@@matttmaparkour schwanthaler höhe, da beim spielplatz
@juanpk898426 күн бұрын
JANNIS 2024???
@movemendijs9626 күн бұрын
Voll die Dramaturgie was los?
@highspeedhiasl2 ай бұрын
So i want to learn a side pre, where i look forward again after my trick. Unfortunatly, i tend to look backward on my flip exit at the moment. Going from your video, my axis is (when i start the flip looking to the left) pointing upward on the right side at the moment, but i have to get an axis ponting downward on the right side to come out of the flip facing forward. Is that correct?
@jeffschultz14132 ай бұрын
Would love to see Jim do flat 0 and cork zero side by side. As I think cork 0 in parkour is actually flat zero a lot of times. Need to look at some videos and determine axis of observation now though. Also from a training perspective flat 0 is way easier to learn than an actual cork 0. Love the perspective though and starting to get the discussion around axis and flips going.
@yashbutsmart2 ай бұрын
you've done a great job explaining it but my 2d brain lost you halfway through
@gabrielnuer98992 ай бұрын
axis between backflip and sideflip is called rod!
@balthazarhoedeman22242 ай бұрын
Thank you!
@radMisc2 ай бұрын
Bring out the quaternions!!! lol
@miowins23352 ай бұрын
I kinda have to call this a kong shant now 5:16
@davideerizzi2 ай бұрын
The content I signed up for
@chenjus2 ай бұрын
I think the closest thing to an off-axis front would be Takuraba.
@cgrdt2 ай бұрын
So interesting thank you !! at 9:25 it looks like a flat spin no ? ski tricks
@cgrdt2 ай бұрын
never mind aha, just saw that the flatspin was explained right after in a different axis
@samwaon2 ай бұрын
Thank you, very interesting video 😃 If I can give you an advice for the next videos (I work in the sound industry), you can put furnitures and a carpet to have a much better sound quality on your voice, or use a software like izotope RX to remove the room reverb. Don't get me wrong we hear you clearly, but it will make a noticeable difference. Thanks for your work !
@Stoorm13372 ай бұрын
12:16 wouldn't that be a cheat gainer?
@bartrenhl012 ай бұрын
Love this!
@Parkourparkourparkour2 ай бұрын
this guys gaslighting ppl
@movement_research2 ай бұрын
I mean no offense, but you are pretty incorrect with the trick names. I also don’t understand why you don’t use the flip/axis names that have been around longer than parkour has been flipping. For instance frisbee is on flat axis. Flat can be barrel roll(side flip over back), frisbee, or orbital (probably only possible on skis). Flat is when your back/hips/center of gravity are parallel with the ground. One reason you seem to be having trouble with “off axis” is because you’re not using established axes. You misrepresent cork 0, 3, and 7 by showing it on flat axis. As well calling it off axis is misrepresentation imo. They are all on an axis.
@JannisSchauer2 ай бұрын
I am sorry that i didn't use the trick names that you are used to. The main point of the video was to show how flips look when the axis of rotation is placed in between the standard axis (front, back, side and twist). These in between axis is what i call off-axis in the video. I further try to bridge the gap to existing flips (mostly parkour specific names because that is my background). I wonder how i misrepresent cork 0, 3 and 7 because from the videos I've watched of skiers doing these flips it seems pretty uniform what skiers understand by a cork 0, 3 and 7. Imo there is no such thing as "showing it on the flat axis" because there is no such thing as showing it on any axis. the definition of these tricks is just fixed.
@movement_research2 ай бұрын
@ you need to look at the axes before you look at tricks. Axes would be front/back, side, vert twist, bio, cork(different than tricking corkscrew), flat, and rodeo. Flat can be further distinguished with orbital, barrel, or frisbee. These axes have been around since before we were even flipping in parkour.
@phineasg77092 ай бұрын
Great video! The sideflip/backflip axis happens a lot in the second flip of full-in when the full is undertwisted.
@dub_GANG_KT342 ай бұрын
Legend 💯💯🔥
@Rahmael2 ай бұрын
Das war sehr nice! In Komni mit dem Bohrer ist Jim der Off-Axis Drillmaster 🙂
@moriceice45672 ай бұрын
Nice ❤❤❤❤
@Globbe42 ай бұрын
id say the backflip sideflip axis is what freeskiers would call flatspin
@LUXi1252 ай бұрын
Great video, Jannis! I also looked into this a few years back. I would like to stress again that a freely rotating rigid body can't perform these rotations. As you said, changes in posture (changes in moment of inertia) are necessary. Therefore, using Jim to show where the feet are might be a little confusing😅
@JannisSchauer2 ай бұрын
Yes I think you are correct, showing where the feet are is indeed not very precise, I should have stuck with the axis of observation. I guess you are referring to the fact that these in-between axis are not stable and would result in a stable rotation? I think that's also correct and its the reason why there is no such thing as a shant layout. The body position needs to be adapted so that the rotation is stable ( which sould however always work if you are tucked). But what I dont fully understand is shouldnt the backflip layout be instable, too? And also, these in-between axis are stable when additional twists are added (like with the cork 7 example or most off-axis standing doublefulls), would you agree?
@LUXi12525 күн бұрын
@@JannisSchauer Sorry for the late reply. Great observation. Rigid body rotation exhibits a "bifurcation" at a certain tilt. A slightly tilted backflip layout is actually a "wobbling flip" meaning the body twists back and forth a little bit. Above a certain tilt angle that depends on the principal inertias, the body twists only forward, an actual "twisting flip" takes place. To still do pure flips at high tilt, we have to work actively against it using internal degrees of freedom, for example the tucking or flipping faster with the right leg in the shant, but also arm movements in gainer switches. Do you mean periodic stability? I think periodic stability is the only definition of stability that would apply for such systems... Just landing one move on your feet is always possible with enough height, but what is needed to repeatedly perform it? How to end a move in the exact same position and velocity that it started with? This is a great topic and I'm not done understanding it!
@AaronMartinProfessional2 ай бұрын
This is wild! So useful!
@chantsmantrasandrelaxation50792 ай бұрын
I suspect this video will be a reference video for years to come.
@markuswalberer.1232 ай бұрын
genial
@Masan-yi4qz2 ай бұрын
I've been waiting for a video like this!
@strafi38922 ай бұрын
Thanks for that knowledge.
@Milas_022 ай бұрын
Such a cool idea 💡
@weakw1ll2 ай бұрын
I was here
@spencerhovel81612 ай бұрын
On the topic of zeros all the front flipping variations have 0s too. Then on another branch of this off axis stuff by changing your orientation in relation to your direction of movement you get even more flavors (like how you can backflip, but also caster backflip sidewards in both directions, and gainer). Plus anywhere you can put a backflip or front flip (i.e. castaway, hang gainer, gaet, etc.) you can replace it with a variation that is off axis. A whole spectrum of tricks to explore!
@spencerhovel81612 ай бұрын
Such a sick breakdown! Thank you!
@komplexcollectiveBln2 ай бұрын
nahezu überfällig so ein Kurs
@jansim0n2 ай бұрын
schönes video. spannend wie du darüber denkst.
@a2bMovements2 ай бұрын
10:16 is a "sideflip" pre right?
@a2bMovements2 ай бұрын
richtig nice, nächstes mal mit mic!
@JannisSchauer2 ай бұрын
ja ich brauch n mic am körper bzw mund. Auf der cam war eins...
@JannisSchauer2 ай бұрын
ja ises, hab ich einfach straight nicht dran gedacht :D
@lucasboisneau42562 ай бұрын
Very interesting, I want to dive deeper now. I've done quite a lot of physics but I don't have a good intuition for complex rotations, especially when the rotating object is not solid and can move, weird stuff becomes possible, like full/unfull. One thing that I find strange also is that you "add" different axis components for example back + twist components, and you get an axis that's the sum of both vectors, the same way you can add velocity components to get the overall velocity. But then what is a backfull ? It looks like a back flip + twist as well but the axis are separated in a way, and that feels strange to me. Do you have any insight on that ?
@egondugasАй бұрын
Big questions.
@LUXi12525 күн бұрын
Angular momentum conservation still holds for a flying body with internal degrees of freedom (joints) in vacuum. This constrains the possible ways to move, the less the more joints and freedom to move them the body has. If you want I can explain it to you in more detail. You always need two frames of reference to define rotations. The orientation of frame 2 (the frame fixed to the rigid body) relative to frame 1 (outside observer frame) can be specified by three orientation parameters (e.g. Euler angles, Tait-Bryan angles, Rodriguez parameters, quaternions) and used to form a 3x3 rotation matrix. The change in orientation can be specified as a 3D vector called angular velocity. It is the angular velocities of a flip and twist that you add together in the usual way, not the axes of the rotating frames. The angular velocity vector specifies with which angular velocity the (x/y/z)-axis of frame 2 rotates around the (x/y/z)-axis of frame 1. A freely rotating rigid body can only rotate around one or all three axis. That means a pure backfull (of a rigid body) is actually impossible. The third angular velocity component is just very small in reality. You can see it when observing aerial-twisted quadfulls on trampoline, the tilt of the body away from the vertical increases with the twist angular velocity.
@lucasboisneau425624 күн бұрын
@@LUXi125 interesting thanks ! So there's just one angular velocity vector but it keeps moving correct ?
@lucasboisneau425624 күн бұрын
But doesn't that mean the angular momentum vector is also rotating ?
@LUXi12524 күн бұрын
@@lucasboisneau4256 A rigid body has only one angular velocity vector, since there is no relative motion between the masspoints. A multibody system, which can approximate a human, has as many angular velocity vectors as it has rigid bodies. The angular velocity vector of a rigid body does in general change direction, while the angular momentum vector keeps its orientation and magnitude. Angular momentum is conserved since the only force acting on the body (gravity) doesn't exert a torque around the center of mass. Hope this clarifies it, lmk if not!
@matventures.official2 ай бұрын
Oh damn, I love subjects like this! I’ve spent decades trying to understand and catalog tricks, and I’ve made some interesting findings: 1. One of them (and you touch upon this at 1:44) is that the parkour side flip is not a true side flip because you don’t go over your head, which I figure would be a primary condition for a move to be considered a flip. The parkour “side flip” is more like a tucked horizontal twist. For a good example of an overhead side flip, you’d need to look at the rare clips of gymnasts doing side flips. Or… the side flip that happens in cartohara. I mean the part of the move after take-off from your hands. It’s a pure 1.5 overhead side flip. And since I’m a bit cheeky, I’ll call overhead sideflip a real side flip. 😁 2. All tricks can be done through three cardinal directions: front, back, and side*. In the video, you give an example of an off-axis move (shant), demonstrating back and front variations of it, but there is a high likelihood the side version could be done as well. I have never found an exception to the three cardinal direction rule. It’s also a really fun exercise that allows you to create a lot of new tricks: trying to figure out the missing directions of a given trick. For example, the cork is a backflipping trick, so let’s call it a “back cork” for the sake of this example. Now, try to imagine how a front cork or side cork would look. 3. *Side flipping should actually be broken down into left and right. So we should train left flips and right flips. Imagine you do a combo backflip punched straight into a front flip. To do the side equivalent of that, you would need a left flip and a right flip. That’s one of many examples I could give. 4. When analyzing flips and tricks, one should observe how the torso moves, as that’s basically what doing tricks is about-using your limbs to move your torso through a particular plane/axis of your choice. Following this rule, at 8:44, you and Jim are doing two different tricks. 5. 9:31 When I discovered them, I called them blideflip and frideflip, or if you applied the rule from point 3, it would be frightflip, fleftflip, beftflip, and bightflip. 6. Each trick can be done forward, backward, leftward, and rightward, resulting in four possibilities. Each of these can have twists added: quarter twist, half twist, 3/4, full, all the way up to let's say four twists (which, if you count by quarters, is 16 options). 4x16 = 64 possibilities already. Now, each of these can be done on the floor, wall, ceiling, or a bar. 64x4 = 256 tricks. You can then do a 1/4 flip, 1/2 flip, 3/4 flip, full flip, up to a lets say triple flip, resulting in 12 options. 256x12 = 3,072 tricks. Now, each of these can have different take-offs, which would take a lengthy paragraph to explain all permutations, but to simplify, I’ll assume 10 take-offs. That’s 30,720 tricks. I think I could ramp it up to a million. Apologies if I went bit of topic, but this the first time I've come across anyone analysing flips like that and I got bit excited! I look forward to your next video! PS: i use spiderman action figure;d
@lucasboisneau42562 ай бұрын
1) I think the side flip is as true as it can get (tucked). The reason we go over our head on front and back flips is that we tuck in the same plane of movement than the flip (there is no movement to the left or right) whereas the tuck on a side flip is not on the same plane as the flip. And if you tuck your legs, by reaction your torso will also bend towards the middle and that's why it's impossible (in my opinion) to do a true tucked side flip as you describe them. I will check gymnastics version to see what it looks like though
@lucasboisneau42562 ай бұрын
2) you probably meant front, right and side ? In any case I think he covered most of the variations of not all
@lucasboisneau42562 ай бұрын
3) the reason side flips are not separated is because you can get right or left version by symmetry, like twist, as opposed to front and back. However if there's a side component and a twist component, it's important to count two variations: one where the twist is on the same side as the side flip component, and one where they are opposite, which he covered at the end !
really cool video!! I really enjoyed guessing what flip each demonstration of Jim would be
@TimonNagel-w9t2 ай бұрын
Explanation for the most asked questions from every freeskier before gta6
@DomTomato2 ай бұрын
Yaaaay! Jannis’ Brain
2 ай бұрын
Thank you for this fantastic video! I really enjoyed your approach and effort to categorize these different types of flips. I've always been puzzled by these unusual angled flips, but now I have a bit more clarity.
@korneliusgrund8732 ай бұрын
Die Promotionsurkunde in Kombi mit dem Storror Award :D
@JannisSchauer2 ай бұрын
bisschen Deko muss sein sonst ist der Frame so leer :D
@tropical952 ай бұрын
9:44 reminds me of a grandmaster scoot from tricking without hands touching down. The front variant seems like a very stepped out side heavy webster
@matttmaparkour2 ай бұрын
Das Bohrersetup… genial. Manches muss ich erst verdauen. Zb dass du jetzt genau weißt welche flips prinzipiell noch gemacht werden können Der front hate ist auch real 😂
@jonas.nussbaum2 ай бұрын
Check den front hate nich ganz, der kommt teilweise sehr nice. Siehe Dratva...
@JannisSchauer2 ай бұрын
Haha die fronts kommen schon sehr kurz, aber es ist lang genug :D
@egondugas2 ай бұрын
That thumbnail is so damn good
@JannisSchauer2 ай бұрын
Alle credits natürlich an @matttma!
@RevoCult2 ай бұрын
sehr geil! Parkour braucht wieder mehr solche Formate <3
@filamproductions32 ай бұрын
I really like your way you conceptualized the cork 0, I've had something like that in mind for a long time. However, as for the idea of mathematically describing each axis in the same terms, you run into problems if you don't consider different tucks or flipping positions to be completely separate things, given that you're changing your centre of gravity, and therefore, changing the point relative to which you're rotating. What this means in the real world is that it isn't really posible to do the off-axis backflip (i think you called it shant?) in the straightened body position you're using for reference, you always need to go into this awkward position that fundamentally changes the nature of the motion. Same would go for the flatspin, where your real world example of yourself attempting one didn't really look to me like the same motion you were showing with the drill. I would love to be wrong, but I can't really picture anything that isn't a sideflip, backflip, or frontflip (or their twisting variations) being performed in a straightened body position, I would love to see a deeper analysis on this. Those are just my thoughts, maybe stupid ones, cool video either way.
@JannisSchauer2 ай бұрын
I agree that my tuck or pike in some of the examples changes the look of the flip almost entirely. I tried to neglect the influence of the shape by basically reducing myself to my axis of observation which I do think is legit to some extend because this axis is really relatively independent of the tuck/posture. During my research I really struggled to find examples in a layout position, but I cannot follow your argument why they should be impossible. I would love to understand though :D
@filamproductions32 ай бұрын
@@JannisSchauer I would love to, and I will try to, find a better and more rigorous explanation as for why, but have you ever tried to flip the figure, or just a water bottle or anything, making it do a "shant" or rotate in any of those alternative axis? Without the drill keeping a hold of it, and only giving it some initial momentum, it seems impossible to me. My explanation for this (which can definitely be wrong) is that, if you draw out the axis it cuts the figure asymmetrically, you have an asymmetry with respect to the axis of rotation. Traditional axes, on the other hand, cut the body into halfs that are more symmetric, which is what makes it possible to do them without changing body position. Whereas, if you look at the tucks people do for this off-axis flips, their body postition is such that if you draw out the axis they are rotating with respect to, you get some symmetry in the momentum, the shapes they choose are very intentional even if they don't think about it, which is what allows the rotation to be performed. So my (intuitive) argument is that the motions you describe the axis with are not physically possible, which makes them not ideal for describing the flips. Again, I would love to be wrong, or find better proof of this, maybe I'm not making sense. Either way, you're a legend man, love to see you talking about this stuff.
@lucasboisneau42562 ай бұрын
@@filamproductions3I was feeling the same and your explanation really made sense ! I think there's something to do with the components of the K matrix that's on the board, I have a vague memory of this but I think you can describe an object moment of inertia completely in a 3x3 matrix, and the diagonals are the moments of inertia in the 3 axes of the matrix's base, but if their are diagonal terms (like the ones on the board) then the object cannot turn around the axis without external forces (which is usually the case during a flip)
@lucasboisneau42562 ай бұрын
@@filamproductions3 also I just remembered that there are more stable axis than others (what's the plural of axis btw ?). For example if you flip your phone (be careful) it's very stable if you spin it like a freesbee, or around the long direction of the phone, but it's much harder to flip it around what I'll call the "Samsung's flip phone" axis without it rotating. I can't remember if air resistance is a reason or not though, I think veritasium made a video on the subject, with a really strange example of a butterfly bolt on the iss (you can find it on KZbin), where it flips between two stable rotation modes
@filamproductions32 ай бұрын
@@lucasboisneau4256 I came across that exact same video. I think I understand now. A rigid body has three principal axes of rotation that are determined by its moment of inertia, and they should coincide in this case with the axis he drew out of the blackboard. However (and this is derived somehow from Euler's equations of motion), a rotation around any axis other than those three will be impossible to maintain without applying external force. Veritasium's video was on intermediate axis theorem, which explains how any small deviation in a rotation about its intermediate axis (on of the three principal axes, would be the backflip axis for us) will build up over time and cause it to do the bizarre flip shown in the video. Here, we don't need to consider that effect at all, our deviation is so great that it is immediately appreciated, in the form of loosing your axis and falling on your face. The way people get around this in off-axis flips is by redefining their moment of inertia by changing body position, which changes what their three principal axes would be, allowing them to perform a stable (enough) rotation in the axis desired. So moment of inertia restricts your rotation to three axes, but people break away from this by changing that very moment of inertia inherent to body shape/weight distribution. Either way, that's my theory, thank you for bringing some actual physics into this!
@TYderTapfere2 ай бұрын
Geil! Maximum confusion haha. Inspired to do one as well! Especially from the learning perspective. Thank you!