September 10, 2016 ideas, Opinion, Thoughts, Transitions No Comments

There’s been a lot of talk recently about pop btwists..  are they real, are they just a shitty, underinverted full, and does it matter?

Yes.  Pop btwists are indeed real, they are indeed shitty underinverted fulls, and it does matter.


The same goes for cork, and if you wanna get really deep into it, tak and raiz.

The point I want to make is that if you want to be specific and deliberate in your communication and your own thoughts, the concept of a pop btwist / cork / etc. is important.

Full is a trash term.  It’s great for implying that you jumped, flipped, and twisted, and that’s about it.  That’s all you need for most conversations, though.  Full does not, however, really say anything about the direction of flip, or level of inversion, which to many of us are the defining characteristics of a twisting axis.

Think about cart fulls..  Some people takeoff sideways, others forward, and some even takeoff backward.  These “fulls” are all different, because they carry different flip: back, side, forward.  At the very least, 2 of these “fulls” are inherently different than the full you’d see from a scoot or roundoff.

It should also be noted that the transition into a skill does not, and cannot / should not define it.  A cork is not only performed from a swingthrough; it can be vanished, reversaled, reverse-popped, etc.  When you can grasp this concept, it should be obvious that 2 transitions are missing: pop and punch.  To many of us, what makes a cork a cork, is the direction of the flip (back), and the level of inversion (typically less than 45*).  So, when I see a “full” utilizing a backward flip, that never really goes much over the horizontal plane, all I see is a cork from 2 feet (pop/punch).  But what about higher inversions?  Well, if we wanna get specific, we’re talking about gainer-fulls and back-fulls now.  Again, the differentiation is useful for describing what’s happening, when you want to be crystal clear, or when it’s relevant to be specific, but it doesn’t really enhance a typical conversation in any kind of meaningful way.   In everyday conversation, pop btwists, gainer-fulls, and other similar terms are just kind of excessive, and tend to come off as pretentious.  However, if I’m being asked to be critical about someone’s new trick, identify it specifically, or offer tips, it’s often quite useful to use these terms to describe what did happen, or what should happen.  -How do I get a better swing from my cork?  Treat it more like gainer-full.  -What’s wrong with my cart dub, or how can I improve it?  You’re doing pop double-b; you’re not flipping enough.

Frankly, that’s all these terms are good for, if you ask me.  I don’t see much value in going out and trying to master a typical btwist vs a popped one, or stressing back full vs pop cork.  I think they’re great concepts when you want to be very specific, but they’re not worthwhile in pursuing individually, or even using in everyday conversation.  “Full” is fine most of the time, even though it’s trash.


Digiprove sealCopyright secured by Digiprove © 2016
Written by The Grumpiest Of All
Just a grumpy old man who really loves tricking.