Acrobatic tricks are ones where the player jumps or does another stunt, for example doing horizontal and jumping over the string or looping and doing a backflip.
Also, I believe float is influenced a lot more by center weight than shape. It’s the feeling when you pull the yoyo up, not when it’s dropping down. Yoyos with more center weight feel like your lifting a smaller, not wide object when you pull the string compared to a wide set weight that feels like lifting an object that’s much wider. And total weight plays a big factor too so when you have a light yoyo with center weight and you pull it up you say “wow this feels like it’s floating”. It is not a reference to hang time, but rather how clunky or agile a yoyo is.
It should be noted that the lighter the weight and the more centre weight, the less stable your yoyo is so it will lose spin and tilt easier; that is why float and stability are opposite ends of a spectrum and a good yoyo has to find a balance of them based on the players preference.
Yeah definitely, since tech basically means difficult and requiring execution based on previous knowledge (in this case)
In my opinion, tech is what old yoyoers refer to today generation’s kid’s complex tricks… it’s more of a skill oriented show than a fun-entertainment focused show.
Tech can be entertaining, just often times you won’t get what’s going on unless you know the trick concepts. Non yoers can watch rancid milk and be like holy crap that’s the craziest thing I’ve seen.
To clarify, tech just means hard.
Well if you’re still looking for a definition of a smooth and flowy player, here’s the definition of smooth, by the way Guy wright is one of the nicest people I’ve ever met http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=teb_PPc4wpg
Whatever looks the best. Forming those kinds of tricks are the hard part of yoyoing but is the fun kind to watch. Styles like these come to mind:
Eric Koloski
Hiroyuki Suzuki
Dan Deitz
John Narum
John Higby
Jake Elliot
These people are not necessarily high scorers to judges, but in my mind are high scorers to the crowds. If you want an entertaining style, study these players…the pros.
This isn’t at all what I’ve understood floaty to mean. That’s not to say it’s not a correct definition, but everything I’ve heard about float leads me to believe it’s much more along the lines of what Shai said (though I can’t confirm the physics of it).
My Summit is super floaty, but it’s also among the most stable throws I own. I don’t think float and stability are mutually exclusive.
I think it’s best to have a mix. You watch people like Jensen, Augie and Chuck, and they have a great balance between fast techy stuff, flashy bangers and stylish simpler tricks. I think that’s what makes them so entertaining… watching the same of any style for an extended period can lose it’s novelty, so I think it’s bet to mix it up.
Hmm…that seems pretty counterintuitive. I thought floaty meant what it sounded like, and I’m pretty sure I’ve seen other people use it in the sense I meant, but I could definitely be wrong. I’m not an authority on yo-yo jargon. I am curious though why the weight distribution would have anything to do with how heavy the yo-yo feels. X grams is X grams, no? If floatiness and stability are opposite ends of a spectrum why is the Draupnir (among other yo-yos) described as both floaty and stable? I’m just asking questions btw, not saying you’re wrong. It just doesn’t make sense to me.
What about influent style tricks? Anybody know what that means? I’ve seen the term used on one specific Japanese site mostly.
Excerpt: “Koh’s signature style, using acrobatic and speedy horizontal rail combos and influent-style tricks is what the Ares star was designed to do.”
Excerpt: “The real value of this design becomes apparent when you start throwing horizontal and influent tricks, where the yo-yo body is angled and the friction against the string is prone to negatively affect performance. The Valor just keeps on spinning when other yo-yos would quickly die mid-trick.”
Excerpt: “The wider catch zone makes influent and hop-style tricks significantly easier to hit. The Shutter is also easier to control, making it feel like it’s reading your mind.”
Maybe “influent” means a trick you are not fluent in. Possibly new tricks that you are not consistent with. The throw is wider making them easier to catch.
I have a hard time believing that something so trivial as air resistance can make a yoyo feel floaty. Floaty does seem to be more along the lines of what Nikolai said, and I recall reading something Kyle Weems wrote about it and it was similar. Floatyness is how easily the yoyo responds to your movement. Why do you think weight distribution using the exact same profile will change how a yoyo feels so much? A yoyo with lots of rim weight pushed to the edges of the yoyo will most likely feel quite a bit more sluggish, but also more stable since the moment of inertia is greater so it resists precession. On the other hand, a yoyo with more center weight will feel more responsive because the majority of the weight is around the bearing where the string is attached. It is also less stable this way. This is seen with looping yoyos; they must have enough center weight to be able to flip over entirely for the loop.
basepi the reason that the Summit feels floaty and stable at the same time is because One Drop designed it to have good rim weight, but they didn’t put it on the outside of the yoyo. They put the weight rings closer to the bearing of the yoyo. Take a look at the cup of the Summit and compare it to, say, the DV888’s cup. You’ll notice that the Summit seems to have a thinner rim, but as you look deeper into the cup, you’ll see that there is a step in it at which it abruptly thickens. That is where the rim weight is, and that’s why it feels floaty; the weight is narrower.
So the Summit will feel quite floaty and stable at the same time, but it won’t be as stable as it could have been, or as floaty as it could have been, given the shape. It strikes a good balance between the two.
A good yoyo that suits everybody’s preference has to find its spot on this scale.
-Of course there are many other factors to consider during this such as
-Total weight
-Shape of catch zone
-Meeting of desired specification (width, diam.) in regards to target design
-Shape of cup (very important with the rise of the almighty fingerspin)
-Overall achievement of original concept and the targeted ‘feel’ and performance goals
-A manufacturing process that is refined and is not too time consuming nor inneffecient on tools to maintain resonable cost/profit margin; as well as not having tolerances which are hard to meet (weight rings, I’m talking about you!) The onedrop Benchmark Series is a fantastic example of this.
With that being said, an ideal yoyo may take many prototype stages to reach original concepts goals, as well as maintaining the points listed previously. A good yoyo is the result of good concept when combined with good ‘hands-on’ work.
Of course this is still up for debate I thought I’d write since this turned into a float discussion.
I think the opposite of float would not be stable, because a yoyo that has stability could also have float. Because float is subjective, I think the opposite of it would also be subjective. Maybe the opposite would be solid?
If Nikolai’s definition is the “true definition”, then I think plenty of people are misusing the word “float”. And the problem is that misuse leads to redefinition. So we’ll probably never come to a consensus. =P
Float never really had a solid definition to my knowledge. Once upon a time someone used the word then more and more people started using it, but there was never a clear definition, just a general idea
