Ok, then what H shape yo-yos do they make? 
It is interesting to look at the evolution of the benchmarks
2013
W, O, and V/H
2014
W, H, O, V
2016
W, H, O, V
The H is by far the least “there” of the shapes, in 2013 it was merged with the V, in 2014 it looks like a slightly different W, in 2016 it’s… kinda the same lack of differentiation. OD just doesn’t do H shapes, for the most part.
4 Likes
Your basing your classification for H-shape on a definition you created. Shouldn’t the fact that it was called H-shape and accepted as H-shape in 2013 be enough to make it an H-shape?
Have you considered the possibility that the definition you created on your own in 2019 is a little flawed. Ya know… since you’re blatantly ignoring what everyone considered an H-shape in the past.
14 Likes
I’m mostly basing this on differentiation, /eg/ how different is the shape from its siblings? I would argue pure V, pure O, pure W are quite different in feel, in play, even visually (see the above pics of the benchmarks for 2013, 2014, 2016).
I could see calling H a “bell” shape I guess, if we want to define H as the Genesis. But I think the iYoYo version of the H definition better captures an actual difference across all three axes: feel, play, look.
H shape has always been a distinct step from the rim. Just like all of One Drop’s H shapes (which I stated earlier), and all the other H shapes that have been on the market. That has always been what defined an H shape. Bell shapes came in later, they’re really their own distinct shape, if we’re getting technical about it. Again, the iYoyo you posted earlier has no distinct step, therefore (again technically speaking) is not an H shape yoyo.
6 Likes
I agree this boils down to “old school Genesis definition of H” versus “new school iYoYo definition of H”. Despite @YoYoExpertGarrett’s claims to the contrary, I did not make this up 
I am absolutely firmly in the iYoYo camp on this one, and I think the old H definition is both incorrect and not particularly useful; you can really see that manifested in the 2013, 2014, 2016 OD benchmarks struggling to come up with a meaningful H that isn’t just another tiny V or W tweak!
Curious if you’d view the CLYW Borealis as a H Shape?
Hidra (supposed H Shape)
CLYW Borealis (modified organic shape)
1 Like
Same thing said here, and I tend to agree.
1 Like
So you’re just renaming things then?
Why start calling a bell shaped, or modified organic, something that it’s not. There are years of design and naming convention on these. An H has been an H, once bell shapes came into the picture they’ve been called that, or modified organic. It’s like calling a duck a dog, you can do that all you want, but it doesn’t make any sense and doesn’t make it correct.
3 Likes
Take it up with iYoYo my friend! How dare they call their yo-yos “a strong H shape” …
Still, the anemic and super lame 2016 benchmark H is a pretty compelling argument in my book that iYoYo is right about this.
Especially when they’re not an H shape 
1 Like
So, basically what you’re doing here is taking the word of iYoyo over the word of one drop.
One drop claimed that their Benchmark H was an H.
iYoyo claimed that their FiRROX and Hydra are also Hs.
Your approach of relying on the manufacturers definitions is a fallacy, and self-contradictory. You didn’t make this up, but you are manufacturing the problem.
There is no external committee that has come to a unanimous conclusion that what you define a true H, is in fact a true H.
If one companies definition of a shape can be disregarded as untrue just because you disagree, what makes any of them credible?
You’re going to have to find an argument that holds water if you’re going to make this argument at all.
16 Likes
I merely pointed out that these two manufacturers disagree on the definition of H. Which manufacturer you agree with is up to you… not me.
As for me, personally:
-
I would argue that the more modern definition of H is more correct because it reflects a better understanding of current reality … similar to the way 2020 science (and definitions) are superior to 1920 science (and definitions). We’ve learned more since then.
-
playing with the 2016 benchmark H and the 2016 benchmark W is a nearly identical play experience. That’s odd, because the 2016 benchmark O and V and W play quite differently from each other. Now if you substitute that OD benchmark H with an iYoYo H, you achieve a very different play experience. I would argue that this shows the iYoYo definition of H is far more useful in illustrating actual real world play and feel differences between shapes.
8 Likes
So 1 (newer) company vs. many of the top designers the community has and years of a known definition?
Where then does that leave the bell shape? Or the years of past H shapes? Do we need to redefine all of these based on what you and iyoyo feel?
2 Likes
Now that’s a reasonable argument.
If I were to personally define an H, it would basically have to look similar to an H (go figure).
So the area of the catch zone directly above the response pads has to move in a fairly exaggerated outward direction from the center of the yoyo; before heading upwards and outwards towards the rims.
Basically, some seriously exaggerated response bumps- giving the profile the appearance of an H.
Now whether a yoyo is a strong H or an H hybrid is another story.
3 Likes
I think “looks like the letter” is a good starting point … but to me the key is “plays meaningfully different due to significant geometry differences”.
Aesthetically I am not sure which “looks” more like the letter H
I find this whole discussion pretty silly but I am struggling with your definition coding. You say it needs to be inverted organic but then what is the envy? I think the envy is the most clear H shape I have ever seen.
Would an example of each shape be helpful for everyone. Like the most exaggerated example of each?
Also why is it V shaped and not X? Seems some letters signify the whole yoyo while others are just part of it.
7 Likes
Giving this thread a
8 Likes
Don’t worry everyone I have fixed our very flawed lettering system.
O doesn’t look like an organic to me thus
)-(
V is no longer v it is X.
X
H shape is great we keep H
W is no longer we have a much better name. The double funnel. 
Imperial is no more. Biased name based off one yoyo. I introduce θ.
I hope this helps everyone.
17 Likes