Trick Theory-01


The first thing to remember is that landing stances have traditionally not been defined by the position of the in-air leg, but by the amount of rotation completed.  The singular and sequential landing patterns we commonly see when talking about these stances are not necessarily exact positions, but ranges based on quadrants, changing every 90 degrees.  Each stance can be landed on both feet, though many people seem not to realize this possibility beyond the complete landing or rotation.  With that understanding, it should be noted that regardless of where the in-air leg is, the amount of rotation to reach that point is the same because it is nothing more than the hinging of the hip.  The hips and shoulders do not require greater twist.  So a “fake mega” as explained in the video has nothing to do with mega whatsoever.  The “flamingo” position is neither inherent in the mega landing, nor is the “eagle” position inherent in a complete landing.  So it should be understood that the “fake” terms correspond to their opposite stances, but with an atypical position of the in-air leg.  While on one leg the possible range of movement in the hips, is substantially smaller in any real life application, and is more or less negligible.

In regards to the ending argument allegedly demonstrating a huge difference in the rotational values of the 2 landings, and thus proving the legitimacy of the 4 newly created stances, it should be noted that any real life application of this concept is going to be far more restrictive in the range of motion of the hips.  Without extreme contortion, the actual span possible from any given quadrant is quite small, and requires either an on-ground pivot, or uses imprecise rotational values, either over rotating the hyper by less than 45 degrees, or under rotating semi by less than 45 degrees.  While these things do occur in real life application, it is impractical to adopt new landing terminology for every minor imperfection that can occur, particularly when those imperfections change the theoretical line of the combo, or slightly vary from a more idealized example of a trick or transition.  The existing terminology, when used correctly, still describes the combination adequately.  That said, naming the technique used for this concept is quite useful, and is akin to the “boneless” swing discussed here.  In short, it could be argued that the “fake” landing stances dont actually describe a landing stance itself, but instead a technique used from an implied opposite stance.


Back to Invert Landing Stances
Fake Stances 1: Introduction
Fake Stances 3: Transitioning out

Digiprove sealCopyright secured by Digiprove © 2015