Your personal information you provide will be transfered and stored as encrypted data.
You have the ability to update and remove your personal information.
You consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.
Allow cookies for
Necessary Cookies Necessary Cookies cannot be unchecked, because they are necessary for our website to function properly. They store your language, currency, shopping cart and login credentials.
Analytics Cookies We use google.com analytics and bing.com to monitor site usage and page statistics to help us improve our website. You may turn this on or off using the tick boxes above.
Marketing Cookies Marketing Cookies do track personal data. Google and Bing monitor your page views and purchases for use in advertising and re-marketing on other websites. You may turn this on or off using the tick boxes above.
Social Cookies These 3rd Party Cookies do track personal data. This allows Facebook, Twitter and Pinterest integration. eg. shows the Facebook 'LIKE' button. They will however be able to view what you do on our website. You may turn this on or off using the tick boxes above.
Posted:Dunno why this needed a new thread since there was already a couple discussing this topic, but w/e . 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)
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.