Sklep Session

Rainman · Post by **Rainman** » 16 Oct 2008 19:46

Many swirling style mistakes. Most of the swirling sets seemed very thin. Even I can do a better swirling set and I suck! Other than that, the other tricks seemed good. Edit: And I thing you can do a better swirling set too. I have seen some of your other videos where your swirl looked very deep.

Lycanthrope · Post by **Lycanthrope** » 16 Oct 2008 19:54

Rainman wrote:Many style mistakes. Most of the swirling sets seemed very thin. Even I can do a better swirling set and I suck! Other than that, the other tricks seemed pretty good.

my ass. prove it.

Rainman · Post by **Rainman** » 16 Oct 2008 19:59

I dont think that I have to prove that I suck. But I am not the only one who thought that the swirling set was a bit thin...

Lycanthrope · Post by **Lycanthrope** » 16 Oct 2008 20:22

i did read the rest of the forum. thank you.

not that you suck. prove that you have a better swirling set than honza. and even if you do, which i doubt, you don't have to be a douchebag about it.

who even is this? you're required by administrators of this forum to post your full name in your signature.

Rainman · Post by **Rainman** » 16 Oct 2008 21:02

Thanks Lycanthrope,
I cant help but notice that your full name is missing from your response to my response, which complains that I have not submitted my full name in my response. Wait, where am I?
Lets not take ourselves too seriously. If I am not mistaken, we kicked for a bit in CSS? But if any trick appears thin, then its thin. If you have to do slo-mo at 1000 frames per second to tell that its not thin, then you have lost the point of the whole thing. Send me your email address, I will send you a clip where I do a deeper swirling set.
Remember, name calling is the last resort for the weak of mind...Like it or not

Lycanthrope · Post by **Lycanthrope** » 16 Oct 2008 21:08

Rainman wrote:Thanks Lycanthrope,
I cant help but notice that your full name is missing from your response to my response, which complains that I have not submitted my full name in my response. Wait, where am I?
Lets not take ourselves too seriously. If I am not mistaken, we kicked for a bit in CSS? But if any trick appears thin, then its thin. If you have to do slo-mo at 1000 frames per second to tell that its not thin, then you have lost the point of the whole thing. Send me your email address, I will send you a clip where I do a deeper swirling set.
Remember, name calling is the last resort for the weak of mind...Like it or not

my name is in my signature, where it is supposed to be. lol. what complains? your writing doesn't make any sense. I don't know where you are.

I don't know if we kicked at CSS because i don't know who this is. despite if i think that his tricks were clean or not, it doesn't mean you have to go around insulting people with harsh tone and negative connotation.

i don't care if i'm considered weak minded by you. you're being a silly little man.

Lycanthrope6@aol.com
enlighten me...

Milan · Post by **Milan** » 16 Oct 2008 21:50

Rainman: Hey men wake up are you normal?

Rainman · Post by **Rainman** » 16 Oct 2008 22:06

Nice edit to post your name in there after the fact, evan.
Videos have been sent.
And if a set is thin, then its thin, whether its from a vasek video or a clavens video, etc.

Rainman · Post by **Rainman** » 16 Oct 2008 23:11

From Evans email response: (Not that anyone cares)

Evan:

i would like more swirling tricks please. the swirling osis is not at an adequate angle to judge the cleanliness. also honza's tricks were much more difficult than your swirling osis. since you wish to push the sport, i challenge you to do a cleaner swirling farside legover than him in that video.

evan

Eriks response: (Not that anyone cares)

the swirling set is the only thing in question, as is clear from my posts on modified.Be man enough to admit that you overstated your claims...on modified. Where you were clearly man enough to question my claims. Can you honestly say that honzas swirling sets were immaculate? Why are you so eager to defend a sloppy set? It does no justice to the sport. If a set is sloppy, then its sloppy, no matter who performs the set. Criticism is part of an artistically judged sport. I can debate this for ages with you, bottom line: can you admit you were wrong? I guess I will have to post another swirling set on youtube that I have done, the file size is larger than the 10 MB permitted from yahoo or I would send it to you (in addition to the others), I hesitate to post this onto modified as I have already posted this video to modified. Of course, you are welcome to post the smaller videos I have sent to you via email onto modified and ask for a poll....
EdE
I will send you another youtube link shortly.

Muffinman · Post by **Muffinman** » 17 Oct 2008 04:08

Chill. It's just hacky.

Rainman · Post by **Rainman** » 17 Oct 2008 06:10

Sound advice.

shredzilla · Post by **shredzilla** » 17 Oct 2008 07:34

Haha this video is insane! I've never seen half of this stuff on film. The ripstein>revstein was definitely my favorite part. It was just such a perfect link to hit amongst all the rest of the insanity. The other cool one was double blender>double twirl? That combo looked neat. I was pissed cuz I couldn't get this vid to work on my home machine, I'm glad I finally got a chance to see it. You rock.

Lycanthrope · Post by **Lycanthrope** » 17 Oct 2008 08:12

now who is taking things too seriously? lol.

i don't think the point is just the swirling set. the set's difficulty also depends on the tricks after due to the speed and accuracy you must accomplish with the set. a furious set must be much faster to accomplish a clown face than to hit a jani so the speed for the set might hinder the cleanliness.

and i stand by my claims. regardless if i'm 'man enough' for whatever.

Webslinger · Post by **Webslinger** » 17 Oct 2008 11:59

Dear Rainman, I have no idea who you are or how is your game and so it is hard to give a proper reply. As I said here before not even slow motion helped to really see the cleaness of the moves, so it is OK to say that the moves were thin/the, but I also said they really were clean (well, I saw it from a much closer distance and trust me I can recognise an unclean move after those several years I have spent playing footbag). So if we suppose I am not lying, which of course I am not (if you still think I am, think of the advantage I would get...hmm... well... maybe a bit more respect from few people on this forum...), I don't really see the point.
This kind of high swirling set is simply done always like this and it is completely different technique than low set like for an osis...
I know this is a forum for discussing stuff and also I am very glad when someone gives me any useful advise, but when you are some kind of new player you should not be a bigmouth...
If you still think you are right could you possibly explain me those many swirling style mistakes, thanks...

I guess I should really practise the set now, so I will not embarrass myself on the tournaments

Post by **Zac Miley** » 17 Oct 2008 12:24

I just think it was a really small swirling set, so it was hard to tell that it was at first. Similar to Sailing and Frantic, sort of. They just look like a harder quantum or atomic, really.

I doubt it's the. It's probably slurry and rolls from your foot, but that's the best way to do a swirling set. Similar to how surging is slurry.

At least your swirling set is practical, eh?

Rainman · Post by **Rainman** » 17 Oct 2008 20:28

Big Mouth? That is absolutely hilarious. I havent heard that term in a long time and it made me laugh for about 15 minutes. It is of course fairly true. But I certainly dont use my big mouth against others moreso than myself. The style mistakes I referred to were the swirling sets.
And thanks for posting your videos on public forums without trying to charge money for them, webby.
Evan, best of luck with your footbag aspirations...

Jack Stutler · Post by **Jack Stutler** » 17 Oct 2008 21:49

yo, i really like your style man. video was nuts.