Judging in PS - proposal

In my previous post I considered how PS can be judged in a competitive setting. Is there a more definitive way of considering PS that divides its elements in a more logical fashion?

In my post on approaching technical PS, I mentioned that spinning can be considered at various depths - on a basic level as core parameters and superficially as what tricks were done, with increasing depth of consideration as to how links complement each other to create effect, and how the ideas shown in the combo relate to other existing combos, and so on. What happens if we try this approach for the 3 ‘main’ concrete criteria - execution, difficulty, and originality? 

The first idea I had was a direct application of this to the combo itself - i.e. considering on ‘micro’ scale i.e. trick technique/separate trick and link scale, and ‘macro’ scale i.e. what each link contributes to the combo, and how the combo contributes to the other combos that spinner made, the other combos in that tournament, and all existing combos. Personally, I found this way of considering PS to be extremely useful in evolving my spinning from 2016 to 2021 when I was training seriously, and allowed me to join the dots of the abstract vision in my head to create actual combos that progressed along the path I dreamt of. The problem with this combo-based depth division for practical judging is that it obscures some basic things like ‘is the overall hardness of the combo micro or macro?’ 

The solution to this problem is to use the depth consideration on the 3 ‘main’ criteria themselves, rather than on the links in the combo. What do we end up with then?

Execution-related

Superficial: Technique perfection - whether the tricks are performed properly (in regards to the mod’s rotations, its position to the fingers, whether the accelerations and decelerations are performed well). Of course, technique level is a lot more nuanced than this: think of Hash, Noel, Dary as aesthetic-based examples; or specific ways of performing hard tricks like doing PD fl around rev with minimal hand movement, pen spinning parallel to the ground as a technical-based example. To accommodate higher level technique, higher scores can be given for exceptional mastery in this subcriteria.

Deep: Effect - how visual elements come together to create the overall impressions of the combo. Note visual elements are not necessarily what one finds subjectively appealing (or even about whether the technique in performance is better). For example, Nine's WC22 R2 and Saltient's WT21 R4 have distinct impactful use of visual elements while not necessarily having the most perfect technique. Depending on the event, less intuitive evolution of effects like Dary or Noel's JEB Spinfest 2019 that require more specific thought to implement may be considered over more intuitive evolution of effects that require less specific experimentation.

Difficulty-related

Superficial: Hardness - how hard the breakdown is. Consider the mechanics shown and the precision required (whether it be margins of error over rotation speed, position of the mod etc) or specific movements in tight timeframes (links that require control over ¼ rotations like moonwalk inverse side sonic with minimal change in palm orientation, or the fast hold-release transitions in palm down 1p2h twirl fall). Since this subcriteria only considers how hard the breakdown is, it does not penalise a combo made of filler - short hard sequence compared to a combo with same overall hardness but even distribution.

Deep: Density - how the various mechanics interact with each other and their arrangement throughout the entire combo. Are there any filler moments where the chain of rising difficulty is broken? The range of skill sets mastered and whether there are different interactions beyond those required in learning the separate tricks are also considered (e.g. pinky bust cardioid - seasick - curled pinky bak 1.5 in my WT21 R3 requires learning different mechanics beyond the separate tricks). I considered renaming this subcriteria due to the confusion and arguments ‘density’ created in the past, but regardless of what name is chosen, it still makes sense to consider the deeper elements of difficulty like this.

Originality-related

Superficial: Novelty - whether the material, or similar material, has been done before and how often it was done before. While this has a risk of judges forgetting old videos, and has theoretical risks of encouraging people to hide material, delete old content, or send subpar collab submissions etc, as the most basic way of considering originality it makes sense. The considerations in releasing material are something people of many artforms and professions deal with on a daily basis.

Deep: Conception - whether there are deeper overarching abstract ideas explored or conveyed. This is potentially the most nebulous criteria, because it deals with perceived intent, which can vary depending on the audience, the competitor’s posted explanations, previous combos. In theory, it’s possible a very experienced judge may see a deeper significance behind the combo that the competitor missed. While very few spinners or combos step into this territory (as such, the majority of submissions will score quite low in this area), the works that reach it can create new paths or new ways of considering PS - e.g. OhYeah's WPSAL 2017 1p2h for 1p2h interactions, or Saltient's WT21 combos for visual structures and alien impressions, or RPD's PSO20 multipen for creating 1p1h-like flow with 2p1h mechanics.

Some of the combos I put most work into - my WT21 R5 for exploiting the properties of power and timing-based difficulty, my WT19 R5 as a condensation of complex mechanics aimed to step into this territory. Another combo of mine that touches on conception, albeit at shallower depth, is my 2p2h combo in tag with Supawit which explored a new form of transfers. Initially, I only saw these transfers as cool visual effects rather than as a generalisable solution for ‘how do I make transfer of each pen to different hand without mods leaving contact of the hand’.

Presentation will remain as before i.e. depending on how detrimental the presentation is to understanding what’s going on in the video, up to -2 points. Of course, choice of background colour, lighting, mod colour, filming angle play a huge role in the final effects and impressions - worth far more than 0-2 points. A larger variety of material requires an appropriate choice of an ever increasing range of setups. It is worth considering whether the detrimental aspects of presentation can be the ‘superficial’ consideration, with the ‘deep’ consideration being how setup relates to choice and performance of the material. The problem with putting more weight into presentation is that out of all the subcriteria, it is likely the most prone to excusable arbitrary exploitation.

If you have read up to here, then I’m very grateful. While it’s unlikely you will agree with everything said here (it would be strange if you did), I hope my thoughts will leave an impression on you and provoke some thinking of your own.

To finish off, I'll give what is probably my favourite quote - a reply by ZUN (the creator of the Touhou project series, who is self-taught in both music composition and computer programming) when asked what made Super Mario Brothers and Street Fighter 2 notable when they released:

“Those games were revolutionary because they had things like different systems from games before them, creating new atmospheres within themselves. Later, people would say stuff like "that game engine was revolutionary" or "the characters had a lot of appeal", but at the time, no one really thought about the individual aspects because they were too busy playing. Games don't become hits because of those kinds of reasons. The systems in those games weren't just the pinnacle of all the games made up to that point, there was also a decisive difference. If I had to put it into words, I would say they "created a new world". Though it's a little different from the usual meaning, let's just go with that.” - ZUN.

Will your spinning create a new world? It's up to you.

Judging in PS - considerations

Hello everyone, it’s been a while. While I don’t train that seriously nowadays, I still pick up the mod pretty often and think about PS quite a lot, and gained some interesting insights from reading about medical education as well. This is the first post about PS judging in this 'series', an attempt at addressing many of the questions raised is in the second post.

So PSO22 is coming around and it will try yet again a slightly different way of judging. Anyone who’s been around the competitive PS scene for a few years will know the countless discussions (in worse cases - drama, arguments, salt, grudges) surrounding any attempt to assess our artform.

One can ask whether PS (or arts in general) should be competitive, or have criteria, or have numerical scores - unfortunately, human nature dictates that humans are competitive, and competitions, criteria, and scoring exist in PS and other arts, for better or worse. So let’s move onto more practical questions.

The most important question is ‘what purpose does PS competition serve?’ This is the most important question because PS competitions exist to address this.

Q: Is it to award a title to someone? 

A: We will never agree who the #1 is, because different people prioritise different elements of PS (be it finesse of technique, technical skill, innovation or other things). A title in itself has reduced meaning if it has been awarded through unreliable/invalid methods of assessment, or if competitors are not all ‘serious’ about preparation. Unlike professional sports or arts, a title in PS is not related to one’s primary income. Nonetheless, because competition exists, communities have been trying different ways of assessing PS for competing. 

Q: Is it to define what makes a better spinner or a better combo?

A: On a general level, it’s easy to define a ‘good combo’ - all its elements contribute to visuals and mechanics: combos that don’t do this will have wasteful or detrimental material. Of course, individuals may disagree on whether certain elements contribute in a positive way. It follows that a ‘good spinner’ is someone who makes many ‘good combos’. Do competitions exist merely to be satisfied with attaining ‘good’ rather than ‘exceptional’ or ‘groundbreaking’?

Q: Is it to promote activity and progression in the hobby?

A: I feel this is getting closer than the previous 2 questions. Direct competition fuels improvement and drives people to experiment outside of their comfort zones, in a way that PS collabs do not seem to. While there have been many historic CV combos in the aesthetic sense, the majority of groundbreaking combos in more technical (i.e. material and theory-based) aspects have been in tournaments. A perfectly disciplined human would continue pushing themselves in the same way regardless of whether an easily tangible goal like CV/tourney/solo exists, but there are no perfect humans. The excitement and discussions about tournament submissions and results also increase activity.

If we summarise the above, we end up with ‘competition should reward different aspects of PS in the many ways one can make a good combo, while giving further rewards to people who push the boundaries’. Perhaps personal projects like solo videos are more suited to experimental revolutionary material, but it is illogical if the highest level competitive event of our artform does not differentiate revolutionary combos or revolutionary spinners.

Before I discuss the system I want to try in the themes I’m judging for PSO22 (which can be generalised for themeless battles like WT), I will discuss what has been tried or suggested before, but didn’t work that well.

Q: Why can’t we just use comments only, no subcriteria?

A: In a world with great judges, PS competitions would produce reasonable winners with comments only. We don’t live in a perfect world. While numbered scores are arbitrary in their divisions and judges may not follow the example videos for what a certain score represents, a comments-only system will change those 5-7 arbitrary numbers into 1 large arbitrary result (i.e. the vote towards who wins). This works if we trust that the judges represent the views we desire for that competition.

It’s easier to think about a recent example - it’s justifiable to vote Mond over Saltient in WT21 R3 by prioritising execution. On a personal level, it is equally valid to prioritise basic control, or finesse of technique, or technical difficulty, or novel material. But how well does this align with what international PS competitions aim to do? Would voting Mond in a comments-only judgment promote spinners to continue pushing boundaries, or does it encourage spinners to stay in their comfort zones? While subcriteria cannot stop this (and should not explicitly stop specific judgments), judges should be held accountable for considering the specified elements. Comments-only does not address disagreements about judges overly prioritising certain aspects of spinning, nor does it address different understandings of elements like ‘structure’ or ‘creativity’. Having no subcriteria would make criticisms harder to specify, since the judge can just brush it off with ‘my general impression was this, I already explained myself, I define this element differently to how you do’ etc.

There have been events with comments only judging, where judges provide examples of combos they prefer (which may work for smaller events and was done in one JEB tournament before), but for an international event this risks suggesting spinners should try to replicate existing impressions rather than create more evolved versions of their own paths. In past arguments over numbered scores, disagreement was often about the outcome rather than the scores (as in, even when reasonable detailed justifications above and beyond the initially submitted comments were given, people still had complaints) - comments-only would not fix the fact people get annoyed over their friend or favourite not winning, since this is an issue of sportsmanship and maturity. 

Q: What if we make judges assess some varied, tough combos before they are allowed to judge the real event?

A: This was tried in WT21 judge selections. It didn’t work as well as expected. From previous events e.g. WT17 and WT19, as the tournament progresses (i.e. judges get more experience judging the spinners in the event, there are less combos sent = more time spent assessing each combo, more detailed comments), judging appears to improve in quality. Humans pay more attention to their performance when they know they are being assessed. While making sample judgments helps exclude some blatantly ‘off’ judgments, it isn’t that great at stopping strange judgments in the first half of a WT. Judge selection is surely more influential in determining results than the fine details of the criteria itself, but is harder to deal with. Judgments in previous events are the best determiner. Sample judgments still have a role in assessing new candidates, while allowing discussion before the actual event.

Q: Assuming one concedes the above and agrees to using subcriteria, why should they be given numerical scores? Numbers are annoying, introduce more variability and create strange inconsistencies.

A: Judges could be instructed to consider and comment specifically on various subcriteria in their comments-only judgments. However, it would be impossible to know whether the final win/loss vote appropriately accounted for those elements; or the judge could make a final vote contrary to what the tone of their comments indicates.

A system where the judge votes which spinner did better in a given subcriteria e.g. spinner A is better in exec, spinner B is better in difficulty etc, then totals those votes (perhaps with weighting for whatever aspects the tournament or theme wants to prioritise) could be tried. However, this would not account for large gaps in respective elements. This was tried in SCT18 and worked well since the competitors who passed the qualification round were all solid, but for a larger event with more varied submissions, I doubt it would work well. It’s strange if someone submits a barely landed combo, or an extremely easy combo, or an extremely uncreative combo (e.g. 2/10 vs 8/10 in current scoring), while suffering the same penalty as someone who sends something that is just slightly worse (7/10 vs 8/10). 

If we are to use numbers, it may be helpful to have less subcriteria, with more unified score weightings (e.g. all subcriteria scored out of 5, rather than having some be out of 10, some be out of 5, some be out of 3. If certain elements are to be prioritised, it’s easier to just put in a separate multiplier afterwards). In a talk about how communication and professionalism can be assessed in medical students (given to my uni’s medicine faculty by a professor of medical education), using more detailed subcriteria served to annoy the examiners while making the results less reliable on statistical analysis. WT19 criteria had too many subcriteria (with some unintuitive definitions that overlapped in some regards).

Q: Why don’t we try to get consensus about the criteria by asking a lot of representatives from different countries?

A: This approach works in established fields with established theories and established experts (who usually conduct such discussions in a mutually understood language), and has been done for many curriculum, guidelines and regulations in professional fields. Even if we could overcome the language barriers between countries, PS still struggles to explain many foundational concepts in any given language - e.g. the English-speaking community is still struggling to express ‘good structure’ or ‘good pacing’ in words. While there are many established 'good' spinners, they may not be able to express their understanding in words, they probably do not agree with each other (and may never agree with certain other established spinners in the discussion), nor may their views align with what the tournament aims to prioritise.

There are many ways to describe important elements, which in turn have varying overlap, which then have varied practicality when being used as subcriteria. Fortunately, the discussions stemming from previous competitions serve as a good proxy for this topic. Unfortunately, these past discussions tell us that we are unlikely to achieve a consensus. There have been arguments for years that come up again every time we have a world event about: weight of execution-related elements, how one assesses difficulty, what degree or kinds of repetition are bad structure, what the penalty for reusing identical or similar linkages should be (and where the material was previously shown), what constitutes good flow, and so on. More discussion is a good thing, but the impression I got is that we’ve ended up repeating old points without introducing any new helpful ideas.

Q: I feel [insert element here] is important. Why shouldn’t it be a subcriteria?

A: There are many ways to break up the puzzle pieces of what a ‘good combo’ consists of. However, just because a certain way of grouping certain elements is a good term e.g. ‘pacing’, ‘tension’, ‘structure’, ‘coherence’, or ‘refinement’, does not mean it is good as a division of subcriteria. To elaborate, ‘structure’ can be considered as arrangement of mechanics (like ‘density’), arrangement of visual impressions (like ‘effect’), arrangement of new ideas (like ‘integration’). While ‘structure’ is a useful way of considering PS, it is hard to use as a subcriteria. A similar point can be made about ‘density’, ‘integration’, ‘effect’, which were part of the WT19 subcriteria under ‘effectiveness’. Similarly, ‘coherence’ overlaps with ‘structure’ and is influenced by ‘pacing’ and ‘tension’. ‘Pacing’ can be considered as use of speed, effect of movements of hand, wrist and mod, visual effect of the mod during the tricks performed, which in turn is influenced by the angle chosen and background/mod colours etc. While many abstract terms are useful for general discussion, is there a more practical way of dividing things for judging purposes? 

Q: So you’ve raised all these criticisms but what’s your constructive proposal? If you are only criticising but not making active suggestions, what’s the point?

A: If you’ve read up to here, congratulations! Now we can move onto my suggestions for addressing a lot of these things: judging proposals. I won’t claim there is any definitive ‘solution’ since there surely isn’t one, and there won’t be a way to satisfy everyone, but at least I can offer what is (probably) a more practical way of breaking things down.

WT21 R5 combo

So it’s round 5 of WT21 already, time flies! I think I’m the first spinner to reach semifinals in 3 World Tournaments, which is kinda surprising. 

Anyway, I would like to begin with a more philosophical question which was the basis of my R5 combo.

If you were going to battle a clone of yourself (who has same knowledge currently and awareness of this battle) in several years from now, how would you guarantee your win? Is pouring in more hours of practice enough to win? At best, that would only give you a coinflip’s chance of victory. What if the battle was against a spinner who has greater skill and knowledge than you now?

Some explanation of the tricks (I have no idea how to notate most of these things, apologies):

0:01 - 0:04 - mirrored powerpass reverse sequence right hand, with left hand’s fingers pushing → linked 1p2h

0:04 - 0:05 - wrist-wrist swivel ~ LH midindex bak cardioid (wiper with left hand’s middle finger and back of right hand)

pen is held between both wrists and has to maintain charge rotation while trying to maintain speed for wrist-wrist swivel

have to catch pen at grip portion to do the wiper properly, back surface of hand is not typically used much

0:06 - 0:07 - 3b4b palm up fl pa rev - (left hand’s middle finger goes into right hand’s 34 slot to push) - left middle finger pushes palmspin 0.5

annoying to use curled 34 slot for the PU fl pa rev

have to quickly move left hand’s middle finger to proper position for subsequent push

0:08 - 0:10 - palm down twirl 33’ (ring fingers of both hands) - palm down twirl release 44’ (pinky fingers of both hands) - wiper 34 

Palm down twirl sequence with hardest slot with release: combining hardest timing based mechanic (2 years training, detailed later) with very hard power based mechanic (precision to catch end of pen in 34 right afterwards)

0:11 - 0:13 - pd fl ma rev - wiper 34 release ~ lower palm part mirrored powerpass reverse 

The powerpass is done without a preceding fingerless pinkyaround, which increases the difficulty greatly

Est total time directly used for material 600+ hours

Initial conception in 2017, started training material in late 2018

Filmed in early-mid 2021

Would estimate skill level required as roughly square of WT19 R5 (incomparable difference)

-------------------------------

Answer to initial question

It is possible to win, because there are still more foundational principles governing this hobby that are not well developed or understood currently; whose interactions can allow you to surpass your expected level for that brief period needed.

As explained in previous posts, difficulty of links/tricks can be thought of as power based mechanics and timing based mechanics. An important property of power based mechanics is that your sense for them can increase seemingly exponentially over time (consistency may still be variable). An important property of timing based mechanics is that your smoothness progresses very gradually, but the consistency is high.

→ A combo that combines both of these mechanics is potentially more practical to perform than a combo that has comparable technical skill but only uses one of these mechanics.

Problems at time this combo was planned (late 2017)

Timing based links that have difficulty worthy for latter rounds of a WT are rare (still true in late 2021)

Timing based links that have sufficiently high level involve 2h spinning, which requires a lot of development (using strong visual highlight well requires rest of combo to complement it)

To address 1.

Begin practising that timing based link for 5-10 min at start of every practice session (4 sessions per day, started roughly Oct 2018)

Switched from mod to tipless mod to encourage stricter mastery of muscle memory, then switched to pencil (Oct 2018 - Nov 2019) ← this link was intended to be used in WT19 R6, but it wasn’t at necessary level then

Continued with pencil training until reached satisfactory level in mid 2020 

Upgraded link to release version to add power based difficulty on top of the timing based difficulty, continued practising daily (mid 2020 - early 2021)

i.e. 30 minutes daily for 2 years to get 0:08 - 0:10 link to usable level, building on previous skills in power and 2h (yes, I did the sequence daily for a year with an ordinary pencil)

Using the mod - tipless mod - pencil - step back up to mod sequence for learning very specific timing based mechanics may be helpful, but is not required for the vast majority of material in this hobby

To address 2.

Initial venture into 1p2h with WT17 R5, WT17 R6, 10 year solo two 1p2h combos (timing combo to beat of music to improve sense of 2h pacing)

Basic application of 1p1h modifiers to 1p2h ideas in PSO18 R2-3 2h (e.g. aerial, +0.5 spin for PSO R3 combo)

Use of different planes and power mechanics in WT19 R6

Further integration of linked 2h, applying harder 1p1h ideas (variations of spiderspin, wiper releases/cardioid) in the 3 1p2h combos in 12 year solo

After understanding gained from these, planned first half of WT21 R5 combo in Sept 2020: train for 10-15 min/session (4 sessions/day) from Sept 2020 to March 2021

i.e. 10 1p2h combos to establish understanding, specific practice 40+ minutes daily for 6 months to plan and perform first half of R5 combo 0:01 - 0:07

Additional

Gradual improvement of cardioid and mpr power sequences to perform ending 0:11 - 0:13, estimate 1 hr/week for 1 ½ years or so

In reviewing drafts, I looked for specific 1-2 frames to ensure the wiper release was done properly (if it’s done as charge release then the draft is instantly rejected)

It was a long-held aspiration to create a combo that represents the above understanding and requires gradual, long practice, with a very specific aim in mind. There's some bits I wanted to do better (as usual, I guess). I hope my work leaves an impression on you.

Crash course on approaching pen spinning (technical focus)

This article will explain how to approach pen spinning in a general sense (with a focus on ‘technical spinning’). I consider ‘tech spinning’ to have 2 ultimate aims (some overlap), and it is up to the individual to determine what elements of these to pursue and what they enjoy/are interested in. Analysis and practice are both ways to find more ways to appreciate the depth of pen spinning and should be enjoyable, even if there is frustration at times.

#1. Integration (related to creativity and execution): exploring possibilities of different variations - power, counters, wipers, fingercross, 1p2h, 2p1h, 2p2h, and implementing these possibilities effectively to create various effects - elegance, order, chaos, abnormality.

Padrace has written a post explaining how to consider the use of tension and release in creating effect here.

#2. Density (related to difficulty): maximum skill level in margin of error/precision by using various trick mechanics

- power-based difficulty: most tricks that have mod leaving hand for any period, hard to do consistently, ability tends to rise notably over time

- timing-based difficulty: easy to do badly, hard to do smoothly, can be done with high consistency once adequately practised, ability rise is very gradual, e.g. fingerpass, 1p2h twirl fall, moonwalk inverse side sonic, moonwalk inverse twisted sonic

Monheim has written a post explaining the significance of density to technical spinning here.

Framework for approaching PS/article summary

1. Learning tricks in logical fashion by adjustment of core parameters
2. Making linkages by applying modifiers and hybrids
3. Levels of consideration to gather the desired elements of spinners you have seen, then applying these deductions to your own spinning
4. Assorted general advice

Learning tricks - core parameters

Every success and failure, as well as the visual effect of every trick and combo can be thought about using core parameters

Trick related core parameters

• Force amount and direction
• Position of mod in relation to fingers
• Finger movement and position of fingers directly used in doing the trick
• Angle of rotation of mod 

Effect related core parameters - some overlap with trick related parameters, less related to scope of this article

• Finger movement and position of fingers not involved in doing the trick (wrist and arm motion also)
• Changes in speed of rotation of mod
• Setup factors - mod and background colour, lighting, camera angle, exposure

Spinners should pay attention to what core parameters are used in videos they watch, as well as their own attempts. Trick related core parameters are relevant for ‘technique derivation’ (tech deriv - ability to derive a technique for doing tricks/links). 

Tech deriv has 3 forms:

• Subconscious - as part of natural motor skill learning, brain automatically picks up on various changes in core parameters with current attempts.
• Deliberate - systematically adjusting core parameters to see how this determines outcome of future attempts, then using this information to make further deliberate adjustments.
• Retrospective - if a previous attempt is successful, which core parameters were different - this is hard to apply immediately, so it is more practical to apply long-term. If succeeding in links that were impossible weeks/months/years ago, consider what core parameters were changed that lead to this. This can give useful conclusions, e.g. ‘this trick requires less force than expected, maybe this is true for other similar tricks’ or ‘slowing down may help in doing this difficult linkage smoothly’.

While deliberate tech deriv is a higher level of thinking than subconscious tech deriv, improvement in consistency sometimes occurs without awareness of any changes in core parameters. This does not mean that deliberately paying attention to core parameters is less useful, as doing so is vital to systematically learning rather than blindly trying and hoping something lucky happens.

Making linkages by applying modifiers and hybrids

On the simplest level, one can consider spinning in terms of exactly what trick/links were performed. Linkages can be made by applying modifiers, with more detail on pages 31-35 (37-41 on google drive viewer) of RPD's book. I highly recommend reading through the entirety of this resource.

Credits: Pen spinning history and notation, second edition (2021, Diego Gonzalez 'RPD')

This can be applied more generally, e.g. making 1p2h, 2p2h and 2p1h versions of 1p1h ideas, or to solve certain questions, e.g. fishing to link traditional power tricks with palm down fingerless around reverse; using knowledge of planes of rotation to create subtle direction changes or 2p2h transfers without releasing either pen. Systematic application of modifiers can also be seen by fel2fram with japanese motion and twirls.

General aims and how to approach them

How does one determine what direction they want to take in spinning? Watch videos of different spinners and determine what is appealing or interesting, and then consider what is being done to achieve that. 

Levels of consideration (simple to complex)

1. What tricks/links were done?
2. How does that trick/link and the rest of the combo contribute to the effect created?
3. What intention or aims are conveyed through that trick selection and effect?
4. Do the combos made by that person point towards a broader aim or vision? How can these aims be applied to one’s own spinning?  (this is not about copying the tricks, although copying some tricks is likely one of the earlier steps)

After determining what elements of #1 integration aim and #2 density aim to pursue using the above considerations, the question is then how to better approach this vision. The optimum way is to create combos with deliberate content - where each trick/linkage contributes in both material and visual effect, and have these combos aim to represent some element of that broader vision - a gradual process that can take dozens of planned combos over many years. There may be changes in that vision and evaluation of how to better approach it during that process. This does not mean every combo made has to take several weeks/months, but that every combo should try to show something deliberate (whether it be how a certain modifier can be used, what effect certain tricks have and so on). Each combo is like drawing another dot to help join the dots to approach the ultimate aims; so the resulting combo does not have to be perfect because it represents a step along a long path rather than an end goal in itself.

For my own aims, I set #1 integration aim as ‘integrate all 1p1h, 1p2h, 2p1h and 2p2h ideas’, and #2 density aim as ‘skill level that would be competitive at world level even if spinning were a major sport/artform’. The limiting condition for #1 is that fingercross is excluded because of flexibility issues, and for #2 is that a variety of difficulty mechanics are prioritised rather than using all effort into one trick family. The intentions deduced were based on fel2fram (density, systematic modifier application, chaos as an effect), dary (density, illusion as an effect), ohyeah (creativity in 1p2h), menowa (grouping links to create impactful themed combos). The effects I aim for based on these inspirations are chaos and illusion through application of frequent different unpredictable mechanics. These various aims and elements can be seen in various forms in my material from 2017 to 2020, most of which is described in previous blog posts.

See you all in WT21! If things go well, I will be able to show ‘that combo’ which demonstrates how I connected the dots over the past 3-4 years to achieve some form of these 2 aims.

Additional tips

Useful things to consider during practice

• Hand texture (moisturiser, warmth, stretching)
• If training same trick, use same mod over same background that you can easily see
• Play music to adjust mood

Useful things to consider prior to filming

• Adjusting angle to show certain planes of rotation (and/or planning breakdown based on this)
• Which direction hand tends to move during certain tricks (and then adjusting angle and body movement to prevent offcam movements)
• Mod colour and background colour - visibility to yourself and audience; how long mod appears, how obvious errors are
• high contrast makes the spinning effect (and errors) more obvious e.g. white mod with black background
• mod with grey/pink/orange/light blue/light green ends over a light-coloured background looks shorter
• mod with black/dark blue/red/dark green ends over a light-coloured background looks longer
• Practice material at filming location, with camera on - does not matter if you are seriously trying to do the entire combo, the aim is to get you mentally accustomed to doing the combo at the place you aim to record it at, while knowing you are being recorded
• Practice later parts of the combo primarily, then gradually add on preceding tricks once you are consistent enough (because you will have less chance to reach the later parts when you actually begin recording)
• I try to land these blocks once every 5 to 10 minutes before adding next bits; and before filming I prefer to be able to do the entire combo in regular practice 4 times in 30 minutes. Of course, these numbers are just rough recommendations.
• Decrease the difficulty of the material and then film some successful drafts with that easier material - helps to reduce the mental pressure of not having any drafts and also helps getting used to the material and doing it on cam, then upgrade the material back to whatever you wanted previously

Useful things to consider (besides core parameters) if you keep failing on certain material

• Try other variations that are related to that trick/link
• You can always entrust that material to your future self - remember what the difficult link is (write it somewhere if necessary), then improve bit by bit day by day and try it again in a few weeks, months, or even a year - you may find that what was entirely down to luck a year ago can suddenly end up being very consistent when you attempt it again with your improved level now
• Change the mod - some links that people expect require large amount of force or large amount of momentum do not require anywhere near as much force/momentum as expected (or vice versa; but it’s usually the case that things require way less force), it’s logical to adjust core parameters but sometimes it helps to change the tool being used too
• Inherent natures of power-based and timing-based difficulty are quite different, so it may help to practice them with that in mind (once again, this is just a recommendation)
• for power, you can train 2-3 ideas to make up ½ to ¾ of each practice session and generally expect some noticeable progress in 2-3 weeks or so
• for timing it may help to train 2 ideas for 5-10 minutes each for a long time (a month or more), doing the links slightly slower than your usual pace and then trying to make the separate motions into one smooth motion after a while

12 year solo commentary

 So, it’s finally out!

As always, here’s the folder: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Ou7pG0JCQsQnMLGY2O6riJFyu0c6r0lU?usp=sharing

0:01 - 0:06 1p2h fl: the key mechanic I wanted to show is the [LH pd fl around - RH pd fl around rev] cont transition - this requires changing plane of rotation so it feels quite similar to fishing, surprisingly

0:07 - 0:11 1p2h twirl fall, but pd: I trained this sequence with a pencil every day for over a year (from October 2018 to late 2019), with aim of using it in WT19 R6, however it wasn’t good enough to use in combo

0:15 - 0:21 grid: top left - fist bust fishing x 4, bottom left - [pinkybak pop - wrist bounce] x 3, top right - pd fl ma rev x 11, bottom right - [pinky bust cardioid - inv mpr] x 2. For ‘this is power V6’ in Feburary 2019, it took me 70 minutes to get fist bust fishing x 2 once; and the inv mpr - pinky bust cardioid - inv mpr took me 35-40 minutes to get once. When I tried these sequences again in March 2020, I was able to do them once every 5 minutes or so, despite not training these tricks much.

0:22 - 0:34 RH counter combo: A dynamic, aggressive impression to start off main part of solo - the first combo I filmed for this project (March 15th). I borrowed some ideas from gollumsk8 WT19 R2 and darkt. I think the pd fl pa rev 24-34 - pinky counter has not been done before. Besides the difficulty, I found maintaining pacing quite tough. It was very fun for me to learn a new branch of PS, which has allowed me to make combos with different impression. Peak consistency 4-5 times/30 minutes.

0:35 - 0:47 2p1h combo: Took a month of dedicated practice (half to ⅔ of daily practice on this combo), in addition to trying bits of it for short time every day in preceding 4+ months. Key mechanics include 0:36 - note that the red mod is held against side of hand with the other one, 0:37 - 0:38 - red mod does tw sonic rev 12-23 - sonic rev 23-24 - charge 24, while other mod does wiper in T1 - the direction of rotation is different and the planes of rotation overlap, however the mods do not hit each other, 0:39 - note that red mod does charge with force from grip of other mod. 0:40 - 0:43 isn’t that remarkable, however the setup at 0:43 is quite tough because you need very precise position for the mods in relation to each other for the next part. 0:44 - 2p1h swivel - 2p1h pen bust: one mod is caught in 23, other mod keeps spinning (I wanted to use this idea in WT19 R6 also, but wasn’t able to)

0:48 - 0:51 2p1h pd fl around rev sequence: ‘what if I tried doing WT19 R4 ideas with 2p1h’. The kind-of pd fl penaround rev (last trick) is bloody difficult.  It’s funny that consistency in this link improved when I used my signature red emboss as the secondary pen, which makes no sense. It’s like having a legendary weapon in an RPG but using it as offhand instead of main.

0:52 - 0:56 2p1h bakfall + fingerpass: red emboss does bakfall, while black emboss does fingerpass at same time. Not as smooth as I wanted (well, I only trained it for a week). I think a lot more can be done with this idea.

0:57 - 1:09 linked 1p2h: I wanted to make 1p2h with strong visual impression, inspired by baimai and minwoo’s linked 2h. 0:59 link is quite tough (setup to linked fingers T’4 - T1 fxxk from RH - wiper held with back of RH and middle/ring fingers of LH). Fist-fist wiper at 1:03 would be cool if I could do it aerial, maybe later.

1:10 - 1:17 RH ?fishing: The angle unfortunately makes it look like counters, however the impression was worse when I used other angles. 1:11 - 1:12 wrist fishing was fun to learn. Note that 1:15 has b3b4 pd fl pa rev - pd fl ma rev, there is enormous difficulty increase from doing the pd fl pa rev from curled slot (unsure if I used correct notation, sorry). The pause is regrettable, but the drafts that did not have the pause had worse control elsewhere.

1:18 - 1:27 1p2h density: 1:23 - 1:25 was made from ‘what if I tried doing RH power as 1p2h, but not fl’. Note that 1:24 has left hand’s middle finger stuck in RH 23 slot (pen spins around left hand’s middle finger while doing the RH palmspin). I’m not familiar with simultaneous trick notation, but this likely falls into that category.

1:28 - 1:33 pd fl ma rev - wiper 34 - interrupted inv mpr - I needed to replay the video in frame by frame to make sure I did not cheat in the wiper 34 (the sequence is a lot easier if that mechanic is missing). Took about 2 hours filming (over 3 days), in addition to several days’ practice prior to filming to land this clip once; in addition to the foundation I built up in these tricks. Note that the inv mpr is entered from interrupted start (i.e. pen starts on back of pinky, pen does not do a full fl pa before the powerpass), which increases the difficulty enormously. Excess hand movement, but I was happy I could even get this clip at all.

1:34 - 1:43 2p2h transfers - an upgraded version of stuff I showed in tag with supawit last year. I trained this material for at least half an hour daily for over 8 months, but it is still not as fluent as I desired. I think a lot more can be done with these sorts of ideas (both with pens spinning in same direction or different directions, different palm orientations, different visual effects etc), so I will keep exploring

1:43 - 1:46 rsvp unmod pd fl ma rev - pinky bust cardioid - you know how that WT19 finalist from Brazil took months to get this link on a proper mod? Well, I spent about 20 minutes messing around in June with a regular pen, then 30 minutes filming (15 minutes twice) to get this. I feel the power spiral is going out of control sometimes. I did the wiper on the cap side of the pen: I found the weight distribution made this more feasible.

1:50 - 1:53 and 1:54 - 1:58 - dr grip fist bust fishing, dr grip pd fl around fall. I respect aoneko and ease a lot, using this pen is ridiculous.

1:59 - 2:12 1p2h wipers - well, some of the tricks are 1p2h twirls done at end of pen, and some are actual wipers. The direction change at 2:01 was hard to get smooth. 2:06 - 2:11 was also very hard, with the catch before the wiper at 2:07 and having to finish the twirl 44’ twirl at 2:10 on the grip of the pen requiring a lot of practice (that being said, I ‘only’ used 7-8 days on this combo).

2:13 - 2:24 RH seasick + counters - 65 drafts for this, average time per draft around 1 ½ minutes. Note that most slots used are regular slots (other than b3b4 counter near start, and 24 twice), however the combo is tough to comprehend visually. I was inspired to learn seasicks by padrace and ponkotu.

2:24 - 2:29 MISS link - fxxk - moonwalk inverse side sonic 23-34 ~ b3b4 pushed ?angled pun kan - 24. The performance is not as good as I wanted, however the difficulty and density are ridiculous. MISS by itself already takes a months to do decently, and linking it to curled 34 slot still needs work.

2:30 - 2:37 RH pinkybust cardioid minicombo - from May 2020. Note the pinkybust 1.5 at 2:31, pd fl pa rev at 2:33, and pinkybust 1.5 at 2:34. Adding +0.5 spin to the final pinkybust was very hard, because the mod is held at its grip in the preceding wiper 34. I used about 5 days on this minicombo (I filmed a few drafts of easier versions of it), and only had one usable draft of the final version.

2:38 - 2:46 1p2h counters - 3 days used for this (the least time I used for any combo in this project). I felt 2h direction changes were not explored enough. The force for changing direction in the starting links is purely from LH.

2:47 - 2:58 sorry, I reused WT19 R5. I wanted an even number (12) of combos. This combo still stands out to me as being the one I want to surpass next year, and I am still surprised I managed to perform it to that level in 2019 August.

2:59 - 3:03 pinky spread cardioid x 2 - last year, someone told me that mid spread cardioid would be ‘impossible’ - I filmed it 10 minutes later. I did not train pinky spread cardioid much this year, so the transition point between the first and second is not that good. 

3:04 - 3:12 xpxh - the right hand pass 23-14-23 creates force for the left hand’s ?ta rev - palmspin rev (the left hand does not push the pen at all). 3:06 - 3:07 2p2h cross-pass idea was borrowed from ohyeah (who did it with 2p1h), I adapted it to 2p2h. I wanted to use this cross-pass idea in WT19 R6 but I was no where near good enough at it then. Even when filming this combo (as final combo for this project in September), I had to reduce the level of everything else. I will keep training.

3:12 - 3:24 RH varied power - I tried using fishing and different planes of rotation for RH ‘power’ genre. The ending was very fun to train, within 4 days I raised the consistency of the ending from 14 times in 21 minutes (i.e. once every 1 ½ minutes) to 44 times in 11 minutes (i.e. four times per minute).

3:25 - 3:30 fist bust fishing - other side topspin - interrupted inv mpr - my back hurt from twisting my arm to do the topspin. It took about a week to get this clip decent - it’s harder than 1:28 - 1:33. Getting the fist bust fishing to spin horizontally enough to do the topsin was a nightmare. I wanted to transition into the inv mpr by stretching pinky out, however the mod would never get into the right position for that. Surprisingly, I had a total lucky strike when I landed this sequence twice in a row consecutively.

3:31 - 3:33 - Kyushu islands: I visited that area in 2019 before COVID. I miss overseas travel. I miss meeting spinners in other countries.

Additional rambling:

The first BGM (Demetori’s remix of Dream Battle) - when I heard this song for first time in August/Sept 2018 during time of SCT18, when I was in final year of medical school, I absolutely knew that I had to use it in my next solo. Time flies, doesn’t it?

I kept a log of my practice time from March 15th (first combo) to Sept 10th (last clip I landed for this solo): 180 days, total 751 hours 25 minutes - average 4 hours 10 minutes daily. The first 4 weeks of this period were annual leave - I was stuck at home anyway, so I spun quite a lot; however the remaining 150+ days were all during full-time work at the hospital that has worst rating for overwork in my state. I have no regrets in putting so much effort into this solo, because I love spinning so much.

Up until I had finalised editing, I was afraid this solo would not be able to match up to the impression of my previous one in May 2018 - my brain knew that the material and level were far higher, but my heart had trouble accepting this. It turns out I was worried for nothing, because somehow, I surprised even myself when I watched the final product, despite having seen all the videos dozens of times.

As always, I hope I was able to inspire you and leave an impression on you. I aim to enter WT21 next year, and I will try to release some further videos prior to that (likely 120 fps session with solo ideas etc). See you again soon!

2019 reflection

So, another year has gone by. I'll talk about some stuff that is not just about how technical the combo is for once.

I will emphasise that I do not have talent for learning pen spinning. In 2008, I used about 3 hours a day for over 6 months to get from 3 busts to 8 busts. I used 3 hours a day for an entire year to get from palmspin fl ta x 3 (in late 2009) to x 11 (in late 2010) and to x 33 (in late 2011). There were a lot of spinners with fast progress in their first year of spinning, like luxray (6 months), mist (6 months), tigeroat (6 months), A13x (8 months), mksft (1 year), s777 (1 year), vitaly (1 year 1 month) and many more. As a beginner, I was very jealous of these spinners. Mist 6 month solo (linked previously) nearly drove me to quit, if not for a friend (who was not a spinner) saying 'I think you're amazing too'. I was very immature as a person and also had absolutely no idea of PS back then, so I thought a lot of stupid things. 

When I first started pen spinning in late 2007, my first dream was to enter world tournament. After spinnerpeem rose to prominence in 2008-2010, my second dream was to match his lead over the rest of the world in power tricks. I was able to enter WT in 2011 and got an idea of how distant truly skilled spinners were (supawit, s777, sponge, snow etc). In WC12, I faced fel2fram in R6 and was even more surprised by the distance of a true genius from everyone else. I continued joining competitions after that (WT13, WC14, WT15) and improving gradually, however my understanding of PS did not change much in that period. Some time in the middle of 2016, I had around 30 power trick world records, which meant the realisation of my second dream. A few months later, when I was filming for 'this is power V5' in October 2016 and struggling with tricks far more difficult than ones I'd tried previously*, I came to appreciate that true enjoyment came from pushing the boundaries of this artform and using this to inspire other spinners.

*October 2016 was probably first time I spent dedicated effort into using 30-60 minutes to film short sequences of hard tricks lasting 4-8 seconds. WT17 taught me the importance of early preparation, and losing WT17 taught me the importance of distributing material. Filming for 10 year solo encouraged me to expand my skillset and allowed me to make a project I had truly put my heart into. Around May 2018 after watching dary vine compilation, I realised the significance of focusing on density and the implications this had for technical spinning. From July to August of 2018, I participated in SCT (tournament organised by PSH), PSO 2 hands while preparing for my final exams of medical school. I was able to hone my preparation and time management skills well. 

From October 2016 onwards, my interest in victory or loss in competitions has decreased steadily. When I saw the results for WT19 R5 and R6, I did not feel anything at all. Ironically, I had far exceeded any dreams I had for this hobby, but by the time I had gained the ability to do so, I came to value different things. All of my most treasured memories of spinning are from exploring different tricks or approaches to spinning, and from meeting my friends in other countries. Nonetheless, I will probably still join WT21 because 'it is more fun for me to join than not to join'.

I feel that the aim of competitions, collaborations and other events in PS are to encourage development and stimulate discussion in the community. A lot of people think that WT is meant to 'find the best spinner' or something like that, which I disagree with. There are far too many variables (what aspects people prioritise, how judges interpret the criteria, the type of spinning that is more common that year, luck in matchups and so on) for WT result to mean much. This does not mean that the efforts of competitors in WT are meaningless or that WT results are entirely meaningless. However, one should consider these various factors before they decide how significant the results are.

Incidentally, I noticed I am first full time worker to win a world tournament. I've been working as a junior doctor in the hospital with the worst rating for wellbeing and workload in my state, and somehow managed to keep sleep deprivation at a moderate amount only while maintaining decent spinning practice. As far as I know, previous winners were high school or university students.

A lot of people see pen spinning as 'just a hobby'. To me, it is just a matter of resource distribution - if you make good use of your time, you can put sufficient time into full time work/full time study, one 'deliberate' hobby where you use active practice, one 'passive' hobby that does not require dedicated practice, and have enough free time for other life commitments. You use these different things to take breaks from each other (for example, I would take break from pen spinning by reading novels).

To make good use of time, setting up daily routine is essential - e.g. waking up at same time, shower in the morning to get hands warmed up for spinning, studying while on public transport, spinning before sleeping, and sleeping at similar time every day etc. Reducing the amount of time done doing things that do not contribute is vital (like randomly refreshing social media every few minutes).

Admittedly, the time and effort I put into pen spinning is higher than what most people would put into a hobby (I usually woke up at 4:20-4:30am to practice before going to work), and managed to maintain 6 to 6 1/2 hours sleep on most working days. In the week before WT19 final round deadline, I had 2 overtime shifts (working over 13 hours, from 8:00am to after 9:00pm) - to ensure I had decent training time, I woke up at 3:30 am to spin 2 sessions (total 2 to 2 1/2 hours). I have no regrets. In fact, I wake up around 4:20-4:30am to practice even when there is no WT. Average daily practice time on working days would be around 3 hours. 

To any spinners aiming to enter prolonged tournaments, early preparation is the strongest strategy (it becomes more important if you have more life commitments/other things to do). By rough estimate, a combo that took me 3 weeks to reach early this year can be beaten by one that takes 3-4 days of practice late this year. As such, you can exceed the level of a stronger spinner by preparing earlier, and also reduce recycling material.

WT19 taught me that there are always more things to explore in PS, no matter how much I improve my skill and knowledge. I get enjoyment from improving and exploring, so I practice to increase my enjoyment. 

Once again, thanks everyone for their support. I hope my videos were able to surprise you.

I will be a bit less regular in uploading videos for the first few months of 2020, to prepare for solo video. See you again soon!

WT19 R6 combo

Well, it's finally the end of this tournament! There was a lot more material I wanted to use for this round, but it was not developed enough in practical skill or mental foundation, so I ended up sending a backup combo (sorry, haha). The theory behind the 1p2h concepts used is not that remarkable, but the difficulty has been increased a lot.

Nothing is wasted, anything that was not developed enough will be trained further for solo and future videos.

In terms of notation, ' denotes non-dominant (left) hand's finger, i.e. 4' is left hand's pinky, 3' is left hand's ring etc. Apologies for no 120 fps videos, the phone I use to record them has screwed up despite factory reset.

0:01 - 0:03: ?charge 44' - ?inverse twirl 44' - inverse twirl aerial 33'

I've used a similar idea to transition from both hands PU --> both hands PD in previous 1p2h combos. In this combo, it is done with both pinky fingers. In order to get this sequence usable, the order of skill mastery should be:
1. twirl fall (takes 3-6 months of dedicated practice at a minimum) and easier form of the PU --> PD transition using thumb (3-4 weeks to do without breaking pacing)
2. inverse twirl rise (2-3 months of practice) and harder form of the PU --> PD transition
3. combining above skills to usable level (1-2 weeks practice)

0:03 - 0:04: twirl 11' - twirl 42' - pass T2'3' - TT'1' - (palms facing each other) twirl TT' - 22' - 2h wiper release 22'

Fairly easy sequence with twirls and passes. A fast way to transition from having pen held near centre to being held at end (i.e. from regular material to 1p2h wipers).

0:05 - 0:06: 2h wiper release 22' to 11' - RH mirrored powerpass rev + LH inverse powerpass

2h wiper to ?counter/direction change 11' to transition from perpendicular (?) plane of rotation to anticlockwise plane of rotation. Also not particularly difficult, but shows that 1p2h can allow a large range of effects beyond those in 1p1h.

0:07 - 0:10: left hand palm down fingercross square pass - right hand interrupted inverse mirrored powerpass rev

Hardest ending in any of my WT19 combos (approximately as hard as second half of my R5 combo). Of note is the entry into the ending powerpass: it starts as a mirrored pinky spread reverse (i.e. by hitting back of pinky). Usually this powerpass is entered after a full fingerless pinkyaround, which is far, far easier.

Palm down fingercross square pass learning path:
1. pass reverse 23-14-23-14
2. fingercross 23 around (several days)
3. fingercross square pass by combining 1. and 2.
4. palm down fingercross square pass decently (3+ months)

Interrupted inverse mirrored powerpass reverse learning path:
1. inverse mirrored powerpass reverse (in basic form with fl pinkyaround entry, several weeks/months, depends a lot on how strong your technical skill foundation is).
2. interrupted entry - ?years? I started doing this trick around February, and was practising it quite regularly throughout this year - if your technical skill is comparable to mine at start of this year, then it can be expected that you will take 9-10 months to be able to use this idea consistently enough I guess.

I learnt a lot from this WT, see you next year!