"The" Ducks: which way is worse?

Outsider · Post by **Outsider** » 24 Dec 2005 19:14

The way I see it, Ducks can be done badly in two major ways: you can set the bag too high above your neck, or too far forward.

Which do you think is worse?

Personally, I think too far forward is worse than too high. If the bag is too high, well, its not a tight move, but at least you're still ducking under something. Set it too far forward, though, and you might make the motion of ducking, but you can't really be said to be ducking under something if the something (the bag) isn't somewhere above you.

Its all a matter of degree, I suppose, and a couple inches too far forward probably isn't as bad as two feet too high, but if the degree of error were roughly equal, I'd rather the bag were too high.

I don't really think you can be too far back behind you. Well, you could be, but if the bag travels over your shoulders or upper back I'd say its still good (though a bit unorthodox), as long as you are ducking your body under the bag.

mosher · Post by **mosher** » 24 Dec 2005 19:17

Ducks can also be too low in that the person has to hunch low to get under a bad set.

I think it all falls into the category of 'bad'.

I just aim for clean.

David Morawski · Post by **David Morawski** » 24 Dec 2005 19:17

I'd agree that, between those two choices, setting too high would be better than too far forward...for the same reason. If you are setting it too far forward, then your dex is going to be the.

However, what about setting it too low/too far to one side, so your body moves with the dex. That'd be pretty ugly.

BalinorNZ · Post by **BalinorNZ** » 24 Dec 2005 19:47

Yeah too far forward is worse. The reason we care if things are the is because it can be easier to do a move the. As far as the 'theness' of too high or too far forward, it's easier to do a ducking clip with the set too far forward because there is less chance of it touching you, but if it's just too high, it can even be harder to judge the timing coming down, and it still goes past both sides of your head so is harder than if you set too far forward and simply miss the duck... I think.

shreddaily · Post by **shreddaily** » 24 Dec 2005 20:08

I LIKE THIS TOPIC!!! mainly because not many people call the ducks... YAY

Anyway I would have to disagree with the above posts. Too high looks the ugliest to me. In my opinion if the bag passes over the apex of one head(where men go bald) its not that good but atleast it looks pretty clean, at least from straight on. However when there is considerable height above the head its easy to see the problem...
so a tight "balding" duck is better than a 5 inch high neck duck in my opinion...I also don't have a problem with people "ducking" for there ducks after a set and in some instances such as spinning ducking, a slight bed forward looks good. (rikky moran style).
further more a completely missed duck(ie ducking motion but the bag is in front of the balding area) is just a missed duck or simply realy high set.

Personaly I like my ducks simerred in butter for half an hour, or roling over the neck.

sampotter · Post by **sampotter** » 24 Dec 2005 20:15

I like really tight ducks but... A clean duck is one that goes at the least no further out than the bottom of your ears. Ideally I think it should go close to around your neck. While tight ducks are cool, for some moves too tight of a duck is completely unrealisitic. Moves like tomahawk or ducking paradox torque need a looser duck for the downtime component that follows. Moves like ducking butterfly or ducking paradox mirage don't really since the downtime component is easily executable... argh ducks are such a science... Tight, but not necessarily grazing the neck, and at least below your ears. To me that is a clean duck.

Anz · Post by **Anz** » 25 Dec 2005 00:18

shreddaily wrote:mainly because not many people call the ducks... YAY

True. I do call them and some people whine me about that. WTF?

Lauri · Post by **Lauri** » 25 Dec 2005 02:10

my ducks are sometimes too far forward. many people have said i need to clean them and thats true

HooD · Post by **HooD** » 25 Dec 2005 06:57

I guess it all depends on the variable of how high or far forward it's going, but in general, I think it's all about height control. I hate seeing really high sets, that usually means everything else is a bit out of control. Really high set = too much effort to ducking = bad technique = improper balance = bag falling at a faster rate = more difficult downtime component = hard to link to next trick and potential for more bad technique !!! hahahaha...I guess that is a bit farfetched, but somewhat true !!!

dazza · Post by **dazza** » 25 Dec 2005 08:25

HooD wrote:I guess it all depends on the variable of how high or far forward it's going, but in general, I think it's all about height control. I hate seeing really high sets, that usually means everything else is a bit out of control. Really high set = too much effort to ducking = bad technique = improper balance = bag falling at a faster rate = more difficult downtime component = hard to link to next trick and potential for more bad technique !!! hahahaha...I guess that is a bit farfetched, but somewhat true !!!

It is true . In our latest video, i thed many ducks that way, and it was
just as you descibed it, the mirage
after the duck looked shitty as well. Fortunatly, nobody in my team
is afraid to call the, be it ducks or dexes, and i for my part really
appreciate that, since it helps to
get a higher percentage of clean
tricks.
So which way of a the duck is worse?
Too high=unclean, too forward= no duck, but as Tom said, we should avoid both of these and aim 4 cleanliness, so i voted either way .

Outsider · Post by **Outsider** » 26 Dec 2005 18:14

mosher said:

Ducks can also be too low in that the person has to hunch low to get under a bad set.

I disagree, Tom. In fact, I'm glad you brought this up, 'cause its something else I'd like to bitch about: some people set their ducks high enough that they barely have to bob their head a little bit to get under it. I don't like it. I think I've never seen a duck that was TOO LOW, but I've seen penty that went around the neck cleanly and yet still barely qualify as a DUCK.

In general, I think ducks should be nice and low, just like flyers should be nice and high. The point of a jumping kick is to make a nice big jump and get some big air. Similarly, the point of a duck isn't simply that the bag goes over your head. If that were all we wanted out of the move, we might as well just be doing rainbow kicks. No, rather, the point of ducks is to add that physical element to our game of altering our stance, really ducking down underneath the bag, not just putting the bag over us. Duck low.

"The" Ducks: which way is worse?

Which is the bigger sin?

"The" Ducks: which way is worse?