Consideration of themes in PS

 Classical music on piano, rock music on piano, classical music on violin.

Figure skating, speed skating, synchronized swimming.

Apple pie, meat pie, spaghetti Bolognese.

From each of these sets, which two things are easier to compare? (Yes, this is will be an essay about pen spinning...lol)

So it's already the 4th month of 2026! With the revival of WT in 2025, there is hope that PSO will be organised this year. A key aspect of PSO is the existence of themes. There are many discussions about whether certain trick variants should be themes; but not about the logical basis of themes as an entity.

What determines comparability?

How does one compare combos with incredibly different mechanics, visual effects, and apparent intent? Is it valid to compete in artforms where there is no clear goal (as opposed to games or sports with specific win conditions)? How can comparisons for sake of competing be improved?

As a WT25 judge, I am glad that klb and criswea did not battle - it would be very hard to compare the strongest power with the strongest 2p1h. The mechanics are very different, the effects are very different; so the skills to perform and implement material are very different. However, WT is a 'one size fits all' (or 'everyone is made to fit to one size') system - 1 winner progresses from each 1v1, which is judged by 1 set of criteria. There is room to say 'I value implementation of dramatic highlights more' (which favours klb), and 'I value the intellectual process of figuring out what mechanics are possible' (which favours criswea); but only 1 is allowed to pass. As such, incredibly different representations of different aspects of our artform are forced into comparison.

The format of PSO allows comparisons of this nature to be explored: themes can be used to award different areas of merit for different ways of spinning. The more concrete (and more superficial) benefit of PSO is that it can encourage exploration of unusual aspects of PS that are 'not practical' for WT; but in a more abstract sense, the comparability angle can hint at very fundamental elements of PS as an artform.

Some methods of considering themes that don't seem sensible:

Comparability is easier if we focus on the traditional criteria in isolation (maximise difficulty; maximise creativity; or maximise execution). However, I don't think this reflects the many interpretations and ideals in our artform. For example, a difficulty theme would still struggle to compare mumm3y and klb; and an execution theme would still struggle to compare 82Oth and nine. It is straightforward to explain how these spinners are different, but it is tough to make a competition framework that is able to reward the countless representations of 'peak in something'.

Are traditional trick-based themes practical when we consider how PS has evolved? Probably not. As PS has evolved, trick variants have become more integrated. For example (before 2012-2014 or so), 'power' and 'linkages' used to be separate; and 1p2h used to be very undeveloped - so 1p2h combos based on counters or wipers did not exist. However, for the past 7+ years, it has become common for power to use counters, or 1p2h to use wipers etc. The expansion of skillsets also shows how arbitrary trick-based separations are. For example, taps & counters have been put together because counters often have tap-like mechanics; but many triangle and dual pass sequences are also tap-like. And yet, counters (frequent direction changes) and pass sequences (usually in one direction for some time) are very different. In a more abstract sense, impressions have also diversified - a major premise of 'power tricks' (historically) was in the visual effect of power tricks being dynamic and powerful - but combos can be made with few strict power sequences that give very power-like impressions (e.g. the seasick-counter combo in my 12 year solo, my WT19 R5).

Does grouping themes by named trick families make combos more comparable? In some cases it may (fukrou and beige both use wipers while focusing on clean performance); but this fails when the apparent intent is different (beige and diobrando, who uses thumbcross wipers with technical focus). As such, the approach taken in JC2025 to separate by focus area (experimental, power, classical in a more abstract sense) may be more logical than separating by trick family or 'path' (e.g. wiper, counters, 2h) if we are aiming to make comparisons.

Focus areas as potential themes:

What themes might exist if we are choosing by focus area? What deeper considerations or elements of PS may be revealed? In art, there are inherent qualities of order (chaos), coherence (incoherence), fluidity (unevenness), stillness (dynamism). In PS, there is a continuum of focusing on effortless impression (while having less drastic changes to create a relaxed feeling) versus semi-controlled chaos (with unpredictable and exciting moments). I feel the former can be encompassed by a classical theme (e.g. nine, aimo, dary, rai, hash). Of course, even within these examples, there is huge variation in how emphasis and pacing is adjusted. Nonetheless, collectively they are very distinct from the large body of 'technical'-oriented spinning (which focuses less on effortlessness; and in some cases even desires dramatic and chaotic impressions).

Typically, practitioners who focus on more technical aspects (difficulty, mechanical density, novelty and conceptual significance) are less inclined towards highly polished renditions associated with the 'classical' theme. While there are many reasons for this, this supports the existence of 'classical' as a theme. Classical aligns well with historical ideals of PS, and fits the idea that mastery is associated with effortlessness. Does this sound very similar to 'aestheticism'? Probably, but I find the definition of aesthetics (in English language, outside PS context) to be associated with visuals. In PS, there are many visual considerations in 'technical' spinning - most notably, highly visual organic alien effects are performed by saltient, but saltient's spinning has completely different ideals to the 'classical' approach.

In contrast to the fluidity, effortlessness and subtlety of classical, 'power' is directly based in the use of large, flashy movements. To effectively use dynamic movements, specific considerations of structure are required (e.g. having most dramatic movements or direction changes at certain points give more impactful impression); as well as mastering the highly random nature of learning power-based mechanics and finding a setup that can capture large movements. As such, I feel 'power' aligns with the inherent considerations of highlight use (visually) and overcoming consistency barriers (mechanically), while having a very strong historical foundation based on work by spinnerpeem, menowa, and myself.

Of course, there is far more in non-classical(?) technical(?) spinning than just 'power' and use of large highlights. Previous PSO has 'complexity' as a theme, but many people joined it due to its overly vague nature, so it became like a small scale WT. Nonetheless, WT25 discussions revealed a key philosophical issue: how do we weigh incredibly sophisticated technical mechanic-based combos (sophisticated in terms of modifiers, trick variants, and supposed process of creating the breakdown) compared to ones that focus more on visual effects and impactful rendition of selected material? How would we compare mumm3y WT25 R6 or saltient WT21 R4 and R5; with klb WT25 R3 and criswea WT25 R5? These combos are strong in different regards, so they deserve to be rewarded for their different strengths (rather than be constrained by one size fits all criteria of WT). Therefore, a theme focusing on mechanical intricacy, which rewards sophisticated modifiers, trick variants and mechanics is worthwhile.

So what happens to all the trick-based themes, if we accept that separating combos by trick family may not be logical or practical? In typical competitions, combos heavily based on 1 trick (e.g. imbocd's pass-based combos) may be penalised for having less variety. This fits the idea that 'all parts of the combo add to the created effect', however, this definition inherently penalises those who aim at consistency of performing specific skills and end up with higher uniformity. As far as I'm aware, PS is quite unusual among juggling artforms in creating sophisticated breakdown, notation, and modifier systems which can give rise to dozens of variants of a base trick. As such, a trick specialist theme (in which a wiper-based combo may face a counter-based combo and a pass-based combo) where adherence to implementing specific trick variants is prioritised may have merit. While this may end up with different trick-based combos being less comparable, the traditional trick-based themes may not improve comparability either (beige - fukrou - diobrando comparison earlier in this article). Practically, a trick specialist theme also addresses the problems with having heaps of trick-based themes.

My previous points suggest that xpxh (2 or more mods, 2h) should not be a theme, since you can already enter make a trick specialist multi-pen combo, a power-based multi-pen combo, a counter-based 1p2h combo (e.g. my UPSB 4th), or a classical 2p2h combo (e.g. Laku Japen 21st). Do we want 2p+/2h combos that are not overtly focused on any trick variants to be confined to general competitions like WT? WT25 brought arguments about comparability of 2p+ with 1p combos, so a 2p+/2h theme may 'divert' some of the 'hard to compare' 2p+/2h combos away from the 1p combos. I feel this '2p+ has unfair advantage, so we should put 1p combos into protected zone so they don't get beaten up' is silly - avenues that allow more interesting approaches are attractive because it's a competition, and because practitioners are often curious about unexplored things, or just because they think it's cool. Regardless, having a xpxh theme would encourage further expansion and polishing of this interesting area, which exploded in 2025 after RPD's tutorials and PenU1. Does this seem like favouritism? Perhaps, especially when there isn't a fingercross/threads theme - just that fingercross and threads are perfectly aligned with the mechanical intricacy theme already.

If we presume xpxh is a theme, I feel it should be specified to more 'conventional' 2p+/2h done with regular mods (rather than 3-sided, magic-like elements etc); with a focus on technical skill and 'typical' priorities (rather than weighing too heavily on abstract conceptual significance or novelty for sake of novelty). While spinners who tend to use unusual elements tend to be xpxh spinners, it is hard to compare use of these unusual elements with more typical xpxh skills. Historically, body & environment and spinless have appeared as themes in previous WC. It would be interesting to see what modern skill levels and theories bring to spinning of this direction. Indeed, if we are to challenge beliefs about what may constitute PS, if we are to encourage adaptation of ideas from other forms of juggling and arts, a freeform theme should be put in. I believe that many more conceptually significant 'proofs' are waiting for us to make them - for example, my 18 year solo challenged traditional expectations that 1 combo must use mods of the same appearance (or the same number); and that motion of multiple mods in relation to each other can collectively create viable visual effects (even if the motion of each mod is trivial). In a more practical sense, it would be silly to make a 3-sided theme, a 'magic' theme, a standup theme (many existing standup combos are more like 'combos based on tricks that look good from front angle' and could have been done sitting on a chair), a string theme, a 'add PS to other forms of juggling' theme etc. The freeform theme serves as a collective space to encourage exploration of these unusual approaches to PS, which have far larger implications beyond merely adding a random object to the combo.

Some existing freeform combos: DBM 3p for Silva CV ; St 3p standup 'juggling' for JC ; St with nunchuck-like mod ; Baimai combo with shadows ; Baimai combo with cardistry

In light of above reasoning, can unmod be justified as a theme? Initially, I thought it could not be justified, since we don't have mod-based separations (we don't have different themes for 25cm mod, 20cm mod, symmetrical mod, asymmetrical mod etc). However, there are possibly 2 inherent justifications for unmod theme to exist. People who don't spin often make comments like 'that is a stick, not a pen', or 'can you do those tricks with a normal pen'. Besides the obvious specific skill adaptation to do tricks on regular pens, there is the more interesting challenge of understanding why certain tricks are suitable for doing on smaller object - this can challenge our ideas about what constitutes 'difficulty'. Historically, unmod spinners (e.g. aysh, first combo in Japen 1st) and minimal-mod spinners (Kam with RSVP v1, David Weis with taped pencil etc) played an important role; and PS as an activity would have started with someone spinning a regular pen before mods were made. Are these reasons of equivalent weight to the points supporting the other themes? Perhaps not, but it'd be very interesting to see what happens if high-level 'stick spinners' use regular pens (or smaller implements, like inktubes...lol). 

So what do we end up with?

Classical - fluidity and effortlessness. Less weight on trick mechanics and difficulty. Examples: Nine WC22 R2 ; Aimo ; Dary (Serket) ; Laku Japen 21st ; Tmrw

Power - large highlights with power mechanics and technical skill. Maybe slightly less weight on creativity-related aspects. Examples: klb WT25 R3 ; 82Oth Christmas Cup ; tilt WT25 R1

Mechanical intricacy - sophisticated mechanical variations. Less weight on fluidity, rendition or technique perfection (note: tricks should still have proper mod-finger interactions, even if they are not done smoothly). Examples: Mumm3y WT25 R6 ; tilt WT25 R5 ; Saltient WT21 R4

Trick specialist - extensive use of variations of a specific trick family. While creativity and variety are still important, there will be less overt penalties for uniformity. Examples: Imbocd ;  DarKT ; Froog

XPXH (2p+/2h) - Multipen and 2h with priorities like 'conventional' WT orientation. Maybe slightly less weight on execution-related aspects. Examples: Criswea WT25 R6 ; Mumm3y WT25 R4 

Freeform - Using unusual elements (e.g. ideas from magic, juggling, dance, illusions, videography) and unusual objects (e.g. 3-sided, string, cup, bag, surface of bed etc). Focus is on different interpretations of PS, what things can be changed, and how PS is approached as an artform on a conceptual level. Less weight on technical difficulty and fluidity in typical sense (note: visual rendition is significant for many freeform approaches). Ideally, combos explore some deeper considerations beyond merely adding a random object to the combo. Examples: DBM for Silva CV ; St in JC ; Baimai combo with shadows ; mod swap solo combo

Unmod - Use of unmodified (or barely modified) pens/pencils - allow any ordinary pens smaller than say, a Tombow marker; would not limit to just Dr Grip and Stalogy. Evaluation may be similar to typical WT priorities, if this theme aims to evaluate capabilities of top spinners when they are no longer allowed to use mods. Examples: aoneko ; supertip combo ; Kima WC12 R2

If you read up to the end - thanks, I hope my words triggered some thinking! Thanks RPD for discussions regarding this topic last year, some of the logic and suggestions are based on his proposals.

18 year solo commentary

 Hello again, it's been a while (nearly 3 years since last post here, and over 5 years since 12 year solo). I'll talk about the ideas and inspirations for the material in my 18 year solo, but first...some personal context.

DL link

After the dream battle of WT21 R5, I thought I was ready to explore my 'ultimate' aims - integrating all paths in PS into a coherent framework (thought about this since 2018), and borrowing concepts from other manipulations and artforms (this idea became more serious after conversations with Saltient in 2018-2021, please read his explanation of his creative process). For the next year, I tried 2p1h, 2p2h, and some 3p2h, but couldn't come up with anything convincing, and definitely lacked the mental approach to address the ultimate aims.

I am eternally appreciative of the respect given by newer spinners, who say stuff like 'i.suk doesn't give up'. Unfortunately, this isn't true, and I gave up. With the matchup of my dreams fulfilled, impossibility of winning two WT (my intro post on UPSB forum in 2008 was about aiming to enter a world competition - enter, not win), the contributions I'd already made, I resigned myself to letting the unexplored ideas remain as territory I would never reach. This mentality didn't resolve after seeing 2p1h in PSO22, since I couldn't understand it (or maybe I could've, but I didn't take the time to). Regardless, another year or so passed.

In early 2024, RPD released some 2p1h tutorials and I had discussions with him (which were very insightful but I also disagreed with a lot of things, and subconsciously I probably wanted to prove the strength of my approach)*. Coincidentally, around that time I also happened to read the novel 'Yumi and the Nightmare Painter' (Brandon Sanderson), which reminded me to enjoy artforms as experiences of inherent value. Combined, these events lead to trying 2p1h regularly - the first routine practice I'd done since mid 2022.

*2025 perspective* the limitations I'd noted then were confirmed, but my suggestions were also wrong - the thinking I used to create solo's material was entirely different LOL. Funnily, when I had 0/12 solo combos filmed, I could only do the basic tangle, the basic swift and maybe basic swift reverse; solo is finished now and I can still only do those basic variants.

From 2024 February to July, I planned most of 1 (yes, just 1) 2p1h combo, in August I started transforming it into 2p2h - origin of FS383 for PenU1. I also practiced some 1p1h isolation ideas from around July onwards, and considered making a solo or even competing in 2025 if I could create reasonable effects with 3p2h. In hindsight, I still understood very little, and even by 2025 February (a full year after I'd returned), I didn't even have 2 combos planned, and ZERO combos filmed.

Some time in 2024 I read a scientific journal article regarding convergent and divergent research: convergent - interprets significance and relationships between existing findings to improve understanding; divergent - demonstrates very different ideas or offers different explanations and new thinking. In PS, I consider Saltient and RPD expansions of the frameworks of understanding PS as being divergent; but most of my work was convergent. In the density - integration - conception - framework levels of abstraction I created to contextualise PS in 2019-2021, I never truly reached conception level thinking, even if significance of some of my combos hinted at framework. I was dissatisfied by that.

2025 March, recorded for PenU1 and planned 2p2h that was later sent to Silva's April CV (a great community project, respect for keeping this up!). 2025 March and April - 1 combo per month. If solo was to have 12 combos, it would be done by 2026 March. This is where things became very interesting, since the progress in creating, implementing, and recording exploded. In April I learnt string double star and planned the string star FS385.

In May, PenU1 released as a landmark collab for 2p, and I recorded string star combo, planned 3p2h bed/body hold FS386 inspired by tetora and pd in that collab. That 3p2h combo was planned in practice slots in 2 practice sessions (roughly 2x 30 minutes, as each practice session trains 3-5 combos), and the material seemed to create itself from nothing. In hindsight, this was the point when instinct had 'solved' some element of converting abstract visual figures and shapes into actual PS tricks. 

Recording progress

Mar - 1 combo (sent to PenU1), Apr - 1 combo (sent to April CV), May - 1 combo (string star. Planned 2p2h fingerstuck FC combo around this time but wasn't inventive enough)

Jun - 2 combos (3p2h bed/body hold, 2p2h opposite rotations. 3rd combo was recorded this month: not up to solo's calibre).

Jul - 3 combos (3p2h triangle, '3p'2h mod swap, standup. Was a crazy month since I had conference for my research in 2nd week July).

Aug - 2 combos (2p2h string, 2p2h posture change)

Sep - 2 combos (3 tools, 4p2h) and 2 clips (4p2h tricks for BGM change, ending mousepad unroll/UV fluoro)

In the past, most filming was on weekends (and usually in afternoon-evening, when hand was less 'asleep'. For this solo, there were several combos recorded on mornings and/or weekdays, possibly because mechanics are more timing/spatial-based.

Overall, the past half a year from Mar - Sep represented the realisation of a dream I'd long sought from 2019 or earlier. Several 'problems', each (?not mutually exclusive) of framework-level significance were considered in solo's combos:

1. development of 'spatial' mechanics (through use of visual structures, isolation, precise positioning of mods for certain illusions)

2. translation of mechanics across juggling and manipulative artforms to PS, and considerations from physical properties of the tools used (this has been touched on before, but not in depth)

3. changing number of mods/tool appearance without causing huge visual disruption (I used something from 2. to do this, of course there are many other ways it can be done. Has been troubling me since 2019)

4. demonstration of tricks with practical, dramatic effects that aren't covered by existing breakdowns/modifiers (the breakdown for many of the visual structures is fairly nonsense, since the whole thing works from relation of each pen's position/movements to every other pen, but each pen doesn't do much. This ties into 1., and I used a bit of 2. and 3. for this)

Standup 0:11 - 0:27 FS391 Jul 28 

I'd wanted to use the dragon visual figure (which I learnt in primary school) in PS since 2018 or earlier, when I started getting into 1p2h. Start of combo was inspired by ky*s O's JC2025 combo - confusing camera angle/viewer perspective. To take the perspective idea further, dragon part had me stepping closer to the camera. Ending with paper stars flying out was adapted from Florian Sainvet's America's Got Talent 2020 performance. I thought of having 2 plastic sheets that unrolled to release the confetti (in same way he did), but rolling/unrolling sheets from cylinder to flat prior to 'disintegrating' is hard. So I put the 'confetti' into the mod being spun. It took a few attempts to direct the trajectory of the stars properly - tried different degrees of facing/not facing camera, horizontal and vertical etc. Was annoying putting the stars back inside since fit was tight.

Mod swap 0:28 - 0:45 FS390 Jul 21 

Direct solution to changing number/appearance of mods - also inspired by Florian Sainvet's AGT20 performance. Initially I had the mods held between arm and bed, but it was annoying hiding them properly - didn't realise this until after first day of recording where I used 3 filming sessions trying to angle them better. After this mountain of unusable drafts, I put mods up sleeves which was a bit easier, but sometimes they still rolled to the side, or got stuck etc. Final draft isn't perfect, but I tried again later that Monday night and couldn't get a better take. Probably one of my favourite visual concepts in the solo - I showed research group colleagues (who have seen a bit of PS stuff before) and they were very surprised. Somehow the ending 3p swivel - release trick often had the wrong number of mods be released, and I messed up final basic catch a lot.

2p2h opposite rotations 0:46 - 0:58 FS388 Jun 30 

One of the more 'technical'-ish 2p2h solo combos. Wiper portion adapted from PenU1 wipers, but opposite directions. 2p hai tua and bak trick from 2024 clip - when I made this trick then, it took weeks to do it even once (no idea of 2p power mechanics then, but after first landing it I did it 5 times in a row the day following). Highlight is definitely ending PD twirl fall + taps in opposite direction, as an upgrade of PD twirl fall sequences in 2020-2021 12 year solo and WT21 R5 ending. I thought I was too old to do any 'super difficult tricks' again, but it was really fun (even if the exec is nowhere near mastery).

3p2h bed/body hold 0:59 - 1:20 FS386 Jun 1

Inspired by PenU1 tetora and pd. Ending inspired by a tripod lowering, then changing appearance from 1 to 3 mods. A lot of the exec is shakier than I wanted. Some of the 3p movements are inspired by staff manipulations, like KumiKurataO's performances.

PenU1 1:21 - 1:37 FS383 Mar 6

First combo of my return! The mechanics may not be that complex, but flow of visual effects from movements of both mods in relation to each other is satisfying. Ideas mainly based on transformation of 2p1h mechanics into 2p2h. Somehow the starting trick was very annoying to do (I specifically took a trick RPD mentioned was annoying for him in our 2024 convos and tried to do a 2p2h variant of it). 

string star 1:38 - 2:11 FS385 May 11

Based on double string star. After learning the star, I considered how to perform 1p2h while doing those motions (so there's not many interactions between mod and string). Tribute to bonkura, who I looked up to as a beginner in 2007; and Suisei Hoshimachi (Vtuber who went from nothing as an independent to performing on The First Take. I listened to a lot of her music when practising).

4p2h clip 2:12 - 2:16 Sep 18

Horrendous exec on right hand LOL, but I only did 1 take of this on some random morning when editing rest of solo. Thanks Criswea!! for pioneering drift (and OhYeah! for making a similar idea in 2018 or 2019, but I can't find the video) and pyramid pass ... I did a scuffed interpretation.

2p2h posture change 2:17 - 2:36 FS393 Aug 16

Based on unusual positions (index fingers of both hands crossing over, and turning to back). Probably one of the shallower 2p combos in solo, but it was fun to do. Inspired by Beck WT21, and similar idea done by Miuk Chiruru in WC22 and various others (Bonkura, Kay, Ponkotu).

3p2h triangle 2:37 - 3:00 FS389 Jul 5

Pacing of later parts of the combo are too slow, oh well. 3p2h swift transfer devised after seeing 2p1h swift tutorial and realising that opens many possibilities for 3p2h. With twirl (rather than charge/sonic) being basis of 1p2h, it's not surprising that swift (rather than tangle?) seeming to facilitate 3p2h, at least for the first steps I've taken - this may change later.

3 tools (3-sided, string, regular mod) 3:01 - 3:20 FS394 Sep 6

Used string more as a rubber band (inspired by Enigma from SPSB), and the 3-sided push on regular mod by Laku in JC2025 . String switches between thumb/pinky of left and right hands several times.

April CV 3:21 - 3:42 FS384 Apr 12

Isolation and zoom/distance from camera aren't explored much in PS, despite being very important in other juggling artforms. Probably one of the more basic combos in the solo, but it encompassed these ideas decently so I included it. Ending index 'arounds' in opposite directions from 2024 Dec, inspired by devil stick jugglers.

2p2h string 3:43 - 4:09 FS392 Aug 10

Focused on interactions between mods and string, particularly the controlled wrapping and unwrapping/release of the mods. Tribute to Bonkura again. At first I wanted to get ideas from yoyo, but a yoyo's rotation is suited for wrapping string, whereas a mod doesn't rotate in that axis well, so the mechanics were not easily translated. So I watched some flow sticks/levitation wand videos, and adapted ideas where string 'holds onto' the mod to do tricks that aren't possible otherwise (the mod-mod swing in middle, and PD 'palmspin' before ending). With fishing line or some invisible string, interesting effects can be created! A lot of trial and error was needed to have mods wrap and unwrap themselves systematically. Jay2up is working on some PS-string ideas as well. Probably the most unfamiliar mechanics/thinking of any of solo's combos, with translation of mechanics across artforms while considering tool properties.

4p2h 4:10 - 4:38 FS395 Sep 14

Based on optical illusion rings. Start based on 4p idea by OhYeah! and yoyo DNA trick. Transitions between 4p as 4p, 4p as 2p (2 pairs of mods stuck together), and asymmetry (1 mod in left hand, 3 mods in right hand). Ending based on 3p idea by DBM. The motion of each mod in this combo is often trivial, but together they make interesting effects - this perspective has huge potential for 3-4p frameworks.

from 2007 to 2025 4:39 - 4:41

Base image source, which was inspired by Daybreak Frontline song (that I listened to when editing solo). PS is relaxing, since I can forget the obligations and stresses of life.

gatherings 4:42 - 5:07 2017 - 2018

NPF 2017, tags with Ocha and Supawit in 2018, WPSAL 2018 tack-on vs DArKT. Meeting other spinners is so fun!

mousepad unroll/UV 5:11 - 5:17 Sep 18

Inspired by Bonkura spinning that black ?paper after unrolling it. Changing 'form' of the object being spun is very interesting, there is so much more that can be done! I want to become a 'visual artist who happens to use some ideas based in pen spinning', and not just a 'traditional pen spinner'. Adjusted roll direction, border of rolled mousepad in relation to fingers, and height of hand to table to make mousepad land in better orientation for words (written in fluoro highlighter) to show up better. Use of selective fluorescence and mod-background illusions can be very interesting too…

Last BGM 4:39 onwards is ‘Peaceful Romancer ~ It's Better to Burn out than to Fade Away (Demetori), remix from 東方 Mystic Square, extra ending theme. This song was released in January 2023, after Demetori was inactive for several years. The title hit me hard, as I was deliberating over my resignation from PS at the time.

Other

Opening image basis - Wish a Shooting Star MV (Shinra-Bansho). PS got me into Touhou series in 2012, and Marisa Kirisame (an ordinary human magician in a world of beings with supernatural powers like youkai and gods, who competes with her friend Reimu Hakurei, a shrine maiden with inborn talent to 'float' through problems) became my favourite character. Translation of song's lyrics has part 'Magic, ideals...even without any of them, just entrust in my heart if that was all I can believe in' - before I was any good at PS, before I knew how to appreciate it, before I had the respect from the community, it was tenacity that drove me to pick up the pen after every drop as a beginner. Beginners who persist hours to learn basic tricks have greater patience than many experienced spinners. However, if you believe you are guaranteed to succeed in the future, every attempt and drop you make is just 1 drop closer to your inevitable success.

I made a joke about combos here messing with AI-generated PS - mods literally change appearance and number, and many non-PS ideas are incorporated. Human experience is encoded by interactions between neurons, which can be argued to be within possibility of being replicated or exceeded by 'artificial' systems. What is creativity? How is insight derived? If a non-human entity comes up with the same or a more sophisticated result, is it superior to humans in these regards? While artificial systems will probably be better at more and more things than human experts are, I want to believe there will always be something humans can create with distinct original value. Perhaps this is an optimistic and unrealistic view, but it is definitely the more motivating one.

I hope my work left an impression on you. Let's keep exploring!

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.