New Freestyle Notation: Done.

RRendsvig · Post by **RRendsvig** » 27 May 2007 15:31

I've made a new, more detatiled version of Job's original notation.
Basicly, it features a more detailed view of dexes and spinning components making it possible to capture things such as Paradox and the possibility of expressing things like Gyro Jughandle.

It has nothing to do with Hardness -- it simply gives the you the machinery to express finer details. As an example, Ripwalk can be formalized in at least 5 ways depending on when and where you do the dexes.

In my mind, if you use this system, you can forget all about Paradox, Xdex and Xbody -- these three concepts have no legitimate use, and the only reason the exist is a lack of formal understanding of the moves being made.

Have any of you ever thought about Muted Atromic Clipper and weather or not it "is" paradox? It's the exact reverse of a Pdx Mirage, so any "double hip pivot" ought to occur in M.A.C. as well... But "is" not paradox. What about a bit of consistency?!

So, if you're interested in theoretical aspects of freestyle, or if you just wish to be able to communicate moves more precisly, I've uploaded it to my .org:

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

Psilocybe · Post by **Psilocybe** » 27 May 2007 16:36

Your notation should definitely replace Jobs.

gMoney · Post by **gMoney** » 29 May 2007 15:26

I remember reading a thread about the possibility of having a notation that was like a formula and could be used on a computer program to show what the move looked like. If there was a notation like that, it would definately open a new door for new tricks and stuff.

Ha, I just had a flashback to that TV show Rocket Power where that one Sam kid puts skateboard moves into a computer and invents some "Super McVarialTwist 900" or something like that and he tells that one kid with the hair that it's impossible to do but he ends up doing it with a tennis ball or something. I miss that show and stuff. Ok, end of flashback.

But yeah, maybe we can't do that now, but in the future, who knows. I guess for now the only possible solution would be to make a list of all the moves and their notations, then you could like search a move or enter a notation and see what the move for the notation is or what it would look like, or something. So pretty much record an existing move and what it looks like, then name it and add the notation, so if people don't know what trick they're hitting, they can search it or something. It may sound kind of stupid now, but maybe it'll snowball.

RRendsvig · Post by **RRendsvig** » 01 Jun 2007 13:43

It's not that I don't think it would be nice to have such a visualizer program, but I must admit, that is not why I have made this notation.

And, basicly, if you understand the language, you don't need videos to show you the meaning of the expressions. You ought to be able to visualize whatever you can come up with in notation, and, from own experience, the process goes the other way round.

In Job's original paper on his notation, he does define a recursive syntax to make a complete list of freestyle moves -- that is Not my errand. The best way to open a door to new tricks and stuff, in my mind, is good and creative players, not a combinatorial computer program.

I'm more interested in the theoretical aspects of freestyle, the problem of objective difficulty and stuff like that. It'd sure be mighty fine to have a video-generator, but there are so many freestyle movies out there that blow my mind already, so I don't really need it.

Sorry for sounding harsh, but I'd rather have this thread forgotten than turned into ... yeah, what it seems to me it was about to turn into.

gMoney · Post by **gMoney** » 01 Jun 2007 15:05

That makes sense. I was just expanding on what Psilocybe was saying. Sorry about that. I went through it, and yes, it is confusing. The one thing that Job's notation has over yours is how conventional and easy to use/read it is. Yours explains moves a little better and in more detail, but CLIP > SAME OUT [DEX] > SAME OUT [DEX] > OP CLIP [XBD] [DEL] is a lot easier to read and comprehend (especially for beginners) than Clip>[p120]>opOut(pgo,oo)/p120>opClip. I do applaud you for thinking it through so much and putting so much time and effort into your new notation. I'm not literally applauding, but I'm clapping the hands that are in my brain

janis · Post by **janis** » 01 Jun 2007 17:54

very interesting notation, looks like you put some serious time/effort into this.

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 01 Jun 2007 18:38

I'm assuming this was what was posted on footbag.org, right?

I haven't had a chance to look at in detail, just a quick overview so I con't speak to its content that much.
But speaking to the aims of this notation stated above, to me the theoretical aspects of footbag and the search for objective difficulty are only really relevent to competition judging. To players all that matters is subjective difficulty and personal aesthetic preference, and its too ttechnical to base competition parameters on, it's far more fruitful to base those things on more general measures of representative testing and building a spectacle for an audience.
With this in mind I think this sort of exercise offers a good way to build knowledge about footbag, but because judging demands quick decisions, it could not be more directly useful. That said, the knowledge building it may provide is nothing to be sneezed at, and I look forward to reading it closely (unfortunately it will be quite a while before I have the time.) There is definitly a place for this sort of theoretical consideration of footbag as a means of training for judges.

RRendsvig · Post by **RRendsvig** » 02 Jun 2007 04:03

@ Dyalander: I agree, at least to some extent. Wrt competitions, I see no reason why should not be based on "Objective Difficulity", but this again is assuming that such a concept can be made. I'm not sure it can, but at least we can try to describe moves... What moves then are Better is a question to which I'm not sure the answer has a truth value.
In my mind, if judging is not based upon, as you said, subjective aesthetics etc., and the legitimacy of an Objective Scale is removed, the whole enterprise of Judging seems in dire trouble.
Yet nit seems to be working anyway... The wonders of the human mind -- clapping hands and all.

@ gMoney: it's cool. Again, sorry for sounding harsh.
And I definatly see your point -- I wrote the text during late nights, and I can't tell you how many times I got so confused I didn't know what I was doing.
In defence: The notation is not made for beginners. There is so much footbag terminology out there, and meeting a rookie, I wouldn't tell him that the move just done was a Muted Stepping Far Osis, but just call it a Torque for now, and start the learning project slowly.
So yes, Job's is far easier. But if with Job's you need to learn more things: You need to understand CLIP > SAME OUT [DEX] > SAME OUT [DEX] > OP CLIP [XBD] [DEL] as A Barfly in the example you gave above, but it'd might as well be a Nuclear Same Butterfly, a "Double Nuclear" Clipper, a Nuclear Reverse Whirl, a Double Reverse Whirl...

kyle · Post by **kyle** » 02 Jun 2007 16:49

Wow, and i thought Multivariable Calculous was hard.

I applaud your effort and thinking, but such a complex notation will likely never be understood by enough of the footbag community to matter.

So yes, Job's is far easier. But if with Job's you need to learn more things: You need to understand CLIP > SAME OUT [DEX] > SAME OUT [DEX] > OP CLIP [XBD] [DEL] as A Barfly in the example you gave above, but it'd might as well be a Nuclear Same Butterfly, a "Double Nuclear" Clipper, a Nuclear Reverse Whirl, a Double Reverse Whirl...

The system we have works great for describing common moves. And to back that statement up, the notation quoted above is nothing but poor jobs as far as i'm concerned. Jobs should include ">>" when the bag peaks to separate downtime components from uptime components, and a reverse whirl should simply be described as "SAME REV WHIRL [DEX]", not just "SAME OUT [DEX]". Jobs does what it was designed to do, quickly describe a move. It is not meant to show if your atomic is leggy or hippy. Unusual moves are best be left to text descriptions, not a calculous formula or some huge computer program.

While i'm at it a should mention that today, concepts like paradox are usefull for beginers and beginers only. Sure we could get rid of 'paradox' altogether to satify Uber sweet sackers, but then beginers wouldn't have that nice add system to cling on to as they progress. Pardox mirage is simply a nice step forward from mirage. X-dex on the other hand is for Uber sweet sackers that still haven't grown out of their dypers (the add system).

Peace out,
Maurice

RRendsvig · Post by **RRendsvig** » 04 Jun 2007 02:30

True. The '>>' mark was blatenty ignored above.
And I do see the point in having the ADD-system to cling to, on the other hand I see at as unneccesary. Footbag is the only trick-oriented sport I know that has such a measurement system, and the others manage anyways.
It should be obvious to even rookies why PDx Mirage is a step up from Mirage. It's a different move, and I'm not arguing that the name should be changed.
[For judging technical disciplines, I don't think the ADD-system can be dispenced with, but I am arguing for a little consistency.
As mentioned in the first post, I believe Muted Atomic Clipper "is as paradox" as Pdx Mirage, but if people do not think "it is worth 4 adds" then it should be made explicit that the ADD-system has absolutely Nothing to do with what is being done in moves, but merely a Wholly Subjective assignment of Difficulity Points to moves, assigned by The Authorities of Footbag. But this has something to do with the ADD-system, not with Job's notation: the add-boxes does not add to it's expressability.]

And, scondly, this notation is not That hard.
Once you start adding stuff to Job's such as '>>' and Whirl/Swirl indicators, you soon reach the notation I've proposed. I just add a marker for body rotation, a marker for whether or not dexes are full or only half, and a marker for whether or not you can "fall" into a dex or not... Basicly Job's with a couple of more details, and that's it.
And then the ADD-boxes are left out of course.

Wrt. whether unusual moves are best left to text-descriptions, I disagree. A good formalization is nothing but an abriviation of natural language, except the concepts used needs to be more clear. And, as stated above, in this notation Gyro Jughandle can be formalized as:
Clip > [p180] > sIn(pgo, o)/p300 > sToe
which translates into:
Set from Clipper, backspin untill the bag is in the dex area, dex in to out (you here have the opportunity to fall into the dex (pgo), which is only half ('o' for Opposite; the dex ends when the bag has reched the opposite side of the leg)) and while you dex, continue to spin in the same direction for another 300 degrees untill the bag is at Clipper-position, and stall it there on a regular toe.
(If you want, you could add more degrees to the second spin, and stall in a regular toe-position. Or you could add 120 degrees after the stall, marking that the stall is being made in a fraky place, but is being dragged back to the regular toe-position. There might be a scooping-element that's being ignored here. And, of course, the plants. There is not gyro marker currently, but adding footwork was too much for starters...)