Page 1 of 1

Mystery crack?

Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 5:01 pm
by Shagbd
ok usually i ask HOW to do a crack...
now im asking WHAT kinda crack am i doing ?

i sorta "found" this crack by playing around.
but its a double crack, followed by an overhead...
but i have no idea how im doing the first double crack thing...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaSUvBkcTW4

what am i DOING?

Does it have a name?
if not.... Can i name it?

Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 9:07 pm
by Canasta
Hey Shagbd,
I don't think that it has a name ... yet.
It's done by letting a little slack into the whip during the forward throw and then speeding up the whip allowing it to crack again.
With practice, you can keep it going a couple more times.

You can see it done here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY_Bsi-RNuk

I do it as I'm turning in a circle. In theory, I guess you could do it until you got to dizzy to keep standing up.

Looking good.

Chris

Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 9:11 pm
by Shagbd
OH YEH!

I gotcha Chris!!

actually when i first err.."discovered" this crack, i WAS doing it as a spin....

you can see it in this clip actually: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wV9pVpXyT4 (dont laugh)

I just figured out today that it can be done WITHout spinning, which was kinda cool if i can figure out how to throw it in a combo.

I can figured how to do it with a backhand throw.... so maybe a back and forth combo could work somehow?....... hmmmm

Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 4:32 am
by BullWhipBorton
As Chris said there isn’t really a name for it, at least none that I know off. I usually just refer to it as a double, when I do them.

Think of what you’re doing in that video as throwing two flicks/sidearm style cracks in imediat succession in quick time speed. Your throwing the first out straight in front then as it cracks, the whip devolpes a little slack, but your immediately following thought setting up into the overhead plane. That motion you are using to follow thought into the overhead is nearly the same as throwing a flick/sidearm to the side of the body in front of you. You are not loosing any significant energy or momentum though like you would if you let the whip die out after that first crack, so when you hit that timing just right coming up into the over head the second crack happens almost instantly nearly with out you even trying as you set up into the overhead throw. It’s a neat trick to play with and you can use it in other combinations as well.

Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2008 2:39 am
by Shagbd
Canasta wrote: In theory, I guess you could do it until you got to dizzy to keep standing up.
Ive been thinking about this......

i think i might try this to see how many can be fired off in sucsession....

Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2008 12:57 pm
by Texas Raider
I was hoping you werent' referring to this-

Image


TR

Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2008 12:58 pm
by Texas Raider
What?! I'm talkin' about his Indy gloves in his back pocket! LOL!!

TR

Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2008 1:00 pm
by Texas Raider
Hey! Did I lose a hat over in my "Museum Curator" title?? Wasn't I the next level higher???


TR

Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2008 2:20 pm
by Bardoon
I've done this crack before, or something very similar. It's one of my common ones that includes a variation of an overhead crack.

Anything that I do that follow essentially the same motion as the overhead, I essentially call it "a variation". I've done ones where I would start the motion then step back with my back foot and roll the whip out to crack in the vertical plane where I was just standing. That sort of motion looks much better with a longer whip.

Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2008 5:16 pm
by thefish
The first person I saw do this was Mark Mulligan a few years ago. He was doing it with a short stockwhip, and was doing full physical rotations with it, (about 4 or 5,) and then into an overhead with it.

Had a bunch of people trying it, over and over again, and they'd get dizzy, (John Bailey staggering around off balance was a pretty funny thing to see.)

I think that was actually Mark's intent.

I started calling it "That Mulligan-Spinny-Pukey Crack," but I don't expect anyone to follow that suggestion. ;-)