X-Dex

bigdirtyfoot · Post by **bigdirtyfoot** » 23 May 2002 16:06

Do you guys think we should implement this into the adds system? Do you think the adds system needs a complete re-vamping? Hmmm... wow.

Muffinman · Post by **Muffinman** » 23 May 2002 18:06

the system is fine as it is. it'll never be perfected coz there will always be exceptions to the rules.

the_lost · Post by **the_lost** » 23 May 2002 18:58

im not really sure what x-dex is...

Bono · Post by **Bono** » 23 May 2002 21:08

Could someone explain to me why we even need a scoring system? I mean, people like you and me can see what moves are hard in a routine, and we know when one person has shredded harder and more gracefully in a run. The purpose of the add system is to determine difficulty, right? Well, it sure doesn't do that too well. Not to dis the system, because the fact is, as Erik said, there will always be exception in a sport/artform as subjective and varying as Footbag. And if you start trying to work all of those exceptions in to the scoring system (as x-dex does) eventually you're going to end up with a scoring system so complicated it kills the sport.

But then, I've been known to be full of crap when I try to make a point late at night.

So yeah. Somebody tell me why we need the add system.

the_lost · Post by **the_lost** » 24 May 2002 03:33

i will not vote till someone tells me what "x-dex" is!

max · Post by **max** » 24 May 2002 04:04

hey I'm tuff, I've heard a lot of explanations and exceptions and such concerning x-dex. It can flare debates like the old paradox one... Anyway, here's how I understand it. Imagine the bag had a laser beam going straight through it from the ground up (so it's vertical forming 90% with the floor and passing through the bag).
Right, now if your feet/legs cross that beam "completly" (I'll get to that) 4 times you get an x-dex "bonus add" for the trick.
Here's what I mean by crossing the imaginary beam:
imagine a mirage:
- you set from one foot (nothing has crossed the beam yet)
- your other leg goes under the bag crossing the beam once (1)
- that same leg comes back over the bag crossing the beam again (2)
- you catch it on the initial foot.

You crossed the beam twice.. so no X-dex.

Now imagine toe-set-barrage. It's basically a double mirage, so by reasoning the same way, you cross that beam 4 times! YAY! you get an X-dex making toe-set-barrage a 4 add move and not a " add (which seems fair).

Here are some moves that get an X-dex:
- triple round the world (double atw doesn't)
- atom smasher

I hope that helped. Oh and fairies/pixies are only considered as crossing the beam ONCE.

I'm not 100% sure about all this so anyone, feel free to correct me.

IMO: I think it's a tad too complicated to be brought into judging.

Muffinman · Post by **Muffinman** » 24 May 2002 10:27

you can also check out my faq on xdex.
faq

Jonathan · Post by **Jonathan** » 24 May 2002 17:49

Thanks Max, you're the only person who has made the x-dex clear to me.

Matt · Post by **Matt** » 24 May 2002 21:18

I think that would be useful. We can all see how hard atom smasher is and should get more adds.

The easiest example is barrage and clipper set barrage. Barrage is harder, and therefor if it got the xdex - justification!!

the_lost · Post by **the_lost** » 25 May 2002 04:01

cool thanks. now i can sleep at night. someone told me what x-dex was once but i didnt understand. i always thought moves from the toe, if hard enough should get an add of some sort. like atomsmasher and toe barrage. atomsmasher never was really that hard for me to do, one day i just did it, i just thought 3 adds was good enough, but i was watching a guy try it here in KC and i thought "its harder then i thought!"

Bono · Post by **Bono** » 30 May 2002 21:10

I've been trying to figure X-dex into my scoring (hey if they're going to make it more complicated I'd better figure it out early) and I was wondering whether head dexterities get "beam-passes" for x-dex. Because the way I see it...

Ducking crosses the beam once.
Diving crosses the beam twice.
Weaving crosses the beam twice.
Zulu crosses the beam three times.

I might have Zulu and Weaving mixed up... I believe Zulu is diving op and weaving is ducking same. Correct?

Anyways, if they counted toward the X-dex, diving mirage would get x-dex but ducking mirae doesn't. Zulu butterfly gets x-dex but diving butterfly doesn't.

It all makes sense to me. This would be giving the significantly harder moves the extra add. Right?

Muffinman · Post by **Muffinman** » 30 May 2002 21:12

except ducks are body adds, not dexterities. a move needs at least 2 dexes to be xdex.

Bono · Post by **Bono** » 30 May 2002 21:34

Ok. But I was thinking that Zulu Warrior, for example, seems to deserve one more add than Ripped Warrior, just because there's so much more speedy head action involved, and more going around the bag. X-dex would give it that add.

Muffinman · Post by **Muffinman** » 30 May 2002 21:37

shouldnt toe blizzard, then, get more adds than dimwalk? the add system will never be completely fair. it cant be. no law is ever perfect.

Bono · Post by **Bono** » 31 May 2002 11:29

Yeah, you're right. Footbag is probably too subjective to ever have an entirely fair and accurate scoring system.
Still, its good to try to be as accurate as possible. You're right about the toeblizzard/dimwalk thing. There's always exceptions.

Just bust phat, people.

Crazylegs · Post by **Crazylegs** » 04 Aug 2002 20:47

I'd have to say that Bono has the right idea in that judging should be more of the judges interpretation of the dificulity of the move rather than using the components of a move to call it more difficult than another. Becasue truthfully there is no way, unless we rated each specfic move with a dificulity rating to have a set system. No matter how we rate things, certain moves will be hard and they will be hard for the vast majority of the players. Judges and players know this and will give props accordingly. Also another thing that comes into play is hitting combos. I could hit ripwalk to pdx whirl and call it a 4add combo, but if I hit a toe blur to quantum rev. mirage I'd give my self a big fucking gold metal (paradon my french). And I do think we opperate that way already. We just to remind ourselfs that the add system only measures comonets and does not dictate difficulty in any respect. But I do think we're getting closer to the idea with concepts like 'tripless' and 'guiltless'. So keep those legs flailing.

bob · Post by **bob** » 05 Aug 2002 09:49

i believe that it is conversations like this that was the main cause of the implementing the new judging system at worlds. it took too many countless hours to discuss all this and everyone just keeps coming back to the same solution that the add system isn't perfect. that's why at worlds they are just going to have certain judges judge certain things. i read the post a long time ago but i think that was how they were doing it this year. kinda like ice skating style of holding up cards. anyways i agree with bono as well but i don't think we should just throw out the add system (not that that is what he said) cause i still think it is a good way to clarify how hard a move was.

dan · Post by **dan** » 05 Aug 2002 11:30

damn, the add system IS NOT to clarify how hard a move is! it is simply showing you what movements you have to do to perform this trick(and there is trouble too; hippy leggy dex?) and the elements counted for the category adds. nothing more and nothing less.never the difficulty of a trick.(noone can be that silly to think that performing one additional is harder than performing five of them within 1 single trick motion

)

madshred2003 · Post by **madshred2003** » 05 Aug 2002 14:58

haha good point. butterfly is 4 adds. and it's quite simple. bubba is 2 adds and i think it's really tough!

so yes. add system=moves to do for tricks. period. but wouldn't you agree that bigapplesauce is harder by far then ohhh say, clipper? you should say yes. i think with most cases, higher add does mean a hard trick. but then again that's just me...

HackMaverick · Post by **HackMaverick** » 05 Aug 2002 16:16

hmmm i understand madshred but oh wait butterfly is 3 adds hahahahahaa

X-Dex

Do you think we should use x-dex in jobs and stuff?

X-Dex

adds shmadds