Hybrid Moves

Ohhhh.... Pleasu put the video up somewhere else like googlevideos. Youtube is blocked in Indonesia so I can`t se a [censored]. Just beacuse a dutch layer that was hitting the coran in a video :-/

//Thomas

Thomas:
Ask and yey shall receive:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4755946095601688264&hl=en

-Alien Jon

Slightly off topic but from what I gather from a very recent practice session both poi path and hand path can be linear or non-linear in context to each other.

O_o intriguing.

Mr Alien: Thank you very much but the goverment are faster than Flash Gordon himself and they have blocker gogglevideo in the whole Indonesia also and same with myspace. I love Indonesia

Thanks for uploading it though. Im gonn take a look as soon as I can when im back in Malaysia....

//Thomas

I've been experimenting lately with isolation + gilligan driving style mix.

I think this would give an awesome effect and it would I think be the chu chu double staff equivalent of poi. The hand of the poi that is doing a gilligan is following the head of the poi that is isolating.

The other variation is the head of the poi that is doing gilligan is following the isolated poi head.

The third variation is the head of the poi that is doing gilligan is following the isolated pois hand.

It's really, really hard, I don't even know if it's completely possible yet. I will keep trying tho.

---

Speed bump hybrids? Been trying, no luck yet.

I've never understood what a trammel is, it's one of the poi jargon I don't understand.

I see. Sounds really interesting. To me it kind of looks like a linear extension with the exception that the ellipse is created down up in this case when the hand moves back and fourth in a linear motion? Is this observation wrong?

It would seem you need to move your hand back before it can do it's "back and fourth" linear extension so that it will be pushed upwards O_O weird.

I'll try but I think somebody is eventually going to need to show me this one. =)

It is like a linear extension only perpendicular to the ellipse. Or more precisely:
In a linear extension, from one of the poles focii), your hand moves away from the head perpendicular to its vector. For example, if the poi is pointing down, it is moving horizontally as it swings towards up, and your hand moves away from it going up.

For a trammel, from one of the poles (hand positions), your hand moves towards the head perpendicular to its vector. For example, if the poi is pointing out horizontal and is swinging down, then your hand moves horizontal towards where the head is. By the time it gets to where the head was, the head has swung 180 degrees and is pointing horizontal the other way and is swinging up now.

Hope that made some sense.

It's weird with poi. Expect it to be a bit wonky at first, high degree of flopping around at first. It is different than in my simulation, because the animation doesn't account for gravity. In actuality as you move your hand horizontally to create the upstroke, you have to accelerate your hand motion quite a bit. I really only use it as an exercise right now. haven't really integrated it into any interesting hybrids or anything, yet. But it is another piece of the poi control puzzle, and the feeling helps learn cateyes and transition to/from them.

-Alien Jon

I think, that 1.5's are actually an unit circle r-type's.

Can someone confir this statement, Durbs?

proved via isolation,

:R

I think it depends on what you do with the 1.5... I think the original idea of 1.5's was that you alternate between swinging a circle for one beat, and then a pendulum for another beat... which is why they are really "not1.5s". So really we should look at the pendulum:
You can swing a pendulum in a bunch of different ways. but I would say it fit's as a 'unit circle R-type' if either the hand and/or the head trace a unit circle. That way it can easily be linked up with other unit circle moves.

Back to (not)1.5s: So you could combine your unit circle pendulum for one beat with an isolation, extension, cateye, etc for the other beat and maintain the unit circle-ness the whole time. Having just stood up and tried these, they are all doable, if a bit sloppy for me right now.

-Alien Jon

I've come to the same conclusion, when I was learning 1.5 turning.

When you do 1.5 in the original idea(long arm pendulum) or
when you do ! 1.5 (unit circle 'izo' pendulum).

When both Poi heads meet toghether and you want them stay
together and you want to turn, you will do a circular movement
at both side.

Now the questions, what is the circular movement of that
circle, that trace the path of Poi heads.

Can be done 1.5 turning full long arm? Isn't the long arm
only part that break out at the other half.

How does full long arm 1.5 look like?

This still lead to unit circle..

You'd need to do full long arm izo to traverse
the other side I think.

question,

:R

Special bump for:

-Yuta
-Sister eleven
-Spinner of Detroit
-Tankboy
-MNS

Triquatras are a commonly accepted hybrid. 3 petal antispin and extension, no isolation. All the hybrids discovered early on did have isolations, but the term was expanded out in order to encompass anything with two different driving styles. Antispin/spin/isolation/cateye type movements.

I was on the forums while these discussions were going on... these posts are from the period in which the terminology was still being worked out. I'm not sure how much experience you have, but its probably not a good plan to question spinners that have been on the forum for 3-4 times longer than you have with statements like "You guys you ain't no damn clue what you are talking about,
you say cat eyes, you aren't even that far.."

When?

Who said that spin + antispin is hybrid ?

(That of course ais gain anti-spin)

Cat-eyes are "unit circle" based patterns, that is the same category, but different class!

You shoud read this:

Pattern

Your triquestras are nothing, but so called Meenik simple anti-spin flower..

Its not only anti spin, though is it? Theres an extention. Go look up the dictionary meaning of the word "Hybrid" and come tell me what it means.

"Hybrid" is a very general term which refers to there being two different driving styles... which is exactly what alienjon is getting at in this thread.

Its already passed into common parlance, if you think the terminology is not enough to explain what you see then come up with a better system of explanation and present it rather than trying to cut other people down. Perhaps you could release a few tutorial videos or something.

In short... stop trolling, your attitude is getting you nowhere. I will not be responding to your posts until you have indeed changed your attitude.

The whole terminology debate gets even more muddy when you add in CAPs. Some CAPs are hybrids, some hybrids are also CAPs. Depending on what you use as the definition of a driving style. Early on there were two: extensions and isolations. Last year, one list I saw included cat-eyes, extensions, isolations, C-CAPs, pendula, antispin and probably a couple things I have missed.

On a related note, so far I like Drex's definitions (at least as far as I understood them) which is that a CAP is asymmetric in time and a hybrid asymmetric in space. The overlap is that you can have one movement being one and anyother being the other.

That said, why would a triquetra (or 2:1 antispin extension hybrid if you want the full name as I have also seen and used) not be a hybrid? It has two different driving styles with asymmetry in space (one hand does one thing, the other does another thing). That is sufficient to call it a hybrid.

Where is Alien when we need him ? CAP's are "half circle" patters
similar to paracicrle from Romaro and any timing/direction
variation as far I know..(nothing wto do with hybrid)

Example:

http://www.youtube.com/user/AlienJon#p/u/20/RN9W_9_2EaE

Driving style, what the hell is this term standing for? Doing
different things with each hand ? You want to tell that doing
spin with one hand and antiuspin with the oter is something
more than kind of antispin flower ?

Hybrid is technique, not some timing/direction geekness from
beginner category.

Give a prove.

damn,

You are definitely a troll.

You don't know what a driving style is, yet you still claim to be right, even going so far as to state the breaking down of movement into core components as from the "beginner category"


I did state that I wasn't going to reply to you again, but in actuality I wrote this post so that other people will see how blatent it is that you're not really trying to prove a point, you're trying to stir people up.

Due to the above stated reason I'd suggest nobody reply further to these posts. Don't feed the troll.