^ absolutely
tbh this is the same debate that people have been having for the past seven years or so (as far as I can recall) personally I miss the old school tech that we used to see and I am excited to see more of it around. Everybody has their preferences and for me some of the least enjoyable freestyles were when everyone started trying to rip off John Andoâs style and all you ever saw were body tricks. The system is the way it is for a reason, it works. If you focus too much on the performance then the technical aspect suffers, if you focus too much on the technical then the artistic suffers. There is a balance but honestly to cater to people who like it there could be a âflowâ division focused namely on style and smoothness.
Iâm with you all up until the last thoughtâŚ
Just because its different, dosenât mean it would be better to separate.
This is what makes 1a so unique. All other divisions have somewhat of a similarity with each performance, but 1a is where people can express tricks through speed, slack, tech, flow, and even double dragon!
Making a desperate division for one would seperate the entire 1a scene into different sectors, making it kind of subjective, and not being able to say who the âbest 1a playerâ of the year was. Who knows if â1aâ would even still be a thing? It could change to FlowA, or SpeedA, making each division smaller, and less competitive.
In most contests youâre allowed to compete in more than one division, so rather than getting less competitive, it would give the newer players (for a little while) a chance to win a division (the âflowAâ), and the experienced could still win 1a.
FlowA? Are you serious. That would give speedy players a huge advantage given that they are the flowiest players out there. Without speed, flow is impossible. Itâs physics.
I donât think Double Dragon counts as 1a. Eventually it will/should become another division.
Hey may not have gotten accepted, but he was able to do a demo with a few other people, which he probably thought was just as good.
Not necessarily, Aaron Davis is a slow, techy player and in my opinion I think he has one of the flowiest styles Iâve ever seen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HE_qAlV1Jp4&list=UUwOu8Q3LWm06WNB5fo5Pcnw
1 Like
Well, he actually does go kind of fast.
He does have some nice flow. But he looked pretty fast except for the slow motion 
but that doesnât count. (Is he sponsered by clyw?)
1 Like
Yeah heâs sponsored by CLYW but I meant that he doesnât go as fast as Japanese players.
That is true, and that means he doesnât have as much flow.
just because someone is fast dosent mean they have a stupid amount of flow. I know players that have speed and tech/artsy style to their throwing but most of what i see with speed is a lot of simple tricks put into a configuration that looks good and goes fast. Dont get me wrong there are some great fast players out there but they are rare and most of the others are just sort of generic and unimpressive. To me Aaron Davis dosent go to fast but at the same time his flow is off the charts and just because he dosent reach the speeds of the speed oriented players dosent mean that he dosent have more flow that A LOT of themâŚ
And there are slow players out there that look unoriginal and unimpressive. What you said says nothing. Check out Izuru hasumi. He is incredibly fast and incredibly slow. He knows how to time it with the music and with peoples emotions. I see a lot of people just throw tech together and you expect me to call that flowy. A combo must have a logical order of elements or it will lookâŚwellâŚdisconnected. This says nothing about what I think of Aaron Davis. That video was neat.
By that logic, this freestyle wouldnât have any âflow.â Which is clearly not true, considering itâs one of (if not THE) best and most fluid freestyles that has ever been performed. Raw speed does not equal flow, they are hardly even related at all. Flow is about matching trick tempo to music and body motions in a natural manner.
Therefore, as long as a trick matches the music and the body, it has flow. You said it yourself.
Now you say that if a trick has raw speed, it does not have flow.
Your comment was either nonparallel or contradictory.
Now, do you care to explain why âraw speed does not equal flowâ even if the trick matches the music and the body.
This is probably sounding harsh, but Iâm just trying to understand what you are saying. 
No, no, no. Heâs saying raw speed does not cause flow.
Oh, that what he meant to say?
Lol
I donât think that is what he said. He said raw speed does not equal flow. To break it down, just doing tricks as quickly as you can does note equate to good flow. Does not equal is not the same as does not have?
Also of note is the comment raw speed. That would imply that it was in organized or structured. If it is organized and structured it could have flow, but in its raw state speed would not immediately equal flow. There is the possibility that raw speed may accidentally line up with body movement, music and performance. In that case raw speed would have flow, but still not equal flow.
At least thatâs how I understand it. I happen to agree that raw speed is not equal flow.