Forums > Social Discussion > defining technical spinning
Login/Join to Participategeek, level 1
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
Posted:
so.
What is 'technical spinning'?
Back in the day
what was 'tech' is now beginner stuff. This has been covered in many discussions, so i'm not starting one of those*. Also, individual moves, and expertise have been discussed to death, so i'll moan miserably if this turns into a 'I can do an antispin butterfly hybrid - that means i'm tech' thread or a 'tech vs dance/experience/style' thread. ARGH!
anyway. back to the point. Old stuff is not hard, and new stuff therefore is....:
Nowadays new concepts - or really hard variations of old concepts - come up very frequently (in every spin, i find at the moment, with several new things appearing in a session). Now, because they are new, people call them tech. but are they?
for example:
(Not) 1.5s are relatively new, so are considered 'tech'. In fact they are very easy, and can be taught successfully to 25 people in under ten minutes (last workshop). So why are they 'tech'? Is it because durbs can do them?
This relates to an old argument in 'the worlds longest teaching moves thread'
that peopl teach in different ways because of what they consider 'basic'... but I try to keep an open mind... and so consider (another example) airwraps to be much easier than a 3 beat weave. certainly i can make a group of beginners learn a consistent airwrap in about a tenth of the time i can get them all to understand the fairly complicated hand movements of a weave. It might seem harder, but in fact there is much less to do physically, and when explained as a physical action rather than a poi move anyone can do them.
So what defines technical spinning?
(please, not just a list of moves, though that may come at a later date...)
is it novelty?
is it ingenuity?
is it who invents it?
is it how hard it is?
is it how hard it is percieved to be?
is it because it is not 'normal spinning'
is it cause it LOOKS radically different (even if it is not)
wow factor?
is it because someone famous calls it tech?
is it because it has a wierd and funky name (mmmm antispin olos hybrids
)?
What on earth is this 'thing' that people either rail against it or support it or aspire to? And why do they? It makes some poeple incredibly upset/scornful/impressed! WTF?
Ond why, oh why, do people use it to describe stuff?
'oh, that's so tech'
What does that mean? What if you're wrong (meg?)?
Discuss. hand in your essays by december 1st please, and they will be returned before christmas, marked.
*and will violently shout
if it turns into one
so.
What is 'technical spinning'?
Back in the day
what was 'tech' is now beginner stuff. This has been covered in many discussions, so i'm not starting one of those*. Also, individual moves, and expertise have been discussed to death, so i'll moan miserably if this turns into a 'I can do an antispin butterfly hybrid - that means i'm tech' thread or a 'tech vs dance/experience/style' thread. ARGH!anyway. back to the point. Old stuff is not hard, and new stuff therefore is....:
Nowadays new concepts - or really hard variations of old concepts - come up very frequently (in every spin, i find at the moment, with several new things appearing in a session). Now, because they are new, people call them tech. but are they?
for example:
(Not) 1.5s are relatively new, so are considered 'tech'. In fact they are very easy, and can be taught successfully to 25 people in under ten minutes (last workshop). So why are they 'tech'? Is it because durbs can do them?
This relates to an old argument in 'the worlds longest teaching moves thread'
that peopl teach in different ways because of what they consider 'basic'... but I try to keep an open mind... and so consider (another example) airwraps to be much easier than a 3 beat weave. certainly i can make a group of beginners learn a consistent airwrap in about a tenth of the time i can get them all to understand the fairly complicated hand movements of a weave. It might seem harder, but in fact there is much less to do physically, and when explained as a physical action rather than a poi move anyone can do them.So what defines technical spinning?
(please, not just a list of moves, though that may come at a later date...)
is it novelty?
is it ingenuity?
is it who invents it?
is it how hard it is?
is it how hard it is percieved to be?
is it because it is not 'normal spinning'
is it cause it LOOKS radically different (even if it is not)
wow factor?
is it because someone famous calls it tech?
is it because it has a wierd and funky name (mmmm antispin olos hybrids
)?What on earth is this 'thing' that people either rail against it or support it or aspire to? And why do they? It makes some poeple incredibly upset/scornful/impressed! WTF?
Ond why, oh why, do people use it to describe stuff?
'oh, that's so tech'
What does that mean? What if you're wrong (meg?)?
Discuss. hand in your essays by december 1st please, and they will be returned before christmas, marked.
*and will violently shout
if it turns into oneHolistic Spinner (I hope)
GOLD Member
hehe, 'Member' huhuh
6,120 posts
Location: Behind you. With Jam
hehe, 'Member' huhuh
6,120 posts
Location: Behind you. With Jam
Posted:
When *I* think 'technical' I tend to think main emphasis of the spinning is the clear geometry of the moves that always seems to create define geometric shapes in a very machine-like manner - hence 'technical. Very controlled very smooth, almost always symetrical. Except when the asymetry is also very machine like.
As opposed to moves that look like the people are focusing more on dancing or going with the flow.
That's just how I see it...
When *I* think 'technical' I tend to think main emphasis of the spinning is the clear geometry of the moves that always seems to create define geometric shapes in a very machine-like manner - hence 'technical. Very controlled very smooth, almost always symetrical. Except when the asymetry is also very machine like.
As opposed to moves that look like the people are focusing more on dancing or going with the flow.
That's just how I see it...
"I used to want to change the world, now I just wanna leave the room with a little dignity..." - Lotus Weinstock
SILVER Member
Tosser
1,712 posts
Location: Bristol,UK
Tosser
1,712 posts
Location: Bristol,UK
Posted:
**(Direct lift from conversation about this post)**
I wonder whther the whole tech thing is a paradigm shift thing.. tech will always be synonymous with advanced/ hard.. so 5 bt was tech, back in the day, then tangles, airwraps, throws, isolations.
Nowadays its turning anti-spin, hybrids, atomics (though less so)
As these things get explored, puzzled out and understood, teching becomes easier and those 'tech' moves and concepts become easier for the newbie to understand.. thus their technical status is reduced
Yet more people with higher access to the many interesting conepts of poi then drives a new wind of compound ides involving multiple principles.. and thus the tech cycle starts anew.
**(Direct lift from conversation about this post)**
I wonder whther the whole tech thing is a paradigm shift thing.. tech will always be synonymous with advanced/ hard.. so 5 bt was tech, back in the day, then tangles, airwraps, throws, isolations.
Nowadays its turning anti-spin, hybrids, atomics (though less so)
As these things get explored, puzzled out and understood, teching becomes easier and those 'tech' moves and concepts become easier for the newbie to understand.. thus their technical status is reduced
Yet more people with higher access to the many interesting conepts of poi then drives a new wind of compound ides involving multiple principles.. and thus the tech cycle starts anew.
member
37 posts
37 posts
Posted:
--------------------------------------------------------------
What is technical spinning?
--------------------------------------------------------------
a) Clear spinning, technicaly difficult to make it clear.
b) Spinning beyond personal level.
c) Routine spinning, tech tech spinning.
In case of c), this I meen to be real technical spinning, I meen
"the complicated way", pure tech spin.
In the case b), this I meen to be the thing about individual acc-
ess to marking level. Like single real "unique combination".
In case of a), this I meen to be fact that when someone spin,
"better than I do", no matter what moves. It makes me push
the spin further.
-------------------
I've asked a student and he sad:
"Spinning where technique and it's perform goes beside
the common body move."
-------------------
Together, technical spinning is set of many factors that make
the achiever to say "I want to learn that". Sometime it's the
'wow' factor, sometimes difficulty, sometimes just something
new, different.
------------------
Beside, according to wiki, technical meen use of technology
in specific or precise way. This can be interpreted either,
as the "curved" staff or "star" Poi head wick, or as point c).
-------------------------------
It's short for assay but, I bad at essays. I'd possibly make
it bigger, but that would lead to be complicated and poin-
less.
I'll be marked,
:R
--------------------------------------------------------------
What is technical spinning?
--------------------------------------------------------------
a) Clear spinning, technicaly difficult to make it clear.
b) Spinning beyond personal level.
c) Routine spinning, tech tech spinning.
In case of c), this I meen to be real technical spinning, I meen
"the complicated way", pure tech spin.
In the case b), this I meen to be the thing about individual acc-
ess to marking level. Like single real "unique combination".
In case of a), this I meen to be fact that when someone spin,
"better than I do", no matter what moves. It makes me push
the spin further.
-------------------
I've asked a student and he sad:
"Spinning where technique and it's perform goes beside
the common body move."
-------------------
Together, technical spinning is set of many factors that make
the achiever to say "I want to learn that". Sometime it's the
'wow' factor, sometimes difficulty, sometimes just something
new, different.
------------------
Beside, according to wiki, technical meen use of technology
in specific or precise way. This can be interpreted either,
as the "curved" staff or "star" Poi head wick, or as point c).
-------------------------------
It's short for assay but, I bad at essays. I'd possibly make
it bigger, but that would lead to be complicated and poin-
less.
I'll be marked,
:R
BINARY DIVISION
BRONZE Member
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
Posted:
bluecat, it's something I've thought of often.
Speaking from an "older" perspective, there were several of us aghast when tangles got named (airwraps, hyperloops), and smaller circles on largers (flowers), when doing a pattern and taking a poi out of it was being taught with a name (take-aways), using each poi in a different direction was "super hard" (atoms) and when stalls and throws were suddenly the latest and greatest. They were there all along and were concidered basic components to create a dynamic.
Then suddenly someone named it, slapped a "look what I figured out" thread on it and it became "tech". When the bb switched and internet videos became popularized, the "tech" concept exploded.
When someone, like myself, came along and pointed out they always exsisted, the resistence we were met with, and sometimes the anger, was insane. From "no they didn't, I did it first" to "Well, what do you know, you don't even have a video so you must not spin!" I agree, the emotion they illicit is really quite insane.
We've also seen the adaptation of alot of movements from similar arts (juggling, martial arts, club spinning, etc).
For me, all of these remove ingenuity, difficulty, looking radically different from what is already done/normal, and who "invented" it (this one I really don't like as it's hard to really say) from the equation.
When you say "wow" factor, to whom? Other spinners? Then it becomes subjective.
Because someone called it tech, gave it a name, and announced it's difficult, I think might be key factors for many.
If my body ends up turned into a pretzel, I hit myself a billion times and it takes me a bunch longer to learn than other things..that to me (maybe) is "tech". (I hate the term personally).
I think that length of time spent learning is a key factor in my opinion, and again it goes back to being subjective. But you know, you asked for our personal viewpoints
Why are people so emotional, to the point of fighting and judgement about it? I wish I knew. Perhaps because they feel that "tech" is a validation of their skill and when someone does not see it that way they take it personally? Perhaps when someone tells a skilled spinner (skill as in flow, movement, etc.) that they aren't tech and therefore suck, they take it hard. It makes people jaded at that point and then puts them in confrontational moods when it is even brought up.
Perhaps? These are just my observations and guesses based on that though.
So, are you grade on a curve?
Does grammar count?
What about length?
Mr. bluecat...I have to go potty!!!!
bluecat, it's something I've thought of often.
Speaking from an "older" perspective, there were several of us aghast when tangles got named (airwraps, hyperloops), and smaller circles on largers (flowers), when doing a pattern and taking a poi out of it was being taught with a name (take-aways), using each poi in a different direction was "super hard" (atoms) and when stalls and throws were suddenly the latest and greatest. They were there all along and were concidered basic components to create a dynamic.
Then suddenly someone named it, slapped a "look what I figured out" thread on it and it became "tech". When the bb switched and internet videos became popularized, the "tech" concept exploded.
When someone, like myself, came along and pointed out they always exsisted, the resistence we were met with, and sometimes the anger, was insane. From "no they didn't, I did it first" to "Well, what do you know, you don't even have a video so you must not spin!" I agree, the emotion they illicit is really quite insane.
We've also seen the adaptation of alot of movements from similar arts (juggling, martial arts, club spinning, etc).
For me, all of these remove ingenuity, difficulty, looking radically different from what is already done/normal, and who "invented" it (this one I really don't like as it's hard to really say) from the equation.
When you say "wow" factor, to whom? Other spinners? Then it becomes subjective.
Because someone called it tech, gave it a name, and announced it's difficult, I think might be key factors for many.
If my body ends up turned into a pretzel, I hit myself a billion times and it takes me a bunch longer to learn than other things..that to me (maybe) is "tech". (I hate the term personally).
I think that length of time spent learning is a key factor in my opinion, and again it goes back to being subjective. But you know, you asked for our personal viewpoints
Why are people so emotional, to the point of fighting and judgement about it? I wish I knew. Perhaps because they feel that "tech" is a validation of their skill and when someone does not see it that way they take it personally? Perhaps when someone tells a skilled spinner (skill as in flow, movement, etc.) that they aren't tech and therefore suck, they take it hard. It makes people jaded at that point and then puts them in confrontational moods when it is even brought up.
Perhaps? These are just my observations and guesses based on that though.
So, are you grade on a curve?
Does grammar count?
What about length?
Mr. bluecat...I have to go potty!!!!
Pele
Higher, higher burning fire...making music like a choir
"Oooh look! A pub!" -exclaimed after recovering from a stupid fall
"And for the decadence of art, nothing beats a roaring fire." -TMK
GOLD Member
not different, just not the same
263 posts
Location: Charlotte, NC, USA
not different, just not the same
263 posts
Location: Charlotte, NC, USA
Posted:
I think we need to get some "technical" people to work on a "Richee to" conversion program. I'm always fairly certain there is something interesting and intelligent in what Richee says but I always seem to lose it somewhere in the middle when the wording goes all wonky. 
But, on subject...
I feel the concepts of what is new and therefore hard, and what is "tech" are closely tied together. And this has been the case I feel for nearly everything "technical" since the word was even invented. Remember when color TVs were "high tech"?? no, me neither... but my parents and grandparents seem to remember that. But this is the nature of humans, anything new and/or difficult is automatically put up on a pedestal o' awesomeness simply because the "regular person" hasn't grasped the concepts or the actions yet. Thus the term "technical" will constantly be a fluid term. It will NEVER point to a specific set of moves that are tech and everything else is not.
I think the better question is "When does a move stop being tech?" This, to me, is much more interesting. At what point can you say that an isolated hybrid antispin wallplane buzzsaw atomic flower inversion wrap is no longer a tech move? And yes, that is just a string of words to sound impressive and not an actual move lol. Is it when 50% of people who've been spinning for 1 year can do a move? Is it when 35% of people who see it for the first time can pick it up that day? Or is that point a lot harder to define on a large scale? Should we even bother trying to define this point since that point could be just as fluid and changing as the term "tech" is?
Another thing to look at: Instead of defining "technical" as a term or trying to break down the factors of what makes something technical, why not look at progression of a move as it becomes technical and then easy.
For example, when someone finds some new move or combination, it is nearly never seen as "technical" at first. Why? because not everyone knows about it nor has seen it. At first moves are just "cool" or generate the "hey what was that thing you did right there" factor. Once you isolate the move from the ones around it, label it and distribute the IDEA of the move, THEN it can and frequently does become technical. It seems that wide recognition of the move starts the "tech" term. I say recognition specifically because at that point not everyone has attempted it. Many people might note it as something to try later, might attempt and fail and therefore have a false view of its difficulty, might be amazed at how pretty it looks when someone else does it and therefore assume its hard. The change from technical it seems comes when a wide range of people start learning the move and it is summarily broken down into component parts for the purposes of teaching easily. Once these base components are understandable and accepted the "mystic" quality of the move is pretty much trashed and the move can become common place and no longer "tech"
This time that a term is "tech" may be different for every move, and as such it is probably impossible to define a solid set of moves that are tech as they may fall out of that category at different times.
I really feel that the term "tech" has a lot less to do with how machine like something is, or how hard it is and more to do with how hard or new it SEEMS! It's almost like we've replaced mysticism and magic with "tech". Once something loses its aura of cool and becomes commonplace and/or understandable by the average person, its no longer tech. You could almost say something is "tech" because people think its "tech" not because it IS "tech" because "tech" doesn't really exist. Its just an extension of peoples need to rank things.
Bah, but these are just some cluttered and underexplored thoughts I had on the matter. maybe they make sense, maybe not, you decide.
I think we need to get some "technical" people to work on a "Richee to
But, on subject...
I feel the concepts of what is new and therefore hard, and what is "tech" are closely tied together. And this has been the case I feel for nearly everything "technical" since the word was even invented. Remember when color TVs were "high tech"?? no, me neither... but my parents and grandparents seem to remember that. But this is the nature of humans, anything new and/or difficult is automatically put up on a pedestal o' awesomeness simply because the "regular person" hasn't grasped the concepts or the actions yet. Thus the term "technical" will constantly be a fluid term. It will NEVER point to a specific set of moves that are tech and everything else is not.
I think the better question is "When does a move stop being tech?" This, to me, is much more interesting. At what point can you say that an isolated hybrid antispin wallplane buzzsaw atomic flower inversion wrap is no longer a tech move? And yes, that is just a string of words to sound impressive and not an actual move lol. Is it when 50% of people who've been spinning for 1 year can do a move? Is it when 35% of people who see it for the first time can pick it up that day? Or is that point a lot harder to define on a large scale? Should we even bother trying to define this point since that point could be just as fluid and changing as the term "tech" is?
Another thing to look at: Instead of defining "technical" as a term or trying to break down the factors of what makes something technical, why not look at progression of a move as it becomes technical and then easy.
For example, when someone finds some new move or combination, it is nearly never seen as "technical" at first. Why? because not everyone knows about it nor has seen it. At first moves are just "cool" or generate the "hey what was that thing you did right there" factor. Once you isolate the move from the ones around it, label it and distribute the IDEA of the move, THEN it can and frequently does become technical. It seems that wide recognition of the move starts the "tech" term. I say recognition specifically because at that point not everyone has attempted it. Many people might note it as something to try later, might attempt and fail and therefore have a false view of its difficulty, might be amazed at how pretty it looks when someone else does it and therefore assume its hard. The change from technical it seems comes when a wide range of people start learning the move and it is summarily broken down into component parts for the purposes of teaching easily. Once these base components are understandable and accepted the "mystic" quality of the move is pretty much trashed and the move can become common place and no longer "tech"
This time that a term is "tech" may be different for every move, and as such it is probably impossible to define a solid set of moves that are tech as they may fall out of that category at different times.
I really feel that the term "tech" has a lot less to do with how machine like something is, or how hard it is and more to do with how hard or new it SEEMS! It's almost like we've replaced mysticism and magic with "tech". Once something loses its aura of cool and becomes commonplace and/or understandable by the average person, its no longer tech. You could almost say something is "tech" because people think its "tech" not because it IS "tech" because "tech" doesn't really exist. Its just an extension of peoples need to rank things.
Bah, but these are just some cluttered and underexplored thoughts I had on the matter. maybe they make sense, maybe not, you decide.
I once learned every move that there was,
Every style, Every technique.
Then I woke up, and forgot it all,
So now I struggle to dream.
BRONZE Member
1 + 1 = 3
3,540 posts
Location: Bristol UK
1 + 1 = 3
3,540 posts
Location: Bristol UK
Posted:
I said this to Bluecat earlier:
If we think of a move as being a concoction of fundamental spinning techniques, then really, the move itself is easy. remembering the sequence of fundamental techniques in order to repeat or do that move is the hard part.
So I reckon Tech all depends on the variation of a move.
but then, is there a way of marking down certain criteria for a move to posess in order to be labelled as tech?
I'm also finding it hard to decide whether to post the new moves I learnt last night into beginner or advanced...
As for the names of the moves; I blame Durbs.
I said this to Bluecat earlier:
If we think of a move as being a concoction of fundamental spinning techniques, then really, the move itself is easy. remembering the sequence of fundamental techniques in order to repeat or do that move is the hard part.
So I reckon Tech all depends on the variation of a move.
but then, is there a way of marking down certain criteria for a move to posess in order to be labelled as tech?
I'm also finding it hard to decide whether to post the new moves I learnt last night into beginner or advanced...
As for the names of the moves; I blame Durbs.
Empty your mind. Be formless, Shapeless, like Water.
Put Water into a cup, it becomes the cup, put water into a bottle, it becomes the bottle, put water into a teapot, it becomes the teapot.
Water can flow, or it can Crash.
Be Water My Friend.
SILVER Member
with added berries
1,365 posts
Location: Manchester, England (UK)
with added berries
1,365 posts
Location: Manchester, England (UK)
Posted:
I personally very subjectively and without thinking long or hard about it, tend to think moves as technical if they start to feel like they're breaking the flow of movement.
This is completly wrong I know. And there are many moves that disprove this both ways.
But when I see someone starting to do a move that involves twisting both arms several times around each other before pulling your head around the poi to... (you get the picture) then I think, techi.
I also tend to think of anything involving the words hyperloop as technical.
Also, the if the title is 'xxxxx' isolation (other than buzzsaw isolation or just isolation on its own).
But then I think I focus on style a lot more than moves nowadays, so that is why I have this opinion. I also should point out that I've tended to avoid learning tech moves pretty much since I started, and always concentrated more on the dance elements.
I'm not explaining well, and talking a load of crap about it anyway, but this thread has made me start to think that maybe I shouldn't just dismiss moves as technical and give them ago.
(Also I am exhausted after doing a 6 hour aerial workshop today, and really, really need to go to bed. Appologies for talking a load of
)
I personally very subjectively and without thinking long or hard about it, tend to think moves as technical if they start to feel like they're breaking the flow of movement.
This is completly wrong I know. And there are many moves that disprove this both ways.
But when I see someone starting to do a move that involves twisting both arms several times around each other before pulling your head around the poi to... (you get the picture) then I think, techi.
I also tend to think of anything involving the words hyperloop as technical.
Also, the if the title is 'xxxxx' isolation (other than buzzsaw isolation or just isolation on its own).
But then I think I focus on style a lot more than moves nowadays, so that is why I have this opinion. I also should point out that I've tended to avoid learning tech moves pretty much since I started, and always concentrated more on the dance elements.
I'm not explaining well, and talking a load of crap about it anyway, but this thread has made me start to think that maybe I shouldn't just dismiss moves as technical and give them ago.
(Also I am exhausted after doing a 6 hour aerial workshop today, and really, really need to go to bed. Appologies for talking a load of
) Live like there is no tomorrow,
dance like nobody is watching
and hula hoop like wiggling will save the world.
“What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.”
Ralph Waldo Emerson
SILVER Member
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
Posted:
Tech Spinning = Doing complicated things with wonky planes, while standing still with a slightly confused look on your face
Anti-tech/Dance/Slut Spinning = Doing very simple things (often badly) while wiggling (usually in an attempted seductive manner)
Spinning Well = Doing complicated things while wiggling
Tech Spinning = Doing complicated things with wonky planes, while standing still with a slightly confused look on your face
Anti-tech/Dance/Slut Spinning = Doing very simple things (often badly) while wiggling (usually in an attempted seductive manner)
Spinning Well = Doing complicated things while wiggling
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
SILVER Member
Tosser
1,712 posts
Location: Bristol,UK
Tosser
1,712 posts
Location: Bristol,UK
Posted:
No, your interpretation of tech is just as valid as everyone elses.. it demonstrates the limitations and ambiguities of language through common use.
/geek.
Written by: pricklyleaf
I personally very subjectively and without thinking long or hard about it, tend to think moves as technical if they start to feel like they're breaking the flow of movement.
This is completly wrong I know.
No, your interpretation of tech is just as valid as everyone elses.. it demonstrates the limitations and ambiguities of language through common use.
/geek.
BRONZE Member
Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
3,289 posts
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
3,289 posts
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posted:
Technical - spinning in a way that demonstrates the technique generally to the detriment of the whole spinner ala;
which was very apparent back in the day that this kind of discussion meant something.
Non-technical - (opp. Technical) spinning in such a way as to emphasize the whole spinner - generally this means easier moves as they are easier to make look holistic.
Now there are well known twirlers like Ronan who can make geek moves look holistic (even if they are really hard) so the distinction loses meaning (IMHO).
PS Pele - I dont accept your argument that everything that is being done has always been done. I think I'm fairly well versed with traditional club swinging and I've seen a fair bit of traditional maori poi, which I think a lot of western poi spinning is based on, and I simply think that it *has* evolved quite recently. Sure there would have been an individual before meenik who did flowers, but I never saw anyone put so much emphasis on it in a public performance that has obviously influenced the whole of poi swinging - when you are talking about the art, you cant use isolated individuals to prove it hasn't evolved as an art
EDITED_BY: Pyrolific (1195370252)
Technical - spinning in a way that demonstrates the technique generally to the detriment of the whole spinner ala;
Written by:
Doing complicated things with wonky planes, while standing still with a slightly confused look on your face
which was very apparent back in the day that this kind of discussion meant something.
Non-technical - (opp. Technical) spinning in such a way as to emphasize the whole spinner - generally this means easier moves as they are easier to make look holistic.
Now there are well known twirlers like Ronan who can make geek moves look holistic (even if they are really hard) so the distinction loses meaning (IMHO).
PS Pele - I dont accept your argument that everything that is being done has always been done. I think I'm fairly well versed with traditional club swinging and I've seen a fair bit of traditional maori poi, which I think a lot of western poi spinning is based on, and I simply think that it *has* evolved quite recently. Sure there would have been an individual before meenik who did flowers, but I never saw anyone put so much emphasis on it in a public performance that has obviously influenced the whole of poi swinging - when you are talking about the art, you cant use isolated individuals to prove it hasn't evolved as an art
EDITED_BY: Pyrolific (1195370252)
--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
... whereas I would not consider Meenik an "isolated individual" (sorry to oppose) at all.
Just because someone gets the merits (which I won't want to take away) does it mean that he himself alone and far beyond anyone else has invented a particular move.
As Goethe said, we are all part (cells) of the same body and are connected to the same consciousness. Therefore who could claim to have scooped something particular out of his very "own" cup of existence?
Yet he who publishes his ideas or creations first usually is the one getting awarded, but not necessarily is the true "inventor"...
However, "technical spinning" is (IMHO) all but "expressionistic/ artistic spinning" and purely based on geometrics and math (which in itself contains a lot of beauty to watch).
It's: "Doing complicated things with wonky planes, while standing still with a slightly confused look on your face." Except for the necessity of "wonky planes", "standing still" and "slightly confused looks"... 
It's simply "doing complicated things", oi.e. "spinning fire" vs. "dancing with fire" (which in itself is the artistic part of the art, the art without p so to speak)
... whereas I would not consider Meenik an "isolated individual" (sorry to oppose) at all.
Just because someone gets the merits (which I won't want to take away) does it mean that he himself alone and far beyond anyone else has invented a particular move.
As Goethe said, we are all part (cells) of the same body and are connected to the same consciousness. Therefore who could claim to have scooped something particular out of his very "own" cup of existence?
Yet he who publishes his ideas or creations first usually is the one getting awarded, but not necessarily is the true "inventor"...
However, "technical spinning" is (IMHO) all but "expressionistic/ artistic spinning" and purely based on geometrics and math (which in itself contains a lot of beauty to watch).
It's: "Doing complicated things with wonky planes, while standing still with a slightly confused look on your face." Except for the necessity of "wonky planes", "standing still" and "slightly confused looks"...
It's simply "doing complicated things", oi.e. "spinning fire" vs. "dancing with fire" (which in itself is the artistic part of the art, the art without p so to speak) the best smiles are the ones you lead to 
SILVER Member
what goes around comes around. unless you're into stalls.
4,030 posts
Location: Bali, Australia
what goes around comes around. unless you're into stalls.
4,030 posts
Location: Bali, Australia
Posted:
I think tech (short for technique) is when there is an intention to aim for a
'right' way to do a move or set of moves. As opposed to just spinning what 'feels nice'. The aim could be a choreo/dance move, a clear planes, the angle of a stall or whatever. Even how many wriggles per move. The 'tech'intention might come from the person themselves, or trying to replicate what someone else has done. It may have a name or not.
In that sense, tech was a strong part of traditional (Maori) poi as that was related to moves that matched the song/meaning of the piece. And as that was often synchronised with a group.
Personally I like what is now called 'tech' spinning. I also like the way Meenik describes that practising 'technique' eg being able to get past mental 'locks' gives you then more freedom to express yourself when spinning for 'nice feel'
I think tech (short for technique) is when there is an intention to aim for a
'right' way to do a move or set of moves. As opposed to just spinning what 'feels nice'. The aim could be a choreo/dance move, a clear planes, the angle of a stall or whatever. Even how many wriggles per move
. The 'tech'intention might come from the person themselves, or trying to replicate what someone else has done. It may have a name or not. In that sense, tech was a strong part of traditional (Maori) poi as that was related to moves that matched the song/meaning of the piece. And as that was often synchronised with a group.
Personally I like what is now called 'tech' spinning. I also like the way Meenik describes that practising 'technique' eg being able to get past mental 'locks' gives you then more freedom to express yourself when spinning for 'nice feel'
.....Can't juggle balls but I sure as hell can juggle details....
geek, level 1
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
Posted:
awesome.
thanks guys. a few points for myself, then;
i had a small discussion with the chutneyking
when posting this, and came to the (a) conclusion that 'tech' is in the eye of the beholder, and is dependent on variation and style. my personal view is that anything I consider hard but well done is tech. But i have a very high standard , and a personal vendetta against the concept that tech is not compatible with dance, which many dancers seem to believe. I tried to make the original post as non-prejudiced as possible, but on rereading this post i feel a need to add a disclaimer to it. No idea how to word it, but (as Nx pointed out yesterday)
Tech is dead. LONG LIVE TECH
a few t'ings, in no particular order:
i'm so glad you also believe that this doesn't need to necessarily be true. and i love the concept of holistic spinning. but i still don't understand why many, many people who choose to block themselves from learning new things are considered more holistic? I'm totally with nick (and have argued it with pele for years
) that practising good techniques allow you more freedom to express yourself. Thanks for reminding me of that, Gabe.
which brings me to:
No, No it's not. come over here and tell me i don't dance.
and must it be fire? i think the majority of spinning is done without fire, even amongst those who love it....
Holly: fantastic post, thank you.
i'm really, really glad you might change what you do to try to learn what previously you considered 'tech'. as it may now be obvious, i think the wider your skill base, the more opportunity to flow you have. it's just that when you SEE someone practise something hard they break flow, look stupid, hit themselves, stand still without movement... and only afterwards does the ugly caterpillar become a beautiful butterfly...
and as Chutney said, your opinion is not wrong. just a different interpretation. (si and tom however, are definitely wrong )
si: thank you for my sunday morning laugh
i agree wholeheartedly with you that spinning well is the combination. but why should tech be bad? i would call your list:
1. bad tech spinning, (or practising)
2. my nemesis
3. good spinning.
Richee:
A. not only did i understand it, but i thought it was brilliant. thank you. Would have been an A+ but for the language
Pele:
I have to agree with josh - spinning is NOT the same as it was ten years ago, no matter how you look at it. not even close. but i won't be drawn into it again
(i had to physically go to australia to show stone that poi spinning is not just borrowed from club swinging, and i don't fancy it again....) suffice to say that in each of the fields you mentioned, maybe yes, there were a few things being explored back then, but now the exploration is worldwide, and far, far greater than it ever was.
Rest of the post however - awesome. nothing to comment on as your response is very subjective, as you say, but really good reading, with good grammar, length, and based on considerable experience. A-
Chutney and Imbalance:
A++
except i would ask you both (and everyone else)to stop talking about 'moves' and start thinking about 'movements'
[/cryptic drew impression]
awesome.
thanks guys. a few points for myself, then;
i had a small discussion with the chutneyking
when posting this, and came to the (a) conclusion that 'tech' is in the eye of the beholder, and is dependent on variation and style. my personal view is that anything I consider hard but well done is tech. But i have a very high standard , and a personal vendetta against the concept that tech is not compatible with dance, which many dancers seem to believe. I tried to make the original post as non-prejudiced as possible, but on rereading this post i feel a need to add a disclaimer to it. No idea how to word it, but (as Nx pointed out yesterday)Tech is dead. LONG LIVE TECH
a few t'ings, in no particular order:
Written by: josh
Technical - spinning in a way that demonstrates the technique generally to the detriment of the whole spinner
i'm so glad you also believe that this doesn't need to necessarily be true. and i love the concept of holistic spinning. but i still don't understand why many, many people who choose to block themselves from learning new things are considered more holistic? I'm totally with nick (and have argued it with pele for years
) that practising good techniques allow you more freedom to express yourself. Thanks for reminding me of that, Gabe.which brings me to:
Written by: Firetom
It's simply "doing complicated things", i.e. "spinning fire" vs. "dancing with fire"
No, No it's not. come over here and tell me i don't dance.
and must it be fire? i think the majority of spinning is done without fire, even amongst those who love it....
Holly: fantastic post, thank you.
i'm really, really glad you might change what you do to try to learn what previously you considered 'tech'. as it may now be obvious, i think the wider your skill base, the more opportunity to flow you have. it's just that when you SEE someone practise something hard they break flow, look stupid, hit themselves, stand still without movement... and only afterwards does the ugly caterpillar become a beautiful butterfly...
and as Chutney said, your opinion is not wrong. just a different interpretation. (si and tom however, are definitely wrong
)si: thank you for my sunday morning laugh
i agree wholeheartedly with you that spinning well is the combination. but why should tech be bad? i would call your list:
1. bad tech spinning, (or practising)
2. my nemesis
3. good spinning.
Richee:
A. not only did i understand it, but i thought it was brilliant. thank you. Would have been an A+ but for the language
Pele:
I have to agree with josh - spinning is NOT the same as it was ten years ago, no matter how you look at it. not even close. but i won't be drawn into it again
(i had to physically go to australia to show stone that poi spinning is not just borrowed from club swinging, and i don't fancy it again....) suffice to say that in each of the fields you mentioned, maybe yes, there were a few things being explored back then, but now the exploration is worldwide, and far, far greater than it ever was.Rest of the post however - awesome. nothing to comment on as your response is very subjective, as you say, but really good reading, with good grammar, length, and based on considerable experience. A-
Chutney and Imbalance:
A++
except i would ask you both (and everyone else)to stop talking about 'moves' and start thinking about 'movements'
[/cryptic drew impression]
Holistic Spinner (I hope)
PLATINUM Member
bastard child of satan
1,113 posts
Location: Raanana, Israel
bastard child of satan
1,113 posts
Location: Raanana, Israel
Posted:
I generally call things that are still not completely understood and things currently being explored by people "tech". things like stalls, flowers, hyperloops etc. have been around before we named them, but some of the stalls and flower variations coming up recently are mind blowing and very pretty at the same time, even to non-spinners.
another way that i look at tech moves, is moves that the (non-spinner) crowd probably wont understand, like the difference between a hybrid weave and a regular weave wont be noticeable for most non-spinners.
josh, what you said about tech spinning is true to an extent. i think when you try to blend a move that's still new to you, and still uncomfortable, it breaks away from the flow of your routine, and it will usually look great when you're able to move/dance with it. for example- i improved my 1.5s recently, and they look awesome when you exaggerate the move with body movements.
I generally call things that are still not completely understood and things currently being explored by people "tech". things like stalls, flowers, hyperloops etc. have been around before we named them, but some of the stalls and flower variations coming up recently are mind blowing and very pretty at the same time, even to non-spinners.
another way that i look at tech moves, is moves that the (non-spinner) crowd probably wont understand, like the difference between a hybrid weave and a regular weave wont be noticeable for most non-spinners.
josh, what you said about tech spinning is true to an extent. i think when you try to blend a move that's still new to you, and still uncomfortable, it breaks away from the flow of your routine, and it will usually look great when you're able to move/dance with it. for example- i improved my 1.5s recently, and they look awesome when you exaggerate the move with body movements.
BRONZE Member
Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
3,289 posts
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
3,289 posts
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posted:
yeah I think I've changed my opinion now that I've met so many spinners who meld the really hard 'tech' moves with the dance movements that I used to mainly see with 'non-tech' style spinners. I'm really glad its happened
yeah I think a growing awareness of that distinction is probly whats driving this whole thing
Josh
Written by: bluecat
...tech is not compatible with dance, which many dancers seem to believe.
yeah I think I've changed my opinion now that I've met so many spinners who meld the really hard 'tech' moves with the dance movements that I used to mainly see with 'non-tech' style spinners. I'm really glad its happened
Written by: bluecat
except i would ask you both (and everyone else)to stop talking about 'moves' and start thinking about 'movements'
[/cryptic drew impression]
yeah I think a growing awareness of that distinction is probly whats driving this whole thing
Josh
--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!
PLATINUM Member
Flying Water Muppet
5,276 posts
Location: Edin-borrow., United Kingdom
Flying Water Muppet
5,276 posts
Location: Edin-borrow., United Kingdom
Posted:
My original answer to "what is tech?":
When you explore a family of moves and you find all the pretty ones that everybody learns then the discarded, forgotten ones are tech.
I've neon-shaolins answer, but can't quite agree with it. (Cos it's not what it means in my head. I like this kinda spinning thou.)
I think Ronan isn't very technical, he does a lot of 'techy' moves, but they so clean it's just beautiful spinning. SO maybe tech has to be advanced or novel spinning, done slightly badly?
Maybe tech is when you concentrate on the flow of the poi to the detriment of the flow of your body? I mean, surely the 7 beat weave will always be tech? (Or just ugly ) Especially when you're concentrating on doing a 7 beat weave into a five beat btb waistwrap into a anti-spin hybrid...
But can you get 'easy' tech spinning? Like glowsticking wrap combo's, most of the wraps themselves are quite simple, and you can build them up pretty quickly into combo's... Are they tech? Are they only tech when you move between one difficult wrap combo to another difficult wrap combo in a difficult way? (Please ignore this, what a mumble.)
I partially agree with LTC, that increasingly complicated moves, with increasingly complicated names go increasingly towards 'tech'. But sometimes, once you get a move like an anti-spin hug, it's not tech anymore, it's just another way to do it. ie: sometimes stuff with long names is simple, innit? So once again, maybe tech is more like how complicated a move is, in reality. So to describe a butterfly, you have to say very little. To describe an olos anti-spin hybrid fountain, you have to say a lot more. And indeed to describe a weave, you have to say a fair bit too. So if you wanted to have a heirachry of techyness then if could perhaps be the length of the code needed to simulate it in some future poi bot.
as for "tech vs dance" or "is tech dance" and "do you need tech in order to dance?" I think I had this discussion partially with rev on spherc...
https://www.spherculism.net/phorum/index.php?read,17,16402
well, kinda. It made sense in my head.
Anyway, bluecat: I said that, NOT tom! You don't got NO respect man!
My original answer to "what is tech?":
When you explore a family of moves and you find all the pretty ones that everybody learns then the discarded, forgotten ones are tech.
I've neon-shaolins answer, but can't quite agree with it. (Cos it's not what it means in my head. I like this kinda spinning thou.)
I think Ronan isn't very technical, he does a lot of 'techy' moves, but they so clean it's just beautiful spinning. SO maybe tech has to be advanced or novel spinning, done slightly badly?
Maybe tech is when you concentrate on the flow of the poi to the detriment of the flow of your body? I mean, surely the 7 beat weave will always be tech? (Or just ugly
) Especially when you're concentrating on doing a 7 beat weave into a five beat btb waistwrap into a anti-spin hybrid... But can you get 'easy' tech spinning? Like glowsticking wrap combo's, most of the wraps themselves are quite simple, and you can build them up pretty quickly into combo's... Are they tech? Are they only tech when you move between one difficult wrap combo to another difficult wrap combo in a difficult way? (Please ignore this, what a mumble.)
I partially agree with LTC, that increasingly complicated moves, with increasingly complicated names go increasingly towards 'tech'. But sometimes, once you get a move like an anti-spin hug, it's not tech anymore, it's just another way to do it. ie: sometimes stuff with long names is simple, innit? So once again, maybe tech is more like how complicated a move is, in reality. So to describe a butterfly, you have to say very little. To describe an olos anti-spin hybrid fountain, you have to say a lot more. And indeed to describe a weave, you have to say a fair bit too. So if you wanted to have a heirachry of techyness then if could perhaps be the length of the code needed to simulate it in some future poi bot.
as for "tech vs dance" or "is tech dance" and "do you need tech in order to dance?" I think I had this discussion partially with rev on spherc...
https://www.spherculism.net/phorum/index.php?read,17,16402
well, kinda. It made sense in my head.
Anyway, bluecat: I said that, NOT tom! You don't got NO respect man!
"the now legendary" - Kaskade
"the still legendary" - Kaskade
I spunked in my friend's aquarium and the fish ate it. I love all fish. Especially the pink ones. They are my bitches. - Anon.
110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
3,149 posts
Location: London
3,149 posts
Location: London
Posted:
[Old link]
[Old link]
"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."
BRONZE Member
Classically British
5,689 posts
Location: Epsom, Surrey, England
Classically British
5,689 posts
Location: Epsom, Surrey, England
Posted:
Burner of Toast
Spinner of poi
Slacker of enormous magnitude
geek, level 1
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
Posted:
oooh thanks simon. i did in fact do a search (and didn't find that thread, somehow), but i think its been worth the new ideas (after a re-read of the old one), cause it turned into a meg/arashi love-in and would have been difficult to continue.
also, i think the goals of the orignal posts were slightly different - you admitted yourseld you had got an answer, whereas i am still looking.
there's a really interesting point came up in it htough, which relates well to this one:
if 'tech' is so much in the eye of the beholder, and noone knows how others think of it, why is it used and abused so much?
anyway.
simian you are not tech - you just make easy things look weird
oooh thanks simon. i did in fact do a search (and didn't find that thread, somehow), but i think its been worth the new ideas (after a re-read of the old one), cause it turned into a meg/arashi love-in and would have been difficult to continue.
also, i think the goals of the orignal posts were slightly different - you admitted yourseld you had got an answer, whereas i am still looking.
there's a really interesting point came up in it htough, which relates well to this one:
if 'tech' is so much in the eye of the beholder, and noone knows how others think of it, why is it used and abused so much?
anyway.
simian you are not tech - you just make easy things look weird
Holistic Spinner (I hope)
PLATINUM Member
Flying Water Muppet
5,276 posts
Location: Edin-borrow., United Kingdom
Flying Water Muppet
5,276 posts
Location: Edin-borrow., United Kingdom
Posted:
And trust me, that was nothing like a meg/arashi lovefest. You'll know a meg/arashi lovefest when you see it. Which you won't. Apart from in the form of a large shadow cast by candlelight.
Okay I said too much.
Written by: bluecatty
antispin flowers. [...] they are exceedingly 'tech'.
And trust me, that was nothing like a meg/arashi lovefest. You'll know a meg/arashi lovefest when you see it. Which you won't. Apart from in the form of a large shadow cast by candlelight.
Okay I said too much.
"the now legendary" - Kaskade
"the still legendary" - Kaskade
I spunked in my friend's aquarium and the fish ate it. I love all fish. Especially the pink ones. They are my bitches. - Anon.
BRONZE Member
Classically British
5,689 posts
Location: Epsom, Surrey, England
Classically British
5,689 posts
Location: Epsom, Surrey, England
Posted:
My vague answer - Tech would be a move or technique that requires a significant amount of precision to achieve the desired result. Whether this is in precise timing (e.g "s/t a/s b/f w/p flower"), precise movement (e.g. turning a/s flowers), or precise accuracy (negative space, whip catches).
For example you can learn a 3-beat weave (taking a standard non-tech move) and once you've got the movement and timing ok-ish, you've got the move - like-wise airwraps. Whereas the "a/s s/t b/f w/p flower" you need to have the timing and movement bang-on for the move to actually be correct. Likewise if you mess up neg. space, 9 times out of 10 you'll hit something with the poi head, or a whip-catch would just be dropped.
Not-1.5s aren't tech because you can get the movements very quickly - you can polish them to a high level, but in essence the movement is simple and can be done fairly sloppy whilst still having the same effect.
Hmmm...other examples:
Non-tech:
a/s flowers ~ Most people, after a bit of time can get their arms moving one direction with the poi going in another
Tech:
Turning a/s flowers ~ Requires much more precision with planes so as not to clobber yourself whilst turning, nor mess up the timing.
Non-tech:
Parallel hybrids (not neccessarily with isolation) ~ Getting the timing so your hand is next to the poi head is pretty simple, even turning with it.
Tech:
Hybrid-weave (with isolation) ~ Switching the isolated poi and keeping the poi in a line, again require precision to get the proper effect.
I don't really play with atomics, so don't know about them
My vague answer - Tech would be a move or technique that requires a significant amount of precision to achieve the desired result. Whether this is in precise timing (e.g "s/t a/s b/f w/p flower"), precise movement (e.g. turning a/s flowers), or precise accuracy (negative space, whip catches).
For example you can learn a 3-beat weave (taking a standard non-tech move) and once you've got the movement and timing ok-ish, you've got the move - like-wise airwraps. Whereas the "a/s s/t b/f w/p flower" you need to have the timing and movement bang-on for the move to actually be correct. Likewise if you mess up neg. space, 9 times out of 10 you'll hit something with the poi head, or a whip-catch would just be dropped.
Not-1.5s aren't tech because you can get the movements very quickly - you can polish them to a high level, but in essence the movement is simple and can be done fairly sloppy whilst still having the same effect.
Hmmm...other examples:
Non-tech:
a/s flowers ~ Most people, after a bit of time can get their arms moving one direction with the poi going in another
Tech:
Turning a/s flowers ~ Requires much more precision with planes so as not to clobber yourself whilst turning, nor mess up the timing.
Non-tech:
Parallel hybrids (not neccessarily with isolation) ~ Getting the timing so your hand is next to the poi head is pretty simple, even turning with it.
Tech:
Hybrid-weave (with isolation) ~ Switching the isolated poi and keeping the poi in a line, again require precision to get the proper effect.
I don't really play with atomics, so don't know about them
Burner of Toast
Spinner of poi
Slacker of enormous magnitude
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
I would prefer it, if YOU came over HERE and showed us your techdance pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease *wiggles all that is wigglable*
I would prefer it, if YOU came over HERE and showed us your techdance
pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease *wiggles all that is wigglable* the best smiles are the ones you lead to
geek, level 1
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
Posted:
i'm expensive, and fussy about planes.
i'm expensive, and fussy about planes.
Holistic Spinner (I hope)
BRONZE Member
sanguine
382 posts
Location: sur, USA
sanguine
382 posts
Location: sur, USA
Posted:
I wholeheartedly agree with Durb's explanation of what tech is.
Perhaps the abuse of the word comes from a misappropriation for something that appears new, or innovative, to an individual. If you have never seen someone do a butterfly weave before, it would appear most complex and amazing, hence the tech description, when really it simply blew your mind for being a newly discovered trick (ala: Innovation).
Today, what is deemed tech is from a detailed analysis and description of things such as atomics and inside planes. But when I started, just a mere 1 1/2 years ago, it was simply a struggle to stop making those "ugly" weaves and keep the poi on the correct (outside) part of my arms.
agh! If only I had known better, I would have been a genius.
Now Im just trying to unlearn those habits and get back to understanding what ALMOST came naturally.
I wholeheartedly agree with Durb's explanation of what tech is.
Perhaps the abuse of the word comes from a misappropriation for something that appears new, or innovative, to an individual. If you have never seen someone do a butterfly weave before, it would appear most complex and amazing, hence the tech description, when really it simply blew your mind for being a newly discovered trick (ala: Innovation).
Today, what is deemed tech is from a detailed analysis and description of things such as atomics and inside planes. But when I started, just a mere 1 1/2 years ago, it was simply a struggle to stop making those "ugly" weaves and keep the poi on the correct (outside) part of my arms.
agh! If only I had known better, I would have been a genius.
Now Im just trying to unlearn those habits and get back to understanding what ALMOST came naturally. "to a man whose only tool is a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail." Abraham Maslow
BRONZE Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,750 posts
Location: Europe,Scotland,Both
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,750 posts
Location: Europe,Scotland,Both
Posted:
tech spinning is hard to do
tech spinning is hard to do
This is a post by tom, all spelling is deleberate
-><- Kallisti
SILVER Member
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
Posted:
So dancing with poi (not just wiggling or bending your knees) is tech?
Written by: Durbs
Tech would be a move or technique that requires a significant amount of precision to achieve the desired result.
Written by: Nx
tech spinning is hard to do
So dancing with poi (not just wiggling or bending your knees) is tech?
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
PLATINUM Member
Flying Water Muppet
5,276 posts
Location: Edin-borrow., United Kingdom
Flying Water Muppet
5,276 posts
Location: Edin-borrow., United Kingdom
Posted:
talking online about moves is tech.
talking online about moves is tech.
"the now legendary" - Kaskade
"the still legendary" - Kaskade
I spunked in my friend's aquarium and the fish ate it. I love all fish. Especially the pink ones. They are my bitches. - Anon.
SILVER Member
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
Posted:
but is asking how to do a butterfly on hop tech?
the poi game is pretty tech... we've had some pretty horrible looking moves there...
sketchy, bth, -1, bf, hybrid, wall plane, split time, tangle anyone?
now make it look good and dance while doing it...
ok rob... you win again...
Written by: MCP
talking online about moves is tech.
but is asking how to do a butterfly on hop tech?
the poi game is pretty tech... we've had some pretty horrible looking moves there...
sketchy, bth, -1, bf, hybrid, wall plane, split time, tangle anyone?
now make it look good and dance while doing it...
ok rob... you win again...
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
Pinker than thou
336 posts
Location: A little pink world all my own..
336 posts
Location: A little pink world all my own..
Posted:
Calling something "tech" is just a petulant way of saying "I can't do that move"
Calling something "tech" is just a petulant way of saying "I can't do that move"
A wise man once said: "You have two ears and one mouth, therefore you should shut the 
up and listen" (though, to be fair, he might not've put it _quite_ like that..)
SILVER Member
Elusive and Bearded
3,597 posts
Location: Scottsdale, AZ, USA
Elusive and Bearded
3,597 posts
Location: Scottsdale, AZ, USA
Posted:
i dont think thats true, i have read some comments about my spinning video that say im pretty tech. I dont think so. Maybe tech is in the eye of the beholder.
i dont think thats true, i have read some comments about my spinning video that say im pretty tech. I dont think so. Maybe tech is in the eye of the beholder.
O.B.E.S.E.
Owned by Mynci!
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [defining technical spinning] we found the following existing topics.
Show more..
© 1998 - 2025 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com