Another snowboarding quad

Posts: 9292 - Karma: 60,983

Karma: 60,983

Posts: 9292

Crazy Fool

The referenced post has been removed.

i don't know, it wasn't my favorite thing ive ever seen but i dont understand the knee jerk negativity to it. aerialist don't take off switch or grab. and that wasn't the most stylish thing ever but it was stomped as hell and really not even that hucked...

people talk about quads vs style (or dubs vs style or trips vs style) like skiing/snowboarding is some zero sum game. everybody can do whatever they want and drawing a line in the sand is arbitrary, and just as limiting/close minded as the silly contest rules that pushed people to freeskiing

Apr 20 2015 3:26PM

7 3

Posts: 51644 - Karma: 162,266

Karma: 162,266

Posts: 51644

Play Ball

The referenced post has been removed.

Meh, fuck this shit. It's the same as people trying to max out on axis spins.

It's progression. Just because people throw quad corks doesn't mean suddenly nobody in skiing will have any style and that slopestyle will be 3 HUGE jumps with only triples and quads being thrown. There has been a big resurgence in style. Maybe there will be comps that are just huck fests but there will still be plenty of people getting stylish out there. People hated so hard on triples but look how much they cleaned up doubles. Now some of the dubs out there are so fucking stylish you'd had to hate anything fun to not be down with them. All this really did is show what is truly possible on a snowboard, and in all honestly will open up the door to even more stylish, single, double, triples in the future.

If you could throw a quad you'd do it, and you'd be stoked even if it was the sketchiest spin ever. That was actually extremely clean, grab the whole way, no wobbling at all, opened up perfectly to float in and stomp the piss out of it.

IMO some of you guys are trying too hard to be haters.

Apr 20 2015 3:33PM

27 3

Drail

Posts: 14012 - Karma: 10,010

Karma: 10,010

Posts: 14012

Crazy Fool

"I'd rather see someone throw a triple with style than a quad". There's a statement I didn't think would be an option for a few years. Haha.

Apr 20 2015 3:40PM

17 0

Posts: 4695 - Karma: 6,502

Karma: 6,502

Posts: 4695

No Life

Everyone that hates on this can go fuck themselves. If you think cork 5s are cooler than quads, then go do fucking cork 5s. Nobody gives a shit. Have fun on your goddamn skis or board and stop giving a fuck about the ways other people are having fun. You anti-huck folk are doing way more damage to the sport than the people going out there and doing quads. By criticizing spin to win YOU are causing a split in the sport, not the people doing crazy shit. If we could just accept that there's more than one way to have fun on skis we could all be one happy family. Instead we sit around on our computers arguing about what should be cool. Just stop the fucking hating, it isn't doing any good.

Apr 20 2015 3:53PM

10 3

Holte

Posts: 10740 - Karma: 7,814

Karma: 7,814

Posts: 10740

Crazy Fool

Quad backflip to late 90.

Apr 20 2015 3:57PM

14 3

Mr.noodle

Posts: 1361 - Karma: 4,651

Karma: 4,651

Posts: 1361

Insane

Different opinion coming through!
Why is everyone getting so mad about it? It was bound to happen I don't see how anyone didn't see it coming. Also Quads will probably not be thrown in competitions for a while too because they need specially made jumps. I think optimisally about it as progressing the sport and I personally think it's pretty cool

Apr 20 2015 4:00PM

3 2

Posts: 4695 - Karma: 6,502

Karma: 6,502

Posts: 4695

No Life

HolteQuad backflip to late 90.

AKA a quad underflip 16...

Apr 20 2015 4:10PM

4 4

will_powder

Posts: 3194 - Karma: 5,445

Karma: 5,445

Posts: 3194

Addict

Basically 4 backflips

Apr 20 2015 4:16PM

2 1

Posts: 51644 - Karma: 162,266

Karma: 162,266

Posts: 51644

Play Ball

The referenced post has been removed.

Have you ever actually watched aerials or are you just talking out of your ass? Aerials is basically trampolines with skis and only backward rotations. Nobody is throwing iron crosses in aerials, it's all about keep your body tight and on that perfect axis. I did gymnastics as a kid and diving in highschool, that was something that I struggled with sometimes, getting all weird in the park, and then having to be all perfectly on axis, in form in diving.

Sure the more they're trying to cork, the more likely they are to come close to that straight axis with spins but it's not the end of the world.

The rail issue is something I've posted before. Recently the scores seem to matter more in some contests but this has been around long before trips were out there. Even if the big trick was a 1080 people were playing it fairly safe on the rails and then unleashing their big spins on the jumps to win. It's an issue but IMO doesn't have anything to do with this quad "issue".

So because you're afraid to double, triple, quad, it's bad for other people to do it? That's like me saying people shouldn't do 3 swaps because not everyone else will be able to do them.
There's nothing wrong with you being afraid to throw a dub on the tramp, but there's nothing wrong with somebody else wanting to learn dubs and trips.

There's nothing wrong with somebody not wanting to spin beyond 5 and only 2 out of rails rarely, just cruising, at the same time there's nothing wrong with somebody wanting to learn 810s out.

There have been some newer events popping up, peace pipe, b&e, etc where everything's mellowed out a bit. I feel like we might see more of these, maybe even more contest oriented in the future. Unique setups, and lots of style.

Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if fear of triples becoming a necessary thing to win prompted wise to say all that more than not wanting to do triples "because it's bad for the sport". I mean the thought of tripling in the pipe is nuts, that's some real scary shit, so I can't blame him, but I hate that somebody would call the people progressing the sport "irresponsible" "bad for the sport" etc just because they don't want to feel like they have to learn a new trick to keep up.

Probably a super unpopular opinion but whatever.

Apr 20 2015 5:02PM

7 1

FSKP

Posts: 332 - Karma: 2,214

Karma: 2,214

Posts: 332

Loner

2016 Winter x games big air winning trick.
I see this coming ahaha!

For the ones who hates, just keep your comments for yourself, it's progression.
Quad are dangerous as F**k but thats the progression. I'm tired of seeing dub 10 mute ahah!

Apr 20 2015 5:08PM

1 2

Posts: 4695 - Karma: 6,502

Karma: 6,502

Posts: 4695

No Life

theabortionatorHave you ever actually watched aerials or are you just talking out of your ass? Aerials is basically trampolines with skis and only backward rotations. Nobody is throwing iron crosses in aerials, it's all about keep your body tight and on that perfect axis. I did gymnastics as a kid and diving in highschool, that was something that I struggled with sometimes, getting all weird in the park, and then having to be all perfectly on axis, in form in diving.

Sure the more they're trying to cork, the more likely they are to come close to that straight axis with spins but it's not the end of the world.

The rail issue is something I've posted before. Recently the scores seem to matter more in some contests but this has been around long before trips were out there. Even if the big trick was a 1080 people were playing it fairly safe on the rails and then unleashing their big spins on the jumps to win. It's an issue but IMO doesn't have anything to do with this quad "issue".

So because you're afraid to double, triple, quad, it's bad for other people to do it? That's like me saying people shouldn't do 3 swaps because not everyone else will be able to do them.
There's nothing wrong with you being afraid to throw a dub on the tramp, but there's nothing wrong with somebody else wanting to learn dubs and trips.

There's nothing wrong with somebody not wanting to spin beyond 5 and only 2 out of rails rarely, just cruising, at the same time there's nothing wrong with somebody wanting to learn 810s out.

There have been some newer events popping up, peace pipe, b&e, etc where everything's mellowed out a bit. I feel like we might see more of these, maybe even more contest oriented in the future. Unique setups, and lots of style.

Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if fear of triples becoming a necessary thing to win prompted wise to say all that more than not wanting to do triples "because it's bad for the sport". I mean the thought of tripling in the pipe is nuts, that's some real scary shit, so I can't blame him, but I hate that somebody would call the people progressing the sport "irresponsible" "bad for the sport" etc just because they don't want to feel like they have to learn a new trick to keep up.

Probably a super unpopular opinion but whatever.

Thank you. Really off topic on the rails thing but this year and even the past few years rails have been getting way more important. We've started seeing guys like Alex Bellemare consistently beating guys like Bobby Brown even though their jump tricks have been pretty much the same.

Apr 20 2015 5:12PM

1 0

IBAM

Posts: 1954 - Karma: 2,351

Karma: 2,351

Posts: 1954

Insane

How are people hating on this? It's so sick to see the progression. Do people honestly believe that people doing quads will suck all of the creativity out of out sport? It's not as if people aren't already robotic on competition- the sport can continue to progress in both technicality and style at the same time. There will always be people who want to throw quads, and there will always be people who will just lay out cork 3s and blind 2s all day.

I just want to see a skier quad!

Apr 20 2015 5:13PM

3 0

Posts: 2447 - Karma: 5,628

Karma: 5,628

Posts: 2447

Addict

NachowhoaApparently he was men't to do the first quad! The jump was built for him as well, but monster messed up on insurance. And he wasn't allowed to hit the jump so Billy did it first!

No, if it is the same jump it's the 9 knights jump with most of the cool stuff taken away from it.

Source: http://whitelines.com/features/interviews/billy-morgan-landing-quad.html#0VOTsxMTm7JDSJf7.97

Apr 20 2015 5:30PM

0 0

Julius_Steezer

Posts: 776 - Karma: 4,536

Karma: 4,536

Posts: 776

Ridiculous

*DUMBCAN*No, if it is the same jump it's the 9 knights jump with most of the cool stuff taken away from it.

Source: http://whitelines.com/features/interviews/billy-morgan-landing-quad.html#0VOTsxMTm7JDSJf7.97

Yeah they're separate jumps. Billy's was the 9 knights one with a bit more pop whereas Maxence threw his in Whistler

Apr 20 2015 6:07PM

0 0

FUUUCK

Posts: 18426 - Karma: 4,888

Karma: 4,888

Posts: 18426

Post Whore

Max is an absolute machine, congrats to him!

Apr 20 2015 6:33PM

4 0

Burgy

Posts: 414 - Karma: 630

Karma: 630

Posts: 414

Ridiculous

I see a lot of people complaining about quads turning freeskiing into aerials or how freeskiing is becoming a bunch of hucked out robotic triples and that there is not enough style. At the same time I see a lot of people criticizing the progression of style in freeskiing by bashing videos because there are not enough K-feds, have to much afterbang or not enough dangerous tricks. I don't think people realize that the only constant is change. The concept of freeskiing is not stagnant and clear like a lake, it is like a river, constantly flowing, growing and at some point it will split apart. Freeskiing is definitely not what it use to be and if it hasn't already, freeskiing will branch off into different directions, just like ski jumping, ski cross, aerials, and moguls have done from their respected origins. In my opinion freeskiing has already split. Freeskiing consists of Park skiing, Urban skiing, All-mountain freestyle, Back country freestyle, Big-mountain freestyle, Big Air, Slopestyle, Half Pipe, the Comp scene, the Film scene, and many other divisions; these days its difficult to keep track. Its confusing that all of these dimensions of freeskiing all fit under the same category and maybe its time that they break apart. Freeskiing started with people putting skis on, getting creative, being free, and just doing whatever they want. That beginning produced all the types of freeskiing we have today and if people didn't force the change, skiing would only be one dimensional, so why stop forcing the change now? I know we are afraid of change, but if we don't change, this thing we call a sport becomes stuck and stop flowing. Keep this river flowing, because a flowing river stays active in the winter, and a still river freezes over.

Apr 20 2015 6:37PM

0 0

J-Wile

Posts: 481 - Karma: 804

Karma: 804

Posts: 481

Ridiculous

How can you even hate on this? Yeah it's just one more flip, but do you realize how much harder this is? Most of you can't even double!! He can do 3 more flips in one jump than you!

He was in control the entire time. I don't care what you say that wasn't just someone getting enough balls and hucking it, that was a confident, smooth, and skillful quad. That air awarness is just insane. The way he drops out of that 4th flip reminds me of someone laying out a backflip. Just so percise.

THIS TRICK IS 1000x MORE DIFFICULT THAN ANYTHING MOST OF YOU HAVE DONE. Is it better/more stylish/less stylish? That is completely subjective.

I completely understand those who would not like to see these become the norm in comps, but you have to admit this trick is crazy and both boarders deserve props.

Apr 21 2015 12:23AM

3 2

Ghini

Posts: 2261 - Karma: 3,002

Karma: 3,002

Posts: 2261

Addict

HolteQuad backflip to late 90.

My thoughts.. How is this a 1620??? He rotates a bit to come in some weird backflip position and stays in that position untill he needs to land and than rotates his board a bit..

Apr 21 2015 2:04AM

1 7

Posts: 51644 - Karma: 162,266

Karma: 162,266

Posts: 51644

Play Ball

CamembertMy thoughts.. How is this a 1620??? He rotates a bit to come in some weird backflip position and stays in that position untill he needs to land and than rotates his board a bit..

Because every one of those flips is 360 degrees of rotation.

360
+360
+360
+360
=1440

Now add 180 for the spin to 1440 and ding ding ding ding, you get 1620.

Apr 21 2015 1:56PM

6 1

fatbastard

Posts: 337 - Karma: 586

Karma: 586

Posts: 337

Loner

theabortionatorBecause every one of those flips is 360 degrees of rotation.

360
+360
+360
+360
=1440

Now add 180 for the spin to 1440 and ding ding ding ding, you get 1620.

Sure, the math is easy but the logic isn't. Since when is a flip a 360? It makes sense to add the spin rotation when it's corked, but when it's straight over the back it's a straight up backflip. Who is going to call a backflip a backflip 3? That's stupid. And calling a dub backie a double backflip 720? That's stupid. He rotated 90 degrees into the easiest snowboard backflip position, did 4 backies straight over the back, and did a late 90/180 out. I think it's gnarly, but calling it out as a 1620 is just trying to make a quad backflip sound cool.

Apr 21 2015 3:30PM

6 6

Posts: 2447 - Karma: 5,628

Karma: 5,628

Posts: 2447

Addict

fatbastardSure, the math is easy but the logic isn't. Since when is a flip a 360? It makes sense to add the spin rotation when it's corked, but when it's straight over the back it's a straight up backflip. Who is going to call a backflip a backflip 3? That's stupid. And calling a dub backie a double backflip 720? That's stupid. He rotated 90 degrees into the easiest snowboard backflip position, did 4 backies straight over the back, and did a late 90/180 out. I think it's gnarly, but calling it out as a 1620 is just trying to make a quad backflip sound cool.

I have no idea. I'd love to call it a powerslide quad backflip 180 because I hate the axis of the underflip, it just looks like hucked backflips. Because that's what Parrot's quad is, he spins 90 before he's off the jump, throws a backflip, sees snow-sky-snow-sky-snow-sky-snow-OHSHITSTOPNOW-land. I mean I'm impressed more because whenever I've hucked trips off tramps into foam (there's a phrase that'll mean something else to a non-skier) I lose all coordination and start flailing hopelessly at around 1.5.

But really... I think if we think about how you do the trick you can work out the 'spin number'. Like for corks (and other off-axis tricks) you're (very) basically leaning a spin, so you just count the spin. But for underflips we go fully inverted, it's an on-axis trick, so we count the flip. But we don't for misty's, rodeos, bios etc. Maybe underflips are just an exception so we don't have to say backflip 190 and sound old-school...

Apr 21 2015 3:42PM

2 0

Turkelton

Posts: 2829 - Karma: 8,558

Karma: 8,558

Posts: 2829

Addict

crazy but no point. You can't even do a quad in Skate 3... Nothing gained. No style, just flips to near death speed. I'd rather see a Dub 16 on a snowboard than a triple or quad anyday.
As Danny Davis said: I'm already against the next cork

Apr 21 2015 3:42PM

1 3

Posts: 9292 - Karma: 60,983

Karma: 60,983

Posts: 9292

Crazy Fool

The referenced post has been removed.

in my mind almost everything you said is more of an indictment of park comps and their aim of quantifying and regulating something we desperately don't want quantified and regulated. everything else is drawing an arbitrary line in the sand of what you think is cool

i see where youre coming from, im much more into the filming side of skiing than comps, but you guys sound silly making these decrees of what should and shouldn't be done in freeskiing

fatbastardSure, the math is easy but the logic isn't. Since when is a flip a 360? It makes sense to add the spin rotation when it's corked, but when it's straight over the back it's a straight up backflip. Who is going to call a backflip a backflip 3? That's stupid. And calling a dub backie a double backflip 720? That's stupid. He rotated 90 degrees into the easiest snowboard backflip position, did 4 backies straight over the back, and did a late 90/180 out. I think it's gnarly, but calling it out as a 1620 is just trying to make a quad backflip sound cool.

a flip has always been a 360, e.g. misty 7 and rodeo 7. it makes perfect sense because as you flatten out any of those rotations they will turn into off-axis and then on-axis 7s

no one calls a backy a backy 3 or a dub backy a dub backy 7 because that's not included in the definition of a backy, it simply is a flip itself. a misty, for example, by definition is a ~flip (off axis) along with a rotation and you add the two together. so double misty __ makes perfect sense and you still add the numbers up

your reductive description of the quad undie 16 is fair game i suppose but really it holds no more water than describing a misty 5 as "just a ~90 into a flip into another ~90." and hell, an underflip is just an unnecessary name for a particular way of doing what is basically a backflip and a 180

that all being said, people sometimes do describe something as simply a backflip + 180 if is done in that order. but i really doubt ill catch you asking people if they have seen the snowboarder doing the switch 90 quad backflip to 90, because it offers nothing that our tried and true naming system doesn't

Apr 21 2015 3:52PM

2 0

Posts: 9292 - Karma: 60,983

Karma: 60,983

Posts: 9292

Crazy Fool

*DUMBCAN*But really... I think if we think about how you do the trick you can work out the 'spin number'. Like for corks (and other off-axis tricks) you're (very) basically leaning a spin, so you just count the spin. But for underflips we go fully inverted, it's an on-axis trick, so we count the flip. But we don't for misty's, rodeos, bios etc. Maybe underflips are just an exception so we don't have to say backflip 190 and sound old-school...

"but we don't for misties [etc]"

yes you do-- a misty 7 is basically an off axis front with a 3 (3+3=7) and an undie is a flip plus a 180 (=undie 5).

see what i said to gaffney just now. you do it for misties and shit and it makes perfect sense because as that trick gets flatter that flip literally becomes a spin and the naming system accounts for that. e.g a 7 vs a bio 7 vs a misty 7

Apr 21 2015 3:56PM

3 0

BROLF

Posts: 1598 - Karma: 5,098

Karma: 5,098

Posts: 1598

Insane

Calling it a 1620 is so dumb, we do the same in skiing with underflips but it doesn't make sense. Recently there was a video of a "double backflip late 180" which was literally the same as a dub underflip "9" except for when the 180 is done. On skis someone could do a straight quad backflip and people wouldn't be impressed, but if there's a 180 done throughout all the quad backflips it becomes groundbreaking? Billy Morgan's was much more impressive. I don't think tricks that are flips should be counted as spinning rotations.

Apr 21 2015 3:56PM

3 2

Posts: 2447 - Karma: 5,628

Karma: 5,628

Posts: 2447

Addict

Titsandwich11"but we don't for misties [etc]"

yes you do-- a misty 7 is basically an off axis front with a 3 (3+3=7) and an undie is a flip plus a 180 (=undie 5).

see what i said to gaffney just now. you do it for misties and shit and it makes perfect sense because as that trick gets flatter that flip literally becomes a spin and the naming system accounts for that. e.g a 7 vs a bio 7 vs a misty 7

Except a sw misty 14 is 1440 spinning and 2 flips

https://www.newschoolers.com/videos/watch/767742/Kai-Mahler-Switch-Double-Misty-1440-Double-Japan---Dew-Tour-Freeski-Big-Air-Finals

Apr 21 2015 4:02PM

0 2

Posts: 9292 - Karma: 60,983

Karma: 60,983

Posts: 9292

Crazy Fool

*DUMBCAN*Except a sw misty 14 is 1440 spinning and 2 flips

haha no it's not. that dude didn't do a 1440 in addition to the two flips. he did a 7 in addition to the two flips

Apr 21 2015 4:13PM

2 1

BROLF

Posts: 1598 - Karma: 5,098

Karma: 5,098

Posts: 1598

Insane

Titsandwich11haha no it's not. that dude didn't do a 1440 in addition to the two flips. he did a 7 in addition to the two flips

you can pause it at every 180, he does a 1440. It's not in addition to anything, he goes off axis twice, he doesn't flip straight over. In Max parrot's, you can pause at 720, because what he's actually done at that point is two straight over backflips, and a 90 of the jump. It should just be called a quad underflip, no spin to the name.

Apr 21 2015 4:32PM

1 1

fatbastard

Posts: 337 - Karma: 586

Karma: 586

Posts: 337

Loner

Titsandwich11a flip has always been a 360, e.g. misty 7 and rodeo 7. it makes perfect sense because as you flatten out any of those rotations they will turn into off-axis and then on-axis 7s

no one calls a backy a backy 3 or a dub backy a dub backy 7 because that's not included in the definition of a backy, it simply is a flip itself. a misty, for example, by definition is a ~flip (off axis) along with a rotation and you add the two together. so double misty __ makes perfect sense and you still add the numbers up

I see what you're saying but I just can't buy into it, particularly for this case. Mistys and rodeos at least have added shoulder/chest rotation that make them different from a full-twisting backflip. I can see the 7 in there. But to me, what Parrot did is straight over-the-top, and there's no spin beyond the first 90 to get into backflip position and then at the end. Like others have said, if a skier does a quad backflip and then a late 180, I will never buy it as a quad 1620. A 1620 requires spinning, not just flipping. Cork it out (like Morgan's), and yeah, that makes way more sense.

Apr 21 2015 5:40PM

4 1

Posts: 2447 - Karma: 5,628

Karma: 5,628

Posts: 2447

Addict

Titsandwich11haha no it's not. that dude didn't do a 1440 in addition to the two flips. he did a 7 in addition to the two flips

Set it to slo-mo, count the spins. His back faces forwards 4 times, therefore 1440.

Apr 21 2015 5:42PM

0 3

bighomieflock

Posts: 2040 - Karma: 2,445

Karma: 2,445

Posts: 2040

Addict

Absolutely no clue why anyone would find that fun or desirable to do, and I have no interest in watching a ton of flips, but if someone wants to do quads then go for it... I'm sure there's tons of people who will think it's cool.

Apr 21 2015 5:49PM

1 0

TomDavies

Posts: 788 - Karma: 5,295

Karma: 5,295

Posts: 788

Ridiculous

*DUMBCAN*Set it to slo-mo, count the spins. His back faces forwards 4 times, therefore 1440.

that takes into account the flips

Apr 21 2015 6:20PM

1 1

Posts: 4695 - Karma: 6,502

Karma: 6,502

Posts: 4695

No Life

*DUMBCAN*Set it to slo-mo, count the spins. His back faces forwards 4 times, therefore 1440.

Because he's fucking flipping. In a dub backflip you face backwards twice, should we start calling that a dub backflip 720?

Apr 22 2015 12:03AM

4 0

Ghini

Posts: 2261 - Karma: 3,002

Karma: 3,002

Posts: 2261

Addict

theabortionatorBecause every one of those flips is 360 degrees of rotation.

360
+360
+360
+360
=1440

Now add 180 for the spin to 1440 and ding ding ding ding, you get 1620.

If a skier does a backflip, do you call that a backflip 360? No! because his tip and tails dont rotate to the left or right in a circular motion.

*DUMBCAN*Set it to slo-mo, count the spins. His back faces forwards 4 times, therefore 1440.

If a skier does a quadruple backflip, how many times does his back face forward?
Do you call a backflip a backflip 360?

DIX~Because he's fucking flipping. In a dub backflip you face backwards twice, should we start calling that a dub backflip 720?

Thank you.

He rotates 90 degrees (+/-), then does 4 backflips and then rotates another 90 degrees. His tip and tail stay on the same side during those backflips. His board moves off-axis, his tip make a smaller rotation than his tail, thats why I made the grey arrows different sizes. That difference might suggest that he also rotates during those flips but it only makes it look more interesting, again, the tip and tail stay on the same side during all those flips...
If he would also rotate his tip and tail would change from left to right in a circular motion during those flips, but that is not the case here.

If you know I am wrong, please explain it to me..
If you think I'm right, post good looking females in sexy outfits..

Apr 22 2015 4:08AM

3 0

Posts: 9292 - Karma: 60,983

Karma: 60,983

Posts: 9292

Crazy Fool

BROLFyou can pause it at every 180, he does a 1440. It's not in addition to anything, he goes off axis twice, he doesn't flip straight over.

you and the other guy being confused at this sort of proves the point of the naming system. exactly, he does a 1440, and that doesn't change depending on how he flips or goes off axis, because he is doing a 14 regardless, it just takes a different form. in the same way, if max parrot's flips had been less straight up and down you would recognize the 16 in the trick. the naming system recognizes that

Apr 22 2015 11:24AM

1 0

BROLF

Posts: 1598 - Karma: 5,098

Karma: 5,098

Posts: 1598

Insane

Titsandwich11you and the other guy being confused at this sort of proves the point of the naming system. exactly, he does a 1440, and that doesn't change depending on how he flips or goes off axis, because he is doing a 14 regardless, it just takes a different form. in the same way, if max parrot's flips had been less straight up and down you would recognize the 16 in the trick. the naming system recognizes that

Yeah I know that, I'm not confused at all. I just think that when flips are straight over they should not be counted as spins.

Apr 22 2015 12:39PM

0 0

Ghini

Posts: 2261 - Karma: 3,002

Karma: 3,002

Posts: 2261

Addict

CamembertIf a skier does a backflip, do you call that a backflip 360? No! because his tip and tails dont rotate to the left or right in a circular motion.

If a skier does a quadruple backflip, how many times does his back face forward?
Do you call a backflip a backflip 360?

Thank you.

He rotates 90 degrees (+/-), then does 4 backflips and then rotates another 90 degrees. His tip and tail stay on the same side during those backflips. His board moves off-axis, his tip make a smaller rotation than his tail, thats why I made the grey arrows different sizes. That difference might suggest that he also rotates during those flips but it only makes it look more interesting, again, the tip and tail stay on the same side during all those flips...
If he would also rotate his tip and tail would change from left to right in a circular motion during those flips, but that is not the case here.

If you know I am wrong, please explain it to me..
If you think I'm right, post good looking females in sexy outfits..

Really? Nobody?

Apr 23 2015 2:31AM

0 0