• All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 100.00 credit to your HoP account.

[ Unregistered ]


Total posts: 413
Posted:Time is running, but my memories remain.


Move where master path trace the Poi path.


Proof of concept:

1) Every hybrid has 2 center of rotation, one for each hand.
2) The hand path, master path trace, the Poi path.

The second rule include also the first one and is very strong,
becasue it's not based on basic components.

It's pure tech.


It can be proven that triqetra is not a hybrid, also cap is
a different tech a should not be mixed with hybrids.

If you will look into drex hybrid theory will see the reason
why is this deffinition so accurate. There is no hybrid
move that will not pass this definition, also no every
combination is hybrid.

There aare many cap flower patterns floating around now,
but there ar not all hybrid.

I could bring here many examples but I think the definition
is self explanatory. Path definisions:

Poi path:

The set of points the poi head passes through over time.

Master path:

The set of points the hand passes through over time.


Personaly I think this definition is not new, but I
want it stay remind to other.



Delete Topic

GOLD Member since Dec 2009


Almost again
Location: Finland

Total posts: 124
Posted:Dunno why this needed a new thread since there was already a couple discussing this topic, but w/e smile .
I don't think the definition is perfect though. How about an isolated buzzsaw? There the hand and poi paths are the same, but I think we'd all agree that it's not a hybrid.
And as for your first premise, none of the hybrids with static spin in it have centers of rotation for both hands.

And personally, I don't see how a rule/argument is more strong if its based on complicated tech than if its based on the basics. I'd rather see it the other way around. Since the basics are more sturdy in concept than a lot of the techy stuff (which I would just classify as complicated basics, instead of putting them aside as a different group), I would think the opposite is true.


But in any case, I understood Drex's current explanation of hybrids just slightly differently:
According to my understanding, all the hybrids have 2 or 3 of the 4 components (the components being the hands and the poi heads) tracing the same circle. So this leads to us having a few different kinds of hybrids..
All the hybrids having 2 components tracing the same circle:
- hand/hand (with the specification that both hands aren't doing the same move)
- hand/poi
- poi/poi (again, with the specification that both hands aren't doing the same move. So for example, a pendulum vs static spin would apply here [pend. vs static would also be a polyrhythm hybrid, since they can't be spun at the same speed] )

And all the hybrids having 3 components tracing the circle (these would all include an isolation):
- hand/hand/poi
- hand/poi/poi

If all the 4 components are following the same circle, that is an isolated buzzsaw and is not included into hybrids.

EDITED_BY: Teamo (1277645582)


SILVER Member since Aug 2007


Rampant whirler.
Location: Geelong, Victoria, Australia!

Total posts: 2418
Posted:In reality... rather than being a component of definition, isn't the concept of paths more about necessity for it to meet the basic requirement of it being something of two different driving styles?

Due to the approximation involved in this (your hands will NEVER be tracing the EXACT same pattern) if its not hand/hand, it'll end up being an approximation of hand/head or similar.



[ Unregistered ]


Total posts: 413
Posted:Quote:And as for your first premise, none of the hybrids with static spin in it have centers of rotation for both hands.

Yer, they have a thats the reason why buzzsaw isolation isn't hybrid, because it has only one center for mboth hands.

Besic will allways stay basic even complicated, but tech is pure tech.

It's tracing of two different paths, thats a premise.

If you will realy on basic elements you will get struglled,
like flowing in a bubble. grin