I think the word innovative has lost its meaning in the yoyo world. Just about any trick that is even barely different than your run-of-the-mill tech is referred to as “innovation”, when it is really just a cool trick. Innovation is when someone came up with landing the yoyo on the string and decided to call it “The Man on the Flying Trapeze.” Innovation is when you invent a new style of yoyoing. Innovation can mean cool arm tricks with lots of slack but the word should only be used when something distinctly new is actually introduced.
What do you elephants think innovation means in yoyoing?
The problem is that as time goes on, tricks are naturally going to become more common and less original. It was easier to call something ‘innovative’ back in the golden early years of yoyoing, because pretty much everything that was being come up with was new. With so many people nowadays coming up with new tricks worldwide, you’ll be hard pressed to find something TRULY innovative.
Sure, Ky Zizan is doing some great things with double dragon, and Zammy does what he can with Moebius, so credit where it’s due… but I also think that the stuff that Zac Gormley does is some of the most innovative within the 1A style, so I will continue to call it that. Same with Takeshi, Janos, Chuck and anyone else thinking outside of the wrist-mounted box.
I see your point lost of it has lost it’s magic and not many things are original or “innovative”, and impressive doesn’t always mean it’s innovative. Horizontal play for example that innovated the yoyo scene or the addition of 5A to the styles of yoyoing. I guess it’s been a while since something that big has happened.
At the same difficulty level, slack and influent tricks just have inherently more possibilities than for example horizontal (speed) combos, therefore I consider a horizontal slack whip more innovative than an OTA slack combo
“Innovation” is not so easily defineable due to the fact that what is considered innovative is based on opinion. I’m going to say that, in this case, there are two sort of main kinds of innovation (for yoyoing)
Someone who is innovative in a “trick development” way could be someone who created a new kind of trick that can be built on, like suicides or grinds. Those were solid examples of innovation. But there are people who are constantly spitting out new tricks like its nothing, not necessarily the most unique tricks, but they are always making them. I would consider those people innovative.
Then there are “game changing” innovations. This would include the creation of:
Unresponsive play, entirely new styles of yoyoing, ball bearings, poly vs cotton string, and even the idea to make a butterfly shaped yoyo or using metal instead of wood.
This is a good point. Which leads to the next point I’ve been meaning to bring up: What do you consider tricks? Do you consider long combos tricks or individual concepts tricks?
I think in order to be innovational you need to invent a new concept and give a practical use for it. I.E. Steve Brown when he invented 5A. It wasn’t just some dumb idea that didn’t have much use, it was and is a great invention that led to new tricks and new yoyo designs indirectly (maybe even driectly, the Supernova and Genesis might not be around if not for 5A.) I think innovation is simple and anything extremely complicated isn’t really innovation. Look at the best yoyo innovations: The butterfly shape, string tricks, ball bearings in yoyos, machined metal yoyos; all of these are simple yet they have so many complexities that can sprout from them.
I agree it could use advancement, but I think 1a has enough potential that you don’t need the other styles to innovate. There’s so much possible that we haven’t gotten to yet that just needs to be opened up.
There’s just so much you can do with 1a before you have to start lengthening the string so you can create more complex tricks lol. But I would say really complex tricks that you haven’t seen before is innovation. I mean it’s hard to find and it opens up possibilities to find other things.
It doesn’t have to be complex to be innovative. You don’t have to lengthen the string unless you are trying to do complex tech, and few people make that look good. Nehemiah and Zammy are two prime examples.
And does is make a difference if anyone can pick up this trick in 10 minutes? I think a distinction should be drawn between competitive yoyoing and performance art.
I still hold my point that at the same required skill level, some playstyles have inherently greater potential for formal ‘‘innovation’’ than other ones.
Mickey was ‘‘innovative’’ back in 2004 when his speed combo was THE most skill demanding trick in the entire scene. He took his world titles as he went way ahead of his time when few if any other tricks in other playstyles can match his in difficulty. As the overall skill of the scene grew, people with other styles eventually reached that equivalent level, so those playing complex tech could make 10x as many complex tricks with this skill level. Even years after the low wall revolution, we today can still see superficial resemblance in different players speed combos, because that is still as much we can do as with the current skill level in the scene.
You said, ‘Zammy does what he can with Moebius’. <> and while that is true; I think you shortchanged Zammy, with that statement.
Daniel(Zammy) Ickler, throws some of the most amazing and innovative 1A tricks ever seen, anywhere. Video proof only a search engine away. Not only are his trick Complex and slick looking; but he completely makes em from scratch(so to speak).
He actually has a National Trick Innovator(keyword) Award to recognize his contribution to things on strings.
His 1A style may not win him Contests(based on current judging criteria); but Zammy is one seriously Innovative Bad Man.
PS you post reads fine, Gambit. They usually do.
I just feel you shortchanged Daniel on the Innovative spectrum. That’s all.