Forums > Beginner Poi Moves > the best spinner in the world... and the state of spinning today
Login/Join to Participategeek, level 1
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
Posted:
once upon a time, when my horizons were small, and the total number of members on hop was less than my currrent member number(aaah the good old days when i went by mineiro
), i harboured a secret(hah!) desire and need to be 'the best spinner in the world'
this year, with organising uber events, travelling the world, and being generally reinspired to spin after a year of jugglefever i have come to the following conclusion:
there will never be a best spinner in the world.
i long ago stopped thinking it would be me
but now have stopped thinking it could be anyone.
why?
well. theres a few obvious reasons.
spinning is not competitive, its contemplative. this means you will never be able to judge objectively who is 'better' at spinning. and long may it remain that way.
people have entirely different focuses(foci? focal points? crocuses?). how can you compare RHD to meghan? you can't. simple as that. unless meg spends a year on throws, and antti and tommi spend a year on contact(which, quite scarily, i think they have....). or.. glass and oli. eek! what kind of comparison is that?
and, most importantly, people who have different focuses have got soooooooooo good at the individual sections of what they do that in order to catch up you'd have to give up on another section, allowing some other single minded bugger to totally forge off into the future and blow you away when you look back at what you used to do. some good examples being wibblingmatt, rhd again, meenik
, devkev, oli... the list is long and there are so many i have not named.
one of the great things about these people, and many of their contemporaries is the new respect that spinning gains within the performing and specifically object manipulation communities. no longer can a snooty juggler(or diabolist, or staff spinner about poi, etcetc) turn round and say 'huh, poi is not worth my time because i could learn everything in a day' (and beleive me, that is an accurate paraphrase from bristol juggling convention three years ago from a top juggler). it takes time and dedication, understanding and insight, openness and a willingness to share to become a top level spinner.
Some kind of conclusion? hmmm. well, er... i don't really have one, and i suppose i'm opening this up for some kind of discussion here. i don't want replies that say 'xxxxxxxxx is the best'. i want to know how people feel spinning is developing and has changed since you started. i want to know what you respect about people that inspire you, and how you feel that inspiration is good for the community at large. i want to know what you don't like about the new spinning community, and how it has been belittled by its incredible growth.
i also recently rebumped an awesome thread of NYCs about 'the london factor' (sorry, no link, cold fingers) i'd like to hear also what you think makes a successful spinning community and why some places deliver one style as opposed to another... er. that'll do for starters. i need a cup of tea.
i one last thing: I consider it an honour that many of the most innovative and exciting spinners in the world are my friends, and choose to spend some of their time sharing their skills and inspiring me to develop mine. thank you all( i think you know who you are).
Rob
once upon a time, when my horizons were small, and the total number of members on hop was less than my currrent member number(aaah the good old days when i went by mineiro
), i harboured a secret(hah!) desire and need to be 'the best spinner in the world'this year, with organising uber events, travelling the world, and being generally reinspired to spin after a year of jugglefever i have come to the following conclusion:
there will never be a best spinner in the world.
i long ago stopped thinking it would be me
but now have stopped thinking it could be anyone. why?
well. theres a few obvious reasons.
spinning is not competitive, its contemplative. this means you will never be able to judge objectively who is 'better' at spinning. and long may it remain that way.
people have entirely different focuses(foci? focal points? crocuses?). how can you compare RHD to meghan? you can't. simple as that. unless meg spends a year on throws, and antti and tommi spend a year on contact(which, quite scarily, i think they have....). or.. glass and oli. eek! what kind of comparison is that?
and, most importantly, people who have different focuses have got soooooooooo good at the individual sections of what they do that in order to catch up you'd have to give up on another section, allowing some other single minded bugger to totally forge off into the future and blow you away when you look back at what you used to do. some good examples being wibblingmatt, rhd again, meenik
, devkev, oli... the list is long and there are so many i have not named. one of the great things about these people, and many of their contemporaries is the new respect that spinning gains within the performing and specifically object manipulation communities. no longer can a snooty juggler(or diabolist, or staff spinner about poi, etcetc) turn round and say 'huh, poi is not worth my time because i could learn everything in a day' (and beleive me, that is an accurate paraphrase from bristol juggling convention three years ago from a top juggler). it takes time and dedication, understanding and insight, openness and a willingness to share to become a top level spinner.
Some kind of conclusion? hmmm. well, er... i don't really have one, and i suppose i'm opening this up for some kind of discussion here. i don't want replies that say 'xxxxxxxxx is the best'. i want to know how people feel spinning is developing and has changed since you started. i want to know what you respect about people that inspire you, and how you feel that inspiration is good for the community at large. i want to know what you don't like about the new spinning community, and how it has been belittled by its incredible growth.
i also recently rebumped an awesome thread of NYCs about 'the london factor' (sorry, no link, cold fingers) i'd like to hear also what you think makes a successful spinning community and why some places deliver one style as opposed to another... er. that'll do for starters. i need a cup of tea.
i one last thing: I consider it an honour that many of the most innovative and exciting spinners in the world are my friends, and choose to spend some of their time sharing their skills and inspiring me to develop mine. thank you all( i think you know who you are).
Rob
Holistic Spinner (I hope)
BRONZE Member
Bastard Newbie Messiah
1,269 posts
Location: Apparently lost in my ego, USA
Bastard Newbie Messiah
1,269 posts
Location: Apparently lost in my ego, USA
Posted:
I did a search for posts by bluecat, with abuse in it.. and came up with 4 threads.. This being one, almost al 3 of the others from before or at the time I signed up.. I remember you getting all angry at me (who hasnt right..), but I don't remember what it was in reference to. Well, I do.. but it wasnt something related to this, so its not the same thing your on about.. I'm assuming its about my first post.. that's the only place I distinguished between basics and advanced.. but that line is misleading.. I mean.. we havent gotten to the advanced stuff.. just dabbled with a few non-basic ideas.. first order versus second order patterns.. right now pretty much everything is still first order, and we aren't quite done with them.. but come second order patterns are starting to pop up..
but I don't know what you on about.. so I'll cut it off here.. if you don't want to post it here drop me a pm..
Written by: bluecat
incidentally rev, what you have just posted is exactly what i screamed abuse at a couple of years ago in another thread.
R
I did a search for posts by bluecat, with abuse in it.. and came up with 4 threads.. This being one, almost al 3 of the others from before or at the time I signed up.. I remember you getting all angry at me (who hasnt right..
), but I don't remember what it was in reference to. Well, I do.. but it wasnt something related to this, so its not the same thing your on about.. I'm assuming its about my first post.. that's the only place I distinguished between basics and advanced.. but that line is misleading.. I mean.. we havent gotten to the advanced stuff.. just dabbled with a few non-basic ideas.. first order versus second order patterns.. right now pretty much everything is still first order, and we aren't quite done with them.. but come second order patterns are starting to pop up.. but I don't know what you on about.. so I'll cut it off here.. if you don't want to post it here drop me a pm..
More useless information courtesy of Rev...
Confusing the masses, one post at a time...
"Obviously, you're not a golfer.."- The Dude
"Buy the ticket... Take the ride..." -Raoul Duke
"FEMA has never done catastrophe planning..."-Michael Brown
enthusiast
220 posts
Location: The village of Edinburgh
220 posts
Location: The village of Edinburgh
Posted:
bluecat isn't the best in the world? .... nooooooooo
All my fragile illusions come tumbling down...
bluecat isn't the best in the world? .... nooooooooo
All my fragile illusions come tumbling down...
The insults of your enemy are a tribute to your bravery
geek, level 1
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
Posted:
Holistic Spinner (I hope)
SILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
Posted:
imho, this is a massively common and highly subjective viewpoint.
i think many people come around to that way of thinking at a certain point in their poi paths.
beyond that, they move on to a more rounded, general feeling for the level of overall progression and advancement within the art.
at least, i know it has happened to me and several of my friends - check out this post from glass from nearly three years ago referring to the advent of 'level 2' of poi.
i think it is natural to feel like the art is on the cusp of a huge breakthrough or revolution but the reality is, there are simply constant improvements and advances and every once in a while, an idea pops up from somewhere that pushes that along at an accelerated pace for a short time.
as a comparison, take multi-frequency (or 'poly-rhythmic') juggling, i.e. juggling with one hand doing more throws than the other, in a specific ratio.
its always been there, its just that people have actually worked on it in recent years and developed it specifically.
on a similar theme to that, i (and a very small number of other people) have spent quite a bit of time looking into what is possible with poly-rhythm poi spinning.
this is considered by most people to be 'hard' at this stage of the game and, certainly from my experience, it is very difficult to teach right now, to just about anyone.
but its not hard - its just that not many people do it yet
i know that this idea is massively under-explored and i'm just as sure that the idea will blow up at some point and be massively expanded by people with the time, inclination and inspiration required to do it.
when it does become something everyone wants to be able to do, its won't signal 'the next level' or 'the second order of moves' or anything like that - it'll just be further investigation into another area of poi spinning
take the ways of spinning that have been developed over the last couple of years - isolation and antispin.
people were spinning patterns with these movements in years and years ago (long before i started spinning) but it took time and other trends (such as the explosion in populairty of compound circless and flowers) before they began to be explored in their own right.
this doesn't signal a renaissance in poi spinning, nor is it an indication of the cusp of a revolution - its simply progression as it has always occurred.
cole. x
Written by: Rev
I distinguished between basics and advanced.. but that line is misleading.. I mean.. we havent gotten to the advanced stuff.. just dabbled with a few non-basic ideas.. first order versus second order patterns.. right now pretty much everything is still first order, and we aren't quite done with them.. but come second order patterns are starting to pop up..
imho, this is a massively common and highly subjective viewpoint.
i think many people come around to that way of thinking at a certain point in their poi paths.
beyond that, they move on to a more rounded, general feeling for the level of overall progression and advancement within the art.
at least, i know it has happened to me and several of my friends - check out this post from glass from nearly three years ago referring to the advent of 'level 2' of poi.
i think it is natural to feel like the art is on the cusp of a huge breakthrough or revolution but the reality is, there are simply constant improvements and advances and every once in a while, an idea pops up from somewhere that pushes that along at an accelerated pace for a short time.
as a comparison, take multi-frequency (or 'poly-rhythmic') juggling, i.e. juggling with one hand doing more throws than the other, in a specific ratio.
its always been there, its just that people have actually worked on it in recent years and developed it specifically.
on a similar theme to that, i (and a very small number of other people) have spent quite a bit of time looking into what is possible with poly-rhythm poi spinning.
this is considered by most people to be 'hard' at this stage of the game and, certainly from my experience, it is very difficult to teach right now, to just about anyone.
but its not hard - its just that not many people do it yet
i know that this idea is massively under-explored and i'm just as sure that the idea will blow up at some point and be massively expanded by people with the time, inclination and inspiration required to do it.
when it does become something everyone wants to be able to do, its won't signal 'the next level' or 'the second order of moves' or anything like that - it'll just be further investigation into another area of poi spinning
take the ways of spinning that have been developed over the last couple of years - isolation and antispin.
people were spinning patterns with these movements in years and years ago (long before i started spinning) but it took time and other trends (such as the explosion in populairty of compound circless and flowers) before they began to be explored in their own right.
this doesn't signal a renaissance in poi spinning, nor is it an indication of the cusp of a revolution - its simply progression as it has always occurred.
cole. x
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
geek, level 1
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
Posted:
aaah cole
aaah cole
Holistic Spinner (I hope)
BRONZE Member
Bastard Newbie Messiah
1,269 posts
Location: Apparently lost in my ego, USA
Bastard Newbie Messiah
1,269 posts
Location: Apparently lost in my ego, USA
Posted:
nice post cole..
I didnt mean to imply that there arent advances.. or havent been significant ones... I was saying that we can organize things into categories that we already had, but didnt pay attention to. Antispin is like butterfly.. only instead of buterfly(opposite spin) between two poi centers of spin.. its between the center of spin of arm and poi.. inversions we had with buzzsaws, but now we have them to a much deeper degree, because we have a better understanding of what an inversion is take richees plane post for instance.. we've had atomics, just not in such a drastic form.. and we can apply atomics to what I called atomic spin anc get the same effect there as we found with butterflies and antispin.. etc.. and so forth..
now these are significant advancements, as are each of the other areas that I failed to mention. But these aren't 'new' in the sense that these concepts werent here.. Just 'new' in the sense that it took some bold people to take it to the next level and build it into something amazing.. Brave explorers, who in my opinion, are filling in the areas that a lot of us have over looked..
When I think of higher order patterns, I don't see this same relationship. Yes, I see concepts that we already have (hence the basics) but I see them used in complex ways.. for instance, (and this is a bad example but I'm going to use it anyway) think of weave (or threading in general) as being a type of base pattern ( I don't think it is but lets use it) and think of reel as being a different type of base pattern.. each describes mutually exclusive properties.. and so we can explore each pattern and fill out how each would be affected by different factors (like normal planes, versus inverted ones, or inisdes, etc) we explore each of these on a first order basis.. it with every variable that doesnt count as the same kind it is.. in other words, with different timings (weave nor reel is a timing) or different planes (neither is a plane) etc.. but we moveinto higher order when we combine concepts with the same type of concept.. we do patterns that count as both weave (because they thread) and reel (becase the poi stay in opposite planes as they move..
whenI think of patterns built like that, Iim thinking of patterns that are no longer basic.. they are no longer taken in isolation to other similar variable types.. yes, they are like you said just another form of spinning, but for me they are a form of spinning of a different caliber.. This is where I draw the line between first and second+ order.. because by the time we finish the MASSIVE amount of stuff on our plate currently, there will be little in the ways of new basic patterns.. most of those will have been explored, and few bits and bobs will pop up over time, as we notice the few things we've missed out on.. (and have reached a collective level of competence that blows away anything we see today in an individual.. )
I think that that point is where we are headed.. and, I think that that point would be in effect a revolution.. thik of the diversification now.. and think of the diversification multplied several times over by each 'pattern' in each 'family'... the permutations are exponential.. Then, I think you will see each spinner so radically different, that the roles will be swtiched.. rather than 1 in 10 videos being different.. maybe 1 in 10 would be similar.. (since you still gotta account for new people learning)
**I hope this is offenseive to people... I dont know if this is what blue was abusively angry about.. I'm not meaning to offend people here.. and am quite perplexed as to what in this can be taen as offensive.. **
nice post cole..
I didnt mean to imply that there arent advances.. or havent been significant ones... I was saying that we can organize things into categories that we already had, but didnt pay attention to. Antispin is like butterfly.. only instead of buterfly(opposite spin) between two poi centers of spin.. its between the center of spin of arm and poi.. inversions we had with buzzsaws, but now we have them to a much deeper degree, because we have a better understanding of what an inversion is take richees plane post for instance.. we've had atomics, just not in such a drastic form.. and we can apply atomics to what I called atomic spin anc get the same effect there as we found with butterflies and antispin.. etc.. and so forth..
now these are significant advancements, as are each of the other areas that I failed to mention. But these aren't 'new' in the sense that these concepts werent here.. Just 'new' in the sense that it took some bold people to take it to the next level and build it into something amazing.. Brave explorers, who in my opinion, are filling in the areas that a lot of us have over looked..
When I think of higher order patterns, I don't see this same relationship. Yes, I see concepts that we already have (hence the basics) but I see them used in complex ways.. for instance, (and this is a bad example but I'm going to use it anyway) think of weave (or threading in general) as being a type of base pattern ( I don't think it is but lets use it) and think of reel as being a different type of base pattern.. each describes mutually exclusive properties.. and so we can explore each pattern and fill out how each would be affected by different factors (like normal planes, versus inverted ones, or inisdes, etc) we explore each of these on a first order basis.. it with every variable that doesnt count as the same kind it is.. in other words, with different timings (weave nor reel is a timing) or different planes (neither is a plane) etc.. but we moveinto higher order when we combine concepts with the same type of concept.. we do patterns that count as both weave (because they thread) and reel (becase the poi stay in opposite planes as they move..
whenI think of patterns built like that, Iim thinking of patterns that are no longer basic.. they are no longer taken in isolation to other similar variable types.. yes, they are like you said just another form of spinning, but for me they are a form of spinning of a different caliber.. This is where I draw the line between first and second+ order.. because by the time we finish the MASSIVE amount of stuff on our plate currently, there will be little in the ways of new basic patterns.. most of those will have been explored, and few bits and bobs will pop up over time, as we notice the few things we've missed out on.. (and have reached a collective level of competence that blows away anything we see today in an individual.. )
I think that that point is where we are headed.. and, I think that that point would be in effect a revolution.. thik of the diversification now.. and think of the diversification multplied several times over by each 'pattern' in each 'family'... the permutations are exponential.. Then, I think you will see each spinner so radically different, that the roles will be swtiched.. rather than 1 in 10 videos being different.. maybe 1 in 10 would be similar.. (since you still gotta account for new people learning)
**I hope this is offenseive to people... I dont know if this is what blue was abusively angry about.. I'm not meaning to offend people here.. and am quite perplexed as to what in this can be taen as offensive.. **
More useless information courtesy of Rev...
Confusing the masses, one post at a time...
"Obviously, you're not a golfer.."- The Dude
"Buy the ticket... Take the ride..." -Raoul Duke
"FEMA has never done catastrophe planning..."-Michael Brown
geek, level 1
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
Posted:
i was abusive many moons ago about the concept
'people just try to learn hard stuff and skip the basics'
that, in the past, made me exceptionally angry. i still disagree with it wholeheartedly. but i'm not going to go into it again.
don't worry about annoying me.
i was abusive many moons ago about the concept
'people just try to learn hard stuff and skip the basics'
that, in the past, made me exceptionally angry. i still disagree with it wholeheartedly. but i'm not going to go into it again.
don't worry about annoying me.
Holistic Spinner (I hope)
SILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
Posted:
like i say though rev, the kind of combination of concepts that you now expect to spark a revolution is not a new thing that has only come about in recent years.
its the story of a progression that has been going on since modern poi spinning began:
as 'new' areas of moves are explored and discovered, so the number of moves available multiplies.
an oldskool example of what you call a 'second order move' would be a butterfly weave.
in fact, this is possibly the best fundamental example of these 'mixed concept' moves because it combined the original two ways of spinning - which obviously completely blew people's minds when they first saw/discovered it.
just because more fundamental areas/ways of spinning have been further developed, does not signal a huge renaissance in poi spinning - it is simply the progression rolling on.
sure, there are a few more, better defined areas to combine now, but that was exactly the case two or three years ago - we thought that there were not really many more fundamental areas left to explore and that the only thing remaining to do was to fully combine the existing and recently developed areas of spinning.
yet now, a few years on, we find people in exactly the same position, saying the same thing.
i made reference to an almost entirely unexplored fundamental area of poi spinning in my last post which, when more fully explored, will again gift us with a massive increase in the number of moves (and combinations of moves) available to us.
if we can identify this kind of so-far untapped opportunity now, i'm sure we're missing loads more that will be thought of in the days and years to come.
having said all that, this is all very closely related to what rob was getting at - that poi has already become so diverse that it is no longer possible to do every move out leaving just style left to separate the spinners...
there are now enough moves to make people distinguishable from each other by their avaiable move set and their selection within that set, *in addition to* their overall spinning style.
exactly!
but this is not a revolution - it is the continuation of a progression that has been going on for a very long time now.
it may seem like a revelation to you now but back in 2003, we were saying exactly the same thing and in two years' time, we probably still will be.
lets come back and check - if i'm wrong, i'll send you a cookie
cole. x
like i say though rev, the kind of combination of concepts that you now expect to spark a revolution is not a new thing that has only come about in recent years.
its the story of a progression that has been going on since modern poi spinning began:
as 'new' areas of moves are explored and discovered, so the number of moves available multiplies.
an oldskool example of what you call a 'second order move' would be a butterfly weave.
in fact, this is possibly the best fundamental example of these 'mixed concept' moves because it combined the original two ways of spinning - which obviously completely blew people's minds when they first saw/discovered it.
just because more fundamental areas/ways of spinning have been further developed, does not signal a huge renaissance in poi spinning - it is simply the progression rolling on.
sure, there are a few more, better defined areas to combine now, but that was exactly the case two or three years ago - we thought that there were not really many more fundamental areas left to explore and that the only thing remaining to do was to fully combine the existing and recently developed areas of spinning.
yet now, a few years on, we find people in exactly the same position, saying the same thing.
i made reference to an almost entirely unexplored fundamental area of poi spinning in my last post which, when more fully explored, will again gift us with a massive increase in the number of moves (and combinations of moves) available to us.
if we can identify this kind of so-far untapped opportunity now, i'm sure we're missing loads more that will be thought of in the days and years to come.
having said all that, this is all very closely related to what rob was getting at - that poi has already become so diverse that it is no longer possible to do every move out leaving just style left to separate the spinners...
there are now enough moves to make people distinguishable from each other by their avaiable move set and their selection within that set, *in addition to* their overall spinning style.
Written by: rev
thik of the diversification now.. and think of the diversification multplied several times over by each 'pattern' in each 'family'... the permutations are exponential.. Then, I think you will see each spinner so radically different, that the roles will be swtiched.. rather than 1 in 10 videos being different.. maybe 1 in 10 would be similar.. (since you still gotta account for new people learning)
exactly!
but this is not a revolution - it is the continuation of a progression that has been going on for a very long time now.
it may seem like a revelation to you now but back in 2003, we were saying exactly the same thing and in two years' time, we probably still will be.
lets come back and check - if i'm wrong, i'll send you a cookie
cole. x
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
BRONZE Member
Bastard Newbie Messiah
1,269 posts
Location: Apparently lost in my ego, USA
Bastard Newbie Messiah
1,269 posts
Location: Apparently lost in my ego, USA
Posted:
blue-
I'm sorry.. I didnt mean that I advocate people skipping basics.. I meant that the advanced learning curve promotes two kinds of spinners: the messiahs, and the ones that skip basics.. The first I think is part of the community evolving forward (better teaching methods and so forth) The second I find to be an abomination.. These are the stars that burn out quick.. people that can do all the wicked stuff.. but then a year later are nowhere to be found.. they didnt really 'learn' anything, and so they don't have the kind of understanding that helps the do more then a few cool tricks.. and they eventually move on.. I never advocate skipping basics.. I have stated numerous times that you don't have to practice every move because some of them are redundant, and you can get better at it by practicing a dfferent move.. but I never said not to learn things..
cole-
I don't count the butterfly weave as part of that category.. ttn and the weave are the same thing in my book.. its just threading.. if you thread between reflective planes its a weave.. and if you thread in the same plane its a ttn.. doing that same direction or opposite isnt mixing fundementals.. its just your basic blocks.. like spinning same versus antispin.. when you think of the relation between arms and poi of normal spinning and antispin, its the same as butterfly and normal.. where's the cross in fundementals? I don't see it.. reel and weave though (and again this is a bad example but still a little clearer) are categories that we can think of typicaly as being someting xclusive.. threading requires two poi planes in the same plane.. reels require two poi planes in reflective planes.. they don't seem to mix.. when really the mix quite well..
so in the case of the butterfly weave, we took two different basic concepts.. different in the sense that they are different classes.. one refers to direction (of poi to each other) and one talks about the relation of the poi planes to each other. With a weave and reel though, we are talking about basics in a different way.. we are talking about two classes of basics that are of the same type.
evolutions like the butterfly weave are the advent of mixing single classes together.. I take one varible from timing. I take one from direction (poi to poi). One from direction (arm to poi). and so forth.. and the result is the pattern I happen to spin at that time.. These higher order patterns, differ, in that they take multiple classes from an individual variable type. Of these, we have relatively few. We need a much deeper understanding of the fundementals (variables taken in isolation, one at a time) before we can understand how they can combine with other similar types..
The fundementals are new, in the sense that there is nothing more basic then them. They are the ultimate foundation. I mean, you have to have one from every variable class or you aren't spinning. try and spin a 3bt weave. you can't. You have to spin a 3bt weave with a timing, in a plane, and so forth. Every class of relationships is filled in with one type when you spin. Any less, and you aren't spinning. Higher order patterns, I think, are quite different, because you build complex patterns that can ultimately reduce to one or more of these. Think of it like a combo reduced to a single pattern in much the same way a antispin flower compresses into a weave..
I'm not saying its -not- an evolution like you speak. I'm just saying its a completely different beast from the kind we are used to. All of the evolution in the past hasn't gotten us to any higher order stuff.. not in my opinion. Its all just reduced to things we took for granted. mainly of late, its been concentric spinning..
poi same time with the arms= normal spin
poi split time relative the arms= isolation
poi same direction as the arms= normal spin
poi contra the arms= antspin
and so forth.. before everyone thought of two centers, the hands, and how they reduced to one. Ie, your butterfly, your weave, etc..
now we think in terms of how the center of spin of the arms differs from the poi in the same ways that the poi can differ from each other.. Maybe I'm blind, but I just don't see how any of that is a 'progession' in the sense of something evolving into a hgiher order. so much as an elightenment, of the basic relationships we overlooked.
I guess in some way, we might be able to look at this and say, 'ah but now we are using the same basic concept (one center of spin moving opposite the other) and applying it to new centers of spin.' Which I guess is why you see it as just natural progression of the same type of application I speak of. I, on the other hand, see the relationship being the same, but the centers of spin its being applied to are not. These are still fundemental centers of spin (as in they are the most basic of centers, and are part of most every move), its not like these are 'new' centers of spin that are 'created from the way we use the old centers of spin. And as such are just a fleshing out of more basic conceptual pieces.
now let me end my polite post with a bit of rudeness. I just don't see all the 'style' that has seperated the genres. I see the style that the diverse move bases are leading to, and the ones the diversification that -should- be there. But, I don't see much of it now. I also don't agree that poi has become something so large that you can't master, I just think its become so large that there -aren't- masters.. I also think that the rate of growth will yield the no true masters.. but again, I think that the true diversification comes from when we have mastered the basics (which would be pretty much everything out there now, and a few more theoretical pieces) and the divergence comes in the incredible complexity that comes from those permutations. Some people will focus more heavily in some areas then others, and perhaps some people might opt to not learn all the basics.. but I think that mastery of all the basics is still a current feasible option, and will weigh heavily on many of the styles to come. In other words, I think people finally have a good idea of the scope of poi. I don't think (regardless of what people previously thought) that they ever did.
blue-
I'm sorry.. I didnt mean that I advocate people skipping basics.. I meant that the advanced learning curve promotes two kinds of spinners: the messiahs, and the ones that skip basics.. The first I think is part of the community evolving forward (better teaching methods and so forth) The second I find to be an abomination.. These are the stars that burn out quick.. people that can do all the wicked stuff.. but then a year later are nowhere to be found.. they didnt really 'learn' anything, and so they don't have the kind of understanding that helps the do more then a few cool tricks.. and they eventually move on.. I never advocate skipping basics.. I have stated numerous times that you don't have to practice every move because some of them are redundant, and you can get better at it by practicing a dfferent move.. but I never said not to learn things..
cole-
I don't count the butterfly weave as part of that category.. ttn and the weave are the same thing in my book.. its just threading.. if you thread between reflective planes its a weave.. and if you thread in the same plane its a ttn.. doing that same direction or opposite isnt mixing fundementals.. its just your basic blocks.. like spinning same versus antispin.. when you think of the relation between arms and poi of normal spinning and antispin, its the same as butterfly and normal.. where's the cross in fundementals? I don't see it.. reel and weave though (and again this is a bad example but still a little clearer) are categories that we can think of typicaly as being someting xclusive.. threading requires two poi planes in the same plane.. reels require two poi planes in reflective planes.. they don't seem to mix.. when really the mix quite well..
so in the case of the butterfly weave, we took two different basic concepts.. different in the sense that they are different classes.. one refers to direction (of poi to each other) and one talks about the relation of the poi planes to each other. With a weave and reel though, we are talking about basics in a different way.. we are talking about two classes of basics that are of the same type.
evolutions like the butterfly weave are the advent of mixing single classes together.. I take one varible from timing. I take one from direction (poi to poi). One from direction (arm to poi). and so forth.. and the result is the pattern I happen to spin at that time.. These higher order patterns, differ, in that they take multiple classes from an individual variable type. Of these, we have relatively few. We need a much deeper understanding of the fundementals (variables taken in isolation, one at a time) before we can understand how they can combine with other similar types..
The fundementals are new, in the sense that there is nothing more basic then them. They are the ultimate foundation. I mean, you have to have one from every variable class or you aren't spinning. try and spin a 3bt weave. you can't. You have to spin a 3bt weave with a timing, in a plane, and so forth. Every class of relationships is filled in with one type when you spin. Any less, and you aren't spinning. Higher order patterns, I think, are quite different, because you build complex patterns that can ultimately reduce to one or more of these. Think of it like a combo reduced to a single pattern in much the same way a antispin flower compresses into a weave..
I'm not saying its -not- an evolution like you speak. I'm just saying its a completely different beast from the kind we are used to. All of the evolution in the past hasn't gotten us to any higher order stuff.. not in my opinion. Its all just reduced to things we took for granted. mainly of late, its been concentric spinning..
poi same time with the arms= normal spin
poi split time relative the arms= isolation
poi same direction as the arms= normal spin
poi contra the arms= antspin
and so forth.. before everyone thought of two centers, the hands, and how they reduced to one. Ie, your butterfly, your weave, etc..
now we think in terms of how the center of spin of the arms differs from the poi in the same ways that the poi can differ from each other.. Maybe I'm blind, but I just don't see how any of that is a 'progession' in the sense of something evolving into a hgiher order. so much as an elightenment, of the basic relationships we overlooked.
I guess in some way, we might be able to look at this and say, 'ah but now we are using the same basic concept (one center of spin moving opposite the other) and applying it to new centers of spin.' Which I guess is why you see it as just natural progression of the same type of application I speak of. I, on the other hand, see the relationship being the same, but the centers of spin its being applied to are not. These are still fundemental centers of spin (as in they are the most basic of centers, and are part of most every move), its not like these are 'new' centers of spin that are 'created from the way we use the old centers of spin. And as such are just a fleshing out of more basic conceptual pieces.
now let me end my polite post with a bit of rudeness. I just don't see all the 'style' that has seperated the genres. I see the style that the diverse move bases are leading to, and the ones the diversification that -should- be there. But, I don't see much of it now. I also don't agree that poi has become something so large that you can't master, I just think its become so large that there -aren't- masters.. I also think that the rate of growth will yield the no true masters.. but again, I think that the true diversification comes from when we have mastered the basics (which would be pretty much everything out there now, and a few more theoretical pieces) and the divergence comes in the incredible complexity that comes from those permutations. Some people will focus more heavily in some areas then others, and perhaps some people might opt to not learn all the basics.. but I think that mastery of all the basics is still a current feasible option, and will weigh heavily on many of the styles to come. In other words, I think people finally have a good idea of the scope of poi. I don't think (regardless of what people previously thought) that they ever did.
More useless information courtesy of Rev...
Confusing the masses, one post at a time...
"Obviously, you're not a golfer.."- The Dude
"Buy the ticket... Take the ride..." -Raoul Duke
"FEMA has never done catastrophe planning..."-Michael Brown
geek, level 1
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
Posted:
you have totally grasped the wrong end of my stick(so to speak)
i think its great that people don't have to learn basics before learning what we have deemed 'hard'. and think that some of the best spinners i've ever seen have learnt this way.
ah well. each to their own.
you have totally grasped the wrong end of my stick(so to speak)
i think its great that people don't have to learn basics before learning what we have deemed 'hard'. and think that some of the best spinners i've ever seen have learnt this way.
ah well. each to their own.
Holistic Spinner (I hope)
BRONZE Member
Bastard Newbie Messiah
1,269 posts
Location: Apparently lost in my ego, USA
Bastard Newbie Messiah
1,269 posts
Location: Apparently lost in my ego, USA
Posted:
ahh...
makes much more sense now..
see I always thought people saw me as someone who learned all the advacned stuff and skipped the basics.. which is why I have a bit of a stick about it.. I learned stuff backwards rather than forwards.. for example learning the 5bt btb, and then having to go back and learn the 2bt weave, so that I could learn to do offsets.. and things like that.. I can see how people learn all the hard stuff first, but I don't really see how people get by without the beginner stuff (I think I'm going to use that instead of basics is makes more sense this way in contrast to the basics as per my other post)
but truely blue, do you beleive that people that learned the others first never learned the beginner stuff (albeit later but still), because I find that all the stuff I skip over ends up coming back to bite me in the *** when learning some of the other stuff. Or do they skip those things too?
ahh...
makes much more sense now..
see I always thought people saw me as someone who learned all the advacned stuff and skipped the basics.. which is why I have a bit of a stick about it.. I learned stuff backwards rather than forwards.. for example learning the 5bt btb, and then having to go back and learn the 2bt weave, so that I could learn to do offsets.. and things like that.. I can see how people learn all the hard stuff first, but I don't really see how people get by without the beginner stuff (I think I'm going to use that instead of basics is makes more sense this way in contrast to the basics as per my other post)
but truely blue, do you beleive that people that learned the others first never learned the beginner stuff (albeit later but still), because I find that all the stuff I skip over ends up coming back to bite me in the *** when learning some of the other stuff. Or do they skip those things too?
More useless information courtesy of Rev...
Confusing the masses, one post at a time...
"Obviously, you're not a golfer.."- The Dude
"Buy the ticket... Take the ride..." -Raoul Duke
"FEMA has never done catastrophe planning..."-Michael Brown
geek, level 1
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
Posted:
hmm. i just have issues with the idea that some stuff is harder than other stuff. its all much of a muchness as far as i'm concerned, if you have a good teacher and a reasonable brain. or possibly brian.
its nothing to do with the order: i think you should try to learn everything over time. its to do with the labelling of stuff as beginner stuff and advanced stuff, which, imo, is totally non-conducive to good learning.
hmm. i just have issues with the idea that some stuff is harder than other stuff. its all much of a muchness as far as i'm concerned, if you have a good teacher and a reasonable brain. or possibly brian.
its nothing to do with the order: i think you should try to learn everything over time. its to do with the labelling of stuff as beginner stuff and advanced stuff, which, imo, is totally non-conducive to good learning.
Holistic Spinner (I hope)
GOLD Member
Member
48 posts
Location: Canada
Member
48 posts
Location: Canada
Posted:
You should have basic perfection as your main goal. Learning complex things (hyper loops, air warps, kicks, flowers, atomics etc…) is a short-term goal. You should have basics moves mastered because the complex moves will be easier to learn. The question we're all asking is: are you really learning if you hold back your potential because you want to perfect something basic?
Well, yes. You are learning more by perfecting these basics than if you skipped them and learned something complex.
I think with the frustration of learning, I can pick up a complex move and although it looks really sloppy, I know that I’ll be able to perfect it eventually. But when I go back to the basics I learn more when perfecting a move, although sometimes it can be even more frustrating.
I believed I had perfected the 5 bt weave. I was experimenting with the 5 beat weave trying to discover the “reverse” of this, I managed to change the direction my wrist is facing: It does nothing to the move but make it more difficult and was frustrating as hell because I had to analyze everything just to figure out the difference and perfect that. to the point where I can teach this move. This will make learning 5bt reverse wraps easier, which I’ve just started to think about.
Written by: bluecat
its all much of a muchness
You should have basic perfection as your main goal. Learning complex things (hyper loops, air warps, kicks, flowers, atomics etc…) is a short-term goal. You should have basics moves mastered because the complex moves will be easier to learn. The question we're all asking is: are you really learning if you hold back your potential because you want to perfect something basic?
Well, yes. You are learning more by perfecting these basics than if you skipped them and learned something complex.
I think with the frustration of learning, I can pick up a complex move and although it looks really sloppy, I know that I’ll be able to perfect it eventually. But when I go back to the basics I learn more when perfecting a move, although sometimes it can be even more frustrating.
I believed I had perfected the 5 bt weave. I was experimenting with the 5 beat weave trying to discover the “reverse” of this, I managed to change the direction my wrist is facing: It does nothing to the move but make it more difficult and was frustrating as hell because I had to analyze everything just to figure out the difference and perfect that. to the point where I can teach this move. This will make learning 5bt reverse wraps easier, which I’ve just started to think about.
BRONZE Member
Bastard Newbie Messiah
1,269 posts
Location: Apparently lost in my ego, USA
Bastard Newbie Messiah
1,269 posts
Location: Apparently lost in my ego, USA
Posted:
then we are saying the same thing.. you are just putting more weight on the labels that I put then are intended. I teach atoms, inversions, and antispin, along with the butterfly and weave.. I just discriminate between those that learn the 'new' stuff without the intention of ever learning the 'old' stuff..
does putting it that way convey it better?
Written by: bluecat
its nothing to do with the order: i think you should try to learn everything over time. its to do with the labelling of stuff as beginner stuff and advanced stuff, which, imo, is totally non-conducive to good learning.
then we are saying the same thing.. you are just putting more weight on the labels that I put then are intended. I teach atoms, inversions, and antispin, along with the butterfly and weave.. I just discriminate between those that learn the 'new' stuff without the intention of ever learning the 'old' stuff..
does putting it that way convey it better?
More useless information courtesy of Rev...
Confusing the masses, one post at a time...
"Obviously, you're not a golfer.."- The Dude
"Buy the ticket... Take the ride..." -Raoul Duke
"FEMA has never done catastrophe planning..."-Michael Brown
SILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
Posted:
rev - cheers for expanding
still, i really don't see how:
"ttn and the weave are the same thing in my book.. its just threading.. if you thread between reflective planes its a weave.. and if you thread in the same plane its a ttn.. "
is so different from:
"reel and weave though are categories that we can think of typicaly as being someting xclusive.. threading requires two poi planes in the same plane.. reels require two poi planes in reflective planes.. "
how can you be so sure that you are not missing some understanding of the relationship between weave and reels?
as i see it, you are speaking like you have a view of the future.
let me explain:
when butterfly and weave were considered to be seperate fundamental areas, it was not understood how they related to each other.
then someone mixed them and we gained a better understanding of the similarities between them and how they related to each other.
before this mixing of two areas was properly investigated, butterfly and weave were considered to be different as you now consider reels and weaves to be.
through mixing these two areas, we gained a better understanding of the fundamental theories underlying them.
so, how can you say for certain that weave and reel truly are exclusive areas of poi when we may well find relationships between them in the future that makes us reconsider our understanding/ways of thinking about them?
you may be correct but i think only time can tell us that.
for now at least, i would feel a little presumptuous if i were to declare that we now have a 100% complete picture of the fundamental theories underlying poi spinning.
cole. x
rev - cheers for expanding
still, i really don't see how:
"ttn and the weave are the same thing in my book.. its just threading.. if you thread between reflective planes its a weave.. and if you thread in the same plane its a ttn.. "
is so different from:
"reel and weave though are categories that we can think of typicaly as being someting xclusive.. threading requires two poi planes in the same plane.. reels require two poi planes in reflective planes.. "
how can you be so sure that you are not missing some understanding of the relationship between weave and reels?
as i see it, you are speaking like you have a view of the future.
let me explain:
when butterfly and weave were considered to be seperate fundamental areas, it was not understood how they related to each other.
then someone mixed them and we gained a better understanding of the similarities between them and how they related to each other.
before this mixing of two areas was properly investigated, butterfly and weave were considered to be different as you now consider reels and weaves to be.
through mixing these two areas, we gained a better understanding of the fundamental theories underlying them.
so, how can you say for certain that weave and reel truly are exclusive areas of poi when we may well find relationships between them in the future that makes us reconsider our understanding/ways of thinking about them?
you may be correct but i think only time can tell us that.
for now at least, i would feel a little presumptuous if i were to declare that we now have a 100% complete picture of the fundamental theories underlying poi spinning.
cole. x
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
BRONZE Member
Bastard Newbie Messiah
1,269 posts
Location: Apparently lost in my ego, USA
Bastard Newbie Messiah
1,269 posts
Location: Apparently lost in my ego, USA
Posted:
I don't claim to have a 100% clear picture.. As I said before, the example I'm using is bad, becase well, I don't believe it. I only use it because I think it helps to try and convery the idea I want to present without the need to realy go into the nitty gritty of how I 'see' poi.
I think it suffices to say that the period you are talking about people saw things as 'moves' and every new thing we labelled so. Ie. Weave, windmill, corkscrew. if the poi wobbled funny, people gave it a new name. Whereas, now I think there enough geeks out there to understand the differences between things that deserve remarks, and even the differences between things that people don't think should be distinguished..
I throw terms like classes and variables around a lot, because (and I know this pisses you off sometimes and I'm really sorry for that) I see things in a 'scientific' way. I categorize things by the relationships that can be had by taking no moves in isolation, but rather the properties that build moves in isolation... Things like focusing on how the different pieces can and do interact. When looking through a lens like that, there's a very small list of about 8 or so different 'classes' that all relationships fall into.. and from these classes we can describe all the patterns of poi.. It's like when you said that there should be 'x' amount of weaves before there were. You were looking through that same lens.
Now again, I'm not going to claim to see all the variables that poi has. But, I can say pretty confidently that I've seen seen pretty much all the categories themselves, and that any new 'fundementals' will have to be built from pieces that already conceptually fit in certain classes. Think of it like knowing what the noble gases were prior to the discovery of all of them and then when a new gas is discvoered, its just another element that we missed, but already fits in to a preclassified conceptual part of our chart..
bf with respect to weave, just spins opposite direction.. since a weave is just threading.. and you can thread same or opposite direction, I find it to be no big surprise that you can weave in opposite direction any more than you can ttn in opposite direction.. anything that can be threaded can be woven... which I find complete irony in how the terms worked out like that, but hey.
but you can't look at reels and weaves the same can you.. can you say that a reel shares the same property of a weave? can you thread a reel? I mean obviously you can or I wouldnt have brought it up.. but threading a reel is different from threading a butterfly.. a butterfly doesnt have any properties that refer to its ability to thread or something like it. reels already have to some degree this property of not being threaded.. its kind of hard to thread two things that are never in the same plane..
the point I need to interject here is not that I see this as being an actual case.. I mean in the way I 'see' this isnt any different from describing the relationship of a flower to a weave in many respects.. however, its an example that conveys on the surface, the idea I want to present..
I don't claim to have a 100% clear picture.. As I said before, the example I'm using is bad, becase well, I don't believe it. I only use it because I think it helps to try and convery the idea I want to present without the need to realy go into the nitty gritty of how I 'see' poi.
I think it suffices to say that the period you are talking about people saw things as 'moves' and every new thing we labelled so. Ie. Weave, windmill, corkscrew. if the poi wobbled funny, people gave it a new name. Whereas, now I think there enough geeks out there to understand the differences between things that deserve remarks, and even the differences between things that people don't think should be distinguished..
I throw terms like classes and variables around a lot, because (and I know this pisses you off sometimes and I'm really sorry for that) I see things in a 'scientific' way. I categorize things by the relationships that can be had by taking no moves in isolation, but rather the properties that build moves in isolation... Things like focusing on how the different pieces can and do interact. When looking through a lens like that, there's a very small list of about 8 or so different 'classes' that all relationships fall into.. and from these classes we can describe all the patterns of poi.. It's like when you said that there should be 'x' amount of weaves before there were. You were looking through that same lens.
Now again, I'm not going to claim to see all the variables that poi has. But, I can say pretty confidently that I've seen seen pretty much all the categories themselves, and that any new 'fundementals' will have to be built from pieces that already conceptually fit in certain classes. Think of it like knowing what the noble gases were prior to the discovery of all of them and then when a new gas is discvoered, its just another element that we missed, but already fits in to a preclassified conceptual part of our chart..
bf with respect to weave, just spins opposite direction.. since a weave is just threading.. and you can thread same or opposite direction, I find it to be no big surprise that you can weave in opposite direction any more than you can ttn in opposite direction.. anything that can be threaded can be woven... which I find complete irony in how the terms worked out like that, but hey.
but you can't look at reels and weaves the same can you.. can you say that a reel shares the same property of a weave? can you thread a reel? I mean obviously you can or I wouldnt have brought it up.. but threading a reel is different from threading a butterfly.. a butterfly doesnt have any properties that refer to its ability to thread or something like it. reels already have to some degree this property of not being threaded.. its kind of hard to thread two things that are never in the same plane..
the point I need to interject here is not that I see this as being an actual case.. I mean in the way I 'see' this isnt any different from describing the relationship of a flower to a weave in many respects.. however, its an example that conveys on the surface, the idea I want to present..
More useless information courtesy of Rev...
Confusing the masses, one post at a time...
"Obviously, you're not a golfer.."- The Dude
"Buy the ticket... Take the ride..." -Raoul Duke
"FEMA has never done catastrophe planning..."-Michael Brown
SILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
Posted:
i think we're going in circles now dude
i don't know where you got that first idea from but i would completely disagree with your assessment of how we used to think of poi - do you know how old the classification system that drew posted as the 'you can go to the ball' thread is?
or how desperate i was to find complete sets within the fundamentals, the ways of spinning and the families when i first started spinning?
as an example of that, if you look up some of my posts on butterfly weaves, you'll see recognition of the similarities between the fundamental areas of poi and the idea that combining these produces new moves
there were even glimpses of antispin right there - we knew it existed, we just couldn't spin very many moves that used it yet and thus, we didn't have an understanding of where it could be applied elsewhere.
the discovery of a move possibility (like bf weave say), opens up our minds to the relationships between the areas that those moves draw from.
i think this 'reverse engineering' of poi theory is what the geeks do that most others do not and it concurs precisely with the last part of what you wrote in that quote above.
and that is exactly what i thought two years ago.
in some ways i was right, but a few of the areas that we knew of needed to be more thouroughly explored before proper understanding of their relation to each other was even close to being fully grasped.
so basically, our assumption that only combinations of the existing fundamental areas was left to explore was essentially wrong.
i am simply loathe to make that same incorrect assumption twice - here you are making it for the first time, which is fine
as i said in my second post in this thread, i think many people come round to this way of thinking once they reach a certain point in their poi paths.
now, my overall view is that we experience continual refinement of the theories linking the fundamentals with periods of accelerated learning/discovery in the combinations and applications of those ideas.
i'm going to stop saying the same thing over and over again now - like i said, we can come back in a couple of years and see what we see
cole. x
i think we're going in circles now dude
Written by: rev
I think it suffices to say that the period you are talking about people saw things as 'moves' and every new thing we labelled so. Ie. Weave, windmill, corkscrew. if the poi wobbled funny, people gave it a new name. Whereas, now I think there enough geeks out there to understand the differences between things that deserve remarks, and even the differences between things that people don't think should be distinguished..
i don't know where you got that first idea from but i would completely disagree with your assessment of how we used to think of poi - do you know how old the classification system that drew posted as the 'you can go to the ball' thread is?
or how desperate i was to find complete sets within the fundamentals, the ways of spinning and the families when i first started spinning?
as an example of that, if you look up some of my posts on butterfly weaves, you'll see recognition of the similarities between the fundamental areas of poi and the idea that combining these produces new moves
there were even glimpses of antispin right there - we knew it existed, we just couldn't spin very many moves that used it yet and thus, we didn't have an understanding of where it could be applied elsewhere.
the discovery of a move possibility (like bf weave say), opens up our minds to the relationships between the areas that those moves draw from.
i think this 'reverse engineering' of poi theory is what the geeks do that most others do not and it concurs precisely with the last part of what you wrote in that quote above.
Written by: rev
Now again, I'm not going to claim to see all the variables that poi has. But, I can say pretty confidently that I've seen seen pretty much all the categories themselves, and that any new 'fundementals' will have to be built from pieces that already conceptually fit in certain classes.
and that is exactly what i thought two years ago.
in some ways i was right, but a few of the areas that we knew of needed to be more thouroughly explored before proper understanding of their relation to each other was even close to being fully grasped.
so basically, our assumption that only combinations of the existing fundamental areas was left to explore was essentially wrong.
i am simply loathe to make that same incorrect assumption twice - here you are making it for the first time, which is fine
as i said in my second post in this thread, i think many people come round to this way of thinking once they reach a certain point in their poi paths.
now, my overall view is that we experience continual refinement of the theories linking the fundamentals with periods of accelerated learning/discovery in the combinations and applications of those ideas.
i'm going to stop saying the same thing over and over again now - like i said, we can come back in a couple of years and see what we see
cole. x
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
BRONZE Member
HOP librarian
1,841 posts
Location: Prague, Czech. Republic
HOP librarian
1,841 posts
Location: Prague, Czech. Republic
Posted:
"Its the time, that I spent with Poi that makes me feel good
physicaly and spiritualy, high on life. Everytime I do it,
thats why Im so adicted to do it, no matter where am.
The more I do it the more I'll be able to get to that point."
Shawn Robertson (2001)
love nad light,
:R
Im so happy that I find time in my life, that I want to spent with you.
----------------
Psi
"Its the time, that I spent with Poi that makes me feel good
physicaly and spiritualy, high on life. Everytime I do it,
thats why Im so adicted to do it, no matter where am.
The more I do it the more I'll be able to get to that point."
Shawn Robertson (2001)
love nad light,
:R
Im so happy that I find time in my life, that I want to spent with you.
----------------
Psi
POI THEO(R)IST
GOLD Member
member
103 posts
Location: south germany
member
103 posts
Location: south germany
Posted:
u write down what i feel in my circles merci richee
`its like a mental trip in the universe
infinity and all is possible out there
u write down what i feel in my circles merci richee`its like a mental trip in the universe
infinity and all is possible out there
peace and light
Pooh-Bah
2,364 posts
Location: austin,tx
2,364 posts
Location: austin,tx
Posted:
I love nad light too, it's tastes better than nad with half the calories.
I love nad light too, it's tastes better than nad with half the calories.
-Such a price the gods exact for song: to become what we sing
-Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty.
-When the center of the storm does not move, you are in its path.
BRONZE Member
Still wiggling
5,967 posts
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Still wiggling
5,967 posts
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Posted:
Indeed...
And I love ya all.
Indeed...
And I love ya all.
Getting to the other side 
NYC
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Posted:
OK, now you're just STARTING sh*t to get people to pay attention to you.
Written by: arashi
I love nad light too, it's tastes better than nad with half the calories.
OK, now you're just STARTING sh*t to get people to pay attention to you.
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
GOLD Member
Basu gasu bakuhatsu - because sometimes buses explode
1,584 posts
Location: Angels Landing, USA
Basu gasu bakuhatsu - because sometimes buses explode
1,584 posts
Location: Angels Landing, USA
Posted:
dhread terailed.
dhread terailed.
To do: More Firedrums 08 video?
Wildfire/US East coast fire footage
LA/EDC glow/fire footage
Fresno fire
BRONZE Member
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
Posted:
Okay...rare post for me in this area but I have to comment.
Rob I am totally blown away by your initial post. I remember how into being the best, how (you *know* I mean no offense) confrontational you were about everything pertaining to a "greatness system"..be it competition or levels of difficulty, etc.
You were so into it.
The change is surprising to me.
How has it changed? People are giving names to stuff old skoolers were doing for ages. Flowers, atoms, blah, blah, blah...they didn't have names but they were being done. It was more organic and less thought out even in the learning stages. We just did stuff and went "Hey, that was cool...I wanna do that again." We didn't disect videos, cause there really weren't any, and we didn't have enough of us to have big gatherings and learn from each other. The first big gathering I went to was nearly 9 years ago and had 15 HoPpers. We played and said..."That was neat! Do it again!" It just was. None of this breaking it down and naming it stuff. We didn't come up with at this many degrees stall and turn and do this... It's been an odd evolution into analysis for me.
I also think that there was more body focus. Remember when Simos spun with his teeth by nodding his head and nearly ripped out his teeth (lol)? Hell..anyone here remember Simos? Body experimentation was more prevelant than what I've seen as of late. It's not better, it's not worse, it's just different.
As such, my style is very different than most everyone I have come across, and I am okay with that...but have been scorned for it honestly. It makes me gun shy unless spinning for a show.
I don't think the art of poi, or object manipulation on the whole, (not fire spinning...I mean any kind of poi) has really changed all that much...I just think the attitudes and perceptions of people have taken a strong left turn towards the analytical.
*shrug* It's all lovely if you let it be.
So...yeah, my two bits...see you all in here in another 3 years.
Okay...rare post for me in this area but I have to comment.
Rob I am totally blown away by your initial post. I remember how into being the best, how (you *know* I mean no offense) confrontational you were about everything pertaining to a "greatness system"..be it competition or levels of difficulty, etc.
You were so into it.
The change is surprising to me.
How has it changed? People are giving names to stuff old skoolers were doing for ages. Flowers, atoms, blah, blah, blah...they didn't have names but they were being done. It was more organic and less thought out even in the learning stages. We just did stuff and went "Hey, that was cool...I wanna do that again." We didn't disect videos, cause there really weren't any, and we didn't have enough of us to have big gatherings and learn from each other. The first big gathering I went to was nearly 9 years ago and had 15 HoPpers. We played and said..."That was neat! Do it again!" It just was. None of this breaking it down and naming it stuff. We didn't come up with at this many degrees stall and turn and do this... It's been an odd evolution into analysis for me.
I also think that there was more body focus. Remember when Simos spun with his teeth by nodding his head and nearly ripped out his teeth (lol)? Hell..anyone here remember Simos? Body experimentation was more prevelant than what I've seen as of late. It's not better, it's not worse, it's just different.
As such, my style is very different than most everyone I have come across, and I am okay with that...but have been scorned for it honestly. It makes me gun shy unless spinning for a show.
I don't think the art of poi, or object manipulation on the whole, (not fire spinning...I mean any kind of poi) has really changed all that much...I just think the attitudes and perceptions of people have taken a strong left turn towards the analytical.
*shrug* It's all lovely if you let it be.
So...yeah, my two bits...see you all in here in another 3 years.
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
BRONZE Member
Bastard Newbie Messiah
1,269 posts
Location: Apparently lost in my ego, USA
Bastard Newbie Messiah
1,269 posts
Location: Apparently lost in my ego, USA
Posted:
thanks for sharing pele.. I know, I , and a lot of others came into things late.. and its nice to hear perspectives from people that have been around so long and how things changed in their opinion. Since we see things different, we understand change in different ways.. And from what I gather there are lots of people that beleive that the community never changes, only the people do.. which is an interesting way of looking at it..
thanks for sharing pele.. I know, I , and a lot of others came into things late.. and its nice to hear perspectives from people that have been around so long and how things changed in their opinion. Since we see things different, we understand change in different ways.. And from what I gather there are lots of people that beleive that the community never changes, only the people do.. which is an interesting way of looking at it..
More useless information courtesy of Rev...
Confusing the masses, one post at a time...
"Obviously, you're not a golfer.."- The Dude
"Buy the ticket... Take the ride..." -Raoul Duke
"FEMA has never done catastrophe planning..."-Michael Brown
SILVER Member
no excuses. no apologies.
1,799 posts
Location: aotearoa, New Zealand
no excuses. no apologies.
1,799 posts
Location: aotearoa, New Zealand
Posted:
we have many parts inside us that are constantly changing, but the individualism of the sum of the parts remains constant (even in its own inevitable evolution.. ) just as the community that we are but a small part of flows and evolves..
microcosm:macrocosm
holons..
ie, letter, word, sentence, paragraph, chapter, book.. each is comprised of many of the preceeding holon, but is only a part of the succeeding one.. think of it as.. a nestled heirarchy (or.. holarchy )..
we have many parts inside us that are constantly changing, but the individualism of the sum of the parts remains constant (even in its own inevitable evolution.. ) just as the community that we are but a small part of flows and evolves..
microcosm:macrocosm
holons..
ie, letter, word, sentence, paragraph, chapter, book.. each is comprised of many of the preceeding holon, but is only a part of the succeeding one.. think of it as.. a nestled heirarchy (or.. holarchy
).. those that know, dont say. those that say, dont know.
geek, level 1
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
Posted:
much as i hate to be defensive but i don't think i was into it as much as you thought i was; most of our arguements were about technicality/dancing/flow and their compatibility(or not ), not best-ness... anyway. i still stand by most of the things i beleived then but have changed my view on life(i was young and foolish when i joined hop, now i'm old and enlightened )
good overview of how you see it as having changed tho any other oldskoolers got vision?
and, most importantly, i certainly will see you here in three years. it'll be my 10 year anniversary
i've had a fun view of poi of late because i haven't been capable of spinning due to temporary disability. my mind has been fizzing(direct result of uberoz
) with new ideas, and i haven't been able to put any of them into practise. my dreams have been full of dancing, and patterns i have never seen, heard about, etcetc... poi is just beginning for me now.
R
Written by: Pele
Okay...rare post for me in this area but I have to comment.
Rob I am totally blown away by your initial post. I remember how into being the best, how (you *know* I mean no offense) confrontational you were about everything pertaining to a "greatness system"..be it competition or levels of difficulty, etc.
You were so into it.
The change is surprising to me.
......
So...yeah, my two bits...see you all in here in another 3 years.
much as i hate to be defensive
but i don't think i was into it as much as you thought i was; most of our arguements were about technicality/dancing/flow and their compatibility(or not ), not best-ness... anyway. i still stand by most of the things i beleived then but have changed my view on life(i was young and foolish when i joined hop, now i'm old and enlightened )good overview of how you see it as having changed tho
any other oldskoolers got vision? and, most importantly, i certainly will see you here in three years. it'll be my 10 year anniversary
i've had a fun view of poi of late because i haven't been capable of spinning due to temporary disability. my mind has been fizzing(direct result of uberoz
) with new ideas, and i haven't been able to put any of them into practise. my dreams have been full of dancing, and patterns i have never seen, heard about, etcetc... poi is just beginning for me now.R
Holistic Spinner (I hope)
BRONZE Member
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
Posted:
Well, I'll still be on HoP, that's not a question. I just meant that I'm never in this section of HoP unless I am modding. Silly man!
I know that this is how I, myself, and several of the other "oldies" I know have viewed poi for a long while too. We put them down for whatever reasons (for me it tends to be seasonally based) and in the down time inspiration comes out to play leaving us feeling like children still growing. And that is one of the things I have loved about these arts, all of them, is they do leave me with a constant challenge...thus always feeding into my feeling that I will *never* be better than mediocre at best, and I am okay with that..as long as I keep evolving. Mediocrity from stagnancy is not allowed.
Written by: bluecat
and, most importantly, i certainly will see you here in three years. it'll be my 10 year anniversary
Well, I'll still be on HoP, that's not a question. I just meant that I'm never in this section of HoP unless I am modding.
Silly man!Written by: bluecat
i've had a fun view of poi of late because i haven't been capable of spinning due to temporary disability. my mind has been fizzing(direct result of uberoz
R
I know that this is how I, myself, and several of the other "oldies" I know have viewed poi for a long while too. We put them down for whatever reasons (for me it tends to be seasonally based) and in the down time inspiration comes out to play leaving us feeling like children still growing. And that is one of the things I have loved about these arts, all of them, is they do leave me with a constant challenge...thus always feeding into my feeling that I will *never* be better than mediocre at best, and I am okay with that..as long as I keep evolving. Mediocrity from stagnancy is not allowed.
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
BRONZE Member
veteran
1,247 posts
Location: lost, Canada
veteran
1,247 posts
Location: lost, Canada
Posted:
Bluecat! Beginners mind in an old school body! Whoo Hooo! Exciting! Feel better soon so you can put the ideas into play...
Bluecat! Beginners mind in an old school body! Whoo Hooo! Exciting! Feel better soon so you can put the ideas into play...
"God *was* my co-pilot, but then we crashed, and I had to eat him..."
GOLD Member
Basu gasu bakuhatsu - because sometimes buses explode
1,584 posts
Location: Angels Landing, USA
Basu gasu bakuhatsu - because sometimes buses explode
1,584 posts
Location: Angels Landing, USA
Posted:
Mediocrity only comes from refusing to change/evolve over time
I still think there is room for spinning to evolve for sure, even though there isn't anything totally "new" that the old schoolers haven't seen before, there are always ways to incorporate new and different things into your spinning.
There's just so much out there, and I want to experience all of it. (or catch em all, gotta catch em all)
Mediocrity only comes from refusing to change/evolve over time
I still think there is room for spinning to evolve for sure, even though there isn't anything totally "new" that the old schoolers haven't seen before, there are always ways to incorporate new and different things into your spinning.
There's just so much out there, and I want to experience all of it. (or catch em all, gotta catch em all
) To do: More Firedrums 08 video?
Wildfire/US East coast fire footage
LA/EDC glow/fire footage
Fresno fire
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [best world state spi] we found the following existing topics.
Show more..
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com