setting from it or try something like double spinning into head stall. All this goes for other unusual surfaces as well, try using the surface as a component of a move, not as the move itself.

shreddaily · Post by **shreddaily** » 18 May 2006 00:16

Flipsider wrote:I really need to change my screenname, so it doesn't look like my opinions represent Flipsider(.com).

that is a great idea!

Flipsider wrote: I am so bored with standard shred it's not even funny.

I truely believe there is only one cure for this... STOP PLAYING/WHATCHING FREESTYLE FOOTBAG!
Calling what we do (ie shred) "free" is like calling what jazz players do true "improvisation". Sorry to bring my personal life into this but I think it is truely a relivant analogy. (I realize I like cliche truely tonight)...
Every art form has its idoiosyncric ideas. When I first started schooling jazz I thought "boy when i learn jazz I will be able to play any form of music." Well that is BS, I may understand all forms of music but when I show up to a blues jam I sure sound like a jazz geek. To truely master any artform, no matter how seemingly simple, one must completly indulge themselfs in all things that make said artform beutiful. Similarly shred has given me an understanding of any and all hack moves, however that doesn't mean I am fluent in them...

NOR DO I WANT TO BE!!!!!!!!!

I love freestyle, and the standards and practices that the founders established (adds, guiltless, shred 30 ect...) and when I get board of those things I WILL LOOK ELSE WHERE FOR ENJOYMENT and not try to change the truely buetiful art we, the educated modified community, enjoy.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 18 May 2006 01:22

yeah great post - the link between impro jazz is perfect! To do a jazz impro you can't just play anything at all - there are heaps of rules about what notes you should play and even stuff about how you should structure imrpovs etc. improvising in jazz is definitely not just playing whatever you want - but there is still some freedom.

sampotter · Post by **sampotter** » 18 May 2006 07:08

Very well said, Nate. All you old fogeys need to get your hands off the freestyle if you don't like it.

Wasabi · Post by **Wasabi** » 18 May 2006 09:05

It's definitely a discipline if taken into that context. I hate to bring martial arts into this discussion (*coughBloughchicough*), but I have for at least 2-3 years in my adolescence (age 13 I think) taken Tai Chi and some Praying Mantis (Chow Style) with my father and grandparents. In it, there's a load of rules and proper form to consider, and that is what makes those martial arts unique. Frequently, I tried to incorporate both styles together, but found myself a bit confused/imbalanced sometimes which is common. The two martial arts have they're own strengths and weaknesses, and to combine them can bring more confusion than it's worth.

What Nate said is perfect: that even if you know much about a general subject, there are some aspects that need specific consideration. Footbag is similar. You have Footbag Net, Freestyle Comp, Regular Freestyle, Kicky Sack, Bloughchi

and even Footbag Golf if it comes to that. Each has their own specific regulations that have both a strength and a weakness. It's how you wish to consider that concept that makes it worthwhile. My training with both Tai Chi and Praying Mantis was more detrimental than beneficial as I thought about it a few years later. Tai Chi practiced on fluidity and relaxing the body, while Praying Mantis concentrated on muscle strength and a solid posture.

I've long forgotten how to do martial arts except for basic stretches and exercises. I find it more fun to look into footbag as only regular freestyle. There's also stitching, but has little relation to the amount of physical pressure that comes to shredding.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 18 May 2006 09:19

Okay Jonny boy,

Outsider wrote:
Catching the bag on the back or neck is roughly as difficult as sitting on a couch and not falling off
Catching the bag on your toe is just as easy. Easier, I'd say. I've done hundreds of toe stalls in a row, but just try doing a hundred back stalls in a row and we'll see which is hard.

I hit 25 consecutive attempts at the backstall, I'd do a hundred but what's the difference. It's fucking easy. If you think they are hard, you must not be able to land a golf ball on a football field. Setting out of the trick is hard, and that is the part of my comment you ignored because it didn't advance your cause, so I'll put it here.

me wrote:Nobody does those tricks because they are hard to make legit, difficult to play out of, and not that much fun.

Now I'll put it here with the significant omission bolded to make it easier to spot.

me wrote:Nobody does those tricks because they are hard to make legit, difficult to play out of , and not that much fun.

I still believe catching the bag on the back is roughly as difficult as sitting on a couch and not falling off.

is freestyle really free?

is freestyle really free?

blasé

Re: blasé

Re: blasé