what is 'technical'?

this question has been plaguing me for a while. people go on about how moves are technical, or certain people are tech spinners, but what does it mean. are isos technical? or only continuous isos? or are they not technical atall. is antispin technical, or does it become technical when applied to certain moves? can hyperloops be considered technical? does a move only become technical when a small percentage of people can do it? oh the confusion. as far as i can see the term has no real validity because all moves require technique. any suggestions?

Category: 
Poi Miscellania

Comments

JUL
4
2005
spiralx

I think technical only has validity as a term to describe a style of spinning rather than certain moves - because given time almost any move can become natural-looking and fit into flow. As a style of spinning I'd put it at the opposite end of a spectrum to "dancing". But it's really one of those terms that's hard to pin down Sphism/gigglesmiley

JUL
4
2005
oli

poi is technical i reckon.

and surely dancing can be (is?) technical - people spend years learning how to dance...

but i agree with what spiralx says, technical is a kind of label given to certain types of poi spinning.

so its just all in your mind really Sphism/smilesmiley

JUL
4
2005
coleman

technique is very different to technical (tech) imo.

good poi technique involves pattern choice, transition choice, timing, planes and so on.

whereas tech is a state of mind... Sphism/winksmiley

by that i mean its the stuff you *need* to think about, the stuff you think about when you don't have poi in your hands, the stuff that needs a model behind it for it to make sense.

so like oli said, its all tech at some point.

to a complete newbie, a 3bt weave is tech.
to me right now, antispin is tech.

if it doesn't flow right yet and i don't understand it fully, if i stand in one spot practicing it over and over with tiny variations to try and understand it better - that's what tech is to me.

cole. x

JUL
4
2005
matt

Tech is a style of spinning, better known to some as the sphercular style Sphism/winksmiley

I've been is some pretty hefty arguments with hop moderators about tech spinning.

This was over a year ago and there point was that hyperloops are tech and cannot be done on stage because they look bad and are too hard to pull off properly and ultimately the audience doesn't know the difference anyway.

My point was that hyperloops would be done by beginners within a year or so, they can be done very beautifully and i'd happily do them on stage and even a non spinning audience is clever enough to see there's something not quite right with how my elbows seem to bend lol

We got into a big slagging match and i didn't visit hop for a while, in fact i started up this community where geeky spinners could feel at home Sphism/smilesmiley and not be ostracized by the so called 'professionals'.

Personally i think people use the word tech to describe stuff that's hard which few people do. But of course within 6 months everyones doing it and the ones that are left behind get a bit pissed off since they've been spinning for years blah blah blah.

To me technical poi is the Act of analysing what my body is doing once i've taught it kinda how to do something. ie my mind teaches my body, then my body teaches my mind the subtleties of it. Like a feedback loop that really accelerates my learning and understanding.

I generally find that the more techy i get the worse my dancing becomes, kinda lose my flow.

m

JUL
5
2005
coleman

[quote="matt"]I've been is some pretty hefty arguments with hop moderators about tech spinning.

JUL
5
2005
matt

yeah, but 1 plus malcolm :roll:

JUL
5
2005
Rovo

To me technical encompass's any moves or concepts that are harder to do/learn. Hyperloops, high beat patterns (7+), anti-spin and other challenging moves are all technical IMO. I consider flowers to be one of the most technical moves even though I think they are the most graceful.
This discussion is one of those things thats gonna vary form person to person so I doubt we'll reach an actual "this is right" conclusion but I think its safe to say Spherculism is technical.

JUL
5
2005
jon

[quote="Rovo"]This discussion is one of those things thats gonna vary form person to person so I doubt we'll reach an actual "this is right" conclusion

JUL
5
2005
Rev

see I don't really think tech and dancing are opposites.. I think they are orthogonal.. think of dancing as being a spectrum on the x- axis and tech being a spectrum on the y-axis.. I think that covers the relationship quite well.. because you can have low tech dancers and high tech dancers.. and low- and hi- tech spinners..

to me tech is a mind thing.. there are people that like to push the limits of how they can move. whether they be dancers or spinners.. and for these people, its all about how to make that poi move where/how it shouldnt.. low tech dancers don't care so much on pushing themselves.. lowtech dancers/spinners don't care so much on how you can move, but what you can make those movements look like.. they focus on how the move feels, not how its made..

hi-tech people.. build patterns.. lo-tech people build combos.. I know that sounds the same.. but its not.. I'm just trying to say that high tech spinners build more intricate movements, while low tech spinners create more fluid transitions..

In the end we are all doing the same thing.. spinning the same circles.. its just where and how we choose to link them that makes us different..

I hope none of this offended anyone.. I think both sides of spinning have their merits.. I mean hi-tech spinners could learn a lot from lo-tech peoples transitions.. hi-tech spinenrs can transition well, but it just doesnt flow most times.. kinda like a fade between songs, but not really mixing them.. andI think the low-tech people can learn a lot from the hi-tech.. I mean look at the songs we're making right.. mix some of those, because between the two of us... we're badass... Sphism/winksmiley

JUL
5
2005
coleman

[quote="jon"]when i think about body popping and poi spinning being combined i reckon a tech style would for the basis for something that...

JUL
5
2005
jon

[quote="Rev"]high tech spinners build more intricate movements, while low tech spinners create more fluid transitions

lowtech dancers/spinners don't care so much on how you can move, but what you can make those movements look like.. they focus on how the move feels, not how its made

JUL
6
2005
Rev

I'm saying that low tech spinners work replace transitions as 'moves' to compliment their base of moves.. and so they learn them all as fluidly as we would learn any other move.. so they can make any of their moves just flow beautifully into another as it if it were all the same thing(after all isnt it)..

hi-tech spinners sacrifice a lot of their flow for more patterns like moves.. this gives them a much greater range of movement choices.. so in effect their body has more freeedom to move, but do to the lack of transitions and comfort with transitions, they get locked up.. I mean the intracasy (sp?)of some patterns create a sequence that's harder to break.. so as to flow better..

this isnt to say hi tech spinners can't link moves together.. we just dont carry the finesse or comfort that low-tech spinners have.. and thats where I think dancing comes in.. how well a hi tech spinner can transition depends on how well he can dance..

interpret that how you will.. that's just the way I see it..

JUL
9
2005
StoneT

I don't think you definitions of high tech spinners and low tech spinners are mutually incompatible. If someone you call a high tech spinner were to really get there transitions smooth and graceful what would that make them?

I think alot of people separate things into tech spinning and fluid spinning to some degree, which I thik is wrong Sphism/confusedsmiley How many times have you heard- "I don't really like tech stuff, I like to be able to flow with my spinning"?
I think what these people are really saying is " I'm not good enough at the stuff I consider to be tech to flow with it"

...IMHO Sphism/winksmiley

JUL
9
2005
Rev

yes.. but that's my point.. hitech spinners focus all their time on the hi tech stuff.. they want to be able to do that more than flow.. because most of them. .I think say " I want to be able to learn as much movement as I can because learning to flow takes time" or something similar.. lo tech spinners are more interested in spinning where they are comfortable.. they like to spin rather than spend most of the time hammering out 1 little detail at a time.. and so they work on a few things and spin sometime spinning a lot.. and so they build on the stuff they are the most comfotable with.. thus not going hi tech because that is natural.. yet..

now I think dancing is different... I think dancing is more movement based.. and it reflects your bodys side.. not the spinning.. if that makes any sense... I want to clarify because I think a lot of times when people use flow they give it a dance connotation.. and I just want to note I think they are seperate...

but getting back to my point.. everyone gets to the same ending.. its just in what they sacrifice to get there.. tech spinners have sopme great ways to move.. but then compound how many different ways you can move that way.. 8O it takes them a long time to be able to flow through their moves (knowing them in and out) rather than just 'transition.' lo tech spinners have beautiful flow.. but they just take longer to get the massive base movements.. I mean hitech moves become lotech after a while.. jedi anyone? isnt that why we change tech on moves over time.. it becomes a pattern that people have picked up over time through little bits of practice so now tere are lots in the community that have it? better ways of teaching or deliberate practice helps bring it along to where more people can spin it..

I had mroe but I need to find a better way to learn it..

JUL
9
2005
matt

I say it comes down to 'ignorance is bliss'

I'd say the time i likes my style of spinning most was about 1 and a half years in. I had enough tech stuff down to look good but my head wasn't full of all the stuff it is now.

I find that the more i learn about poi the harder it becomes to just let go.

I've been watching myself on video recently and i just don't dig what i see any more.

It all looks so contrived to me, kinda forced, where as a few years ago it just all seems to fit and flow together.

So maybe i'm just in that phase between learning some patterns and really nailing them. Or maybe i've just lost my flow cos there's just too much going on. Or maybe i've just become really harsh on myself for being out of practice.

It's like i've spent all this time making sure that i can go into and out of every single pattern i know that when i dance there are too many options.

I think there is a lot to be said for remaining ignorant to the possibilities and retaining that something that i feel i've lost.

I guess i'm talking about my spinning 'soul'.

Who knows,

m

JUL
11
2005
Rev

I just thought about something...

technical- focusing on inner movements that don't have a dramatic effect on the outer spin look.. (things that don't change the picture, just the movements inside)

non-technical- focusing on the outer presentation.. the inner stuff doesnt matter really because it doesnt really look that different.. if it looks the same.. why bother? I';ll learn it when I'm ready..

cryptic- moves that arent understood well, and thus can't be translated well into wrtten medium.. making them available only to a select few..

well-known- moves that tons of people have mastered and thus there is a wealth of ways to explain, describe, or teach the given pattern..

dancing- bodymovement... how you move with poi..

spinning- lack of body movement.. how you move the poi..

????

JUL
11
2005
matt

SO what you're saying rev is that,

tech spinning comes from within,

non tech spinners go without Sphism/winksmiley

m

JUL
11
2005
Rev

I'm just saying that after talking with some spinners a few tech and some nontech spinenrs.. and I've noticed a trend..

nontech spinenrs focus on outward appearance.. they either find the tech stuff too hard (and thus not worth the effort to put in) or just lack the motivation (fr something that doesnt look different.. )

tech spinners on the other hand tend to enjoy the different ways of moving.. a lot of the things I find to be techy aren't even really noticeable to an audience and even has to be pointed out at times to experienced spinners. maybe its selfish, but I enjoy even the subtle differences.. they let me enjoy my spinning..

tech as in technique seems to focus more on the 'how to' aspect than the overall change in appearance anyway.. so those are just some thoughts I had.. Sphism/winksmiley

Beta

This is the first public beta version of the site... it's been about 5 years in the making... enjoy, and get involved... contact me and say hello

Poi Miscellania

User login