Beyond Football - Freestyle Football Forum
Freestyle Soccer Forum => Freestyle Chat => Topic started by: JamieNeit on Sep 26, 2010, 08:05: AM
-
Just wondering. Id say around 250?
-
theres AT LEAST 4..
-
theres AT LEAST 4..
I wouldn't go as far to say that...
-
:035:
-
there's only atw
and the rest are just combos
uppers are not as important as lowers
and sits are too easy
s3 style is not freestyle
:098:
-
there's only atw
and the rest are just combos
uppers are not as important as lowers
and sits are too easy
s3 style is not freestyle
:098:
thats silly
crossover hoptheworld xover arent around the world
so i spose there are 4
eclipse isnt around the world
uppers are just as important as lowers sits are 2 it depends on the person
say uppers arent important to turlakov or bengau
if uppers arent important sam (usa) is insignifcant but he isnt haha
if sits are so easy how come theres your not matte linder there as hard as you make them
s3 is freestyle basket and football, they just do tricks which are entertaining and they find fun to do(thats what the sports all about) theyre trying to make a living so dont criticize themfreestyle is different to everyone ; its free
-
there's only atw
and the rest are just combos
uppers are not as important as lowers
and sits are too easy
s3 style is not freestyle
:098:
thats silly
crossover hoptheworld xover arent around the world
so i spose there are 4
eclipse isnt around the world
uppers are just as important as lowers sits are 2 it depends on the person
say uppers arent important to turlakov or bengau
if uppers arent important sam (usa) is insignifcant but he isnt haha
if sits are so easy how come theres your not matte linder there as hard as you make them
s3 is freestyle basket and football, they just do tricks which are entertaining and they find fun to do(thats what the sports all about) theyre trying to make a living so dont criticize themfreestyle is different to everyone ; its free
when i read that i cried so much hahahaha jokes, i think he meant it as a joke with all these heated debates about uppers sucking/everyone naming tricks after themselves/and s3 use of hands and stuff
-
341
-
341
did you actually count every single one?
-
341
did you actually count every single one?
Lol nooooo
-
341
did you actually count every single one?
Lol nooooo
I've counted 343 actually. You've probably missed "the Evading Kamikaze" and "the Svomb".
-
don't forget julal move :great:
-
don't forget 4706 xixo's new moves :rolleyes:
-
well there are much more than 4
there are even more flick ups than 4
-
they are uncountable
-
too much to learn all :grin:
-
well there are much more than 4
there are even more flick ups than 4
No, flickups are just combos
-
well there are much more than 4
there are even more flick ups than 4
No, flickups are just combos
popcorn/lace/zlatan flick is a combo???
-
yes in that order it is :098:
-
341
did you actually count every single one?
Lol nooooo
hahahahaha
-
well there are much more than 4
there are even more flick ups than 4
No, flickups are just combos
popcorn/lace/zlatan flick is a combo???
WHAT?
-
so would you not call like amatw a trick?
-
Well what do you guys define as an own trick? Do you perceive amatw like a combo, or an own trick?
-
Well what do you guys define as an own trick? Do you perceive amatw like a combo, or an own trick?
amatw is just a matw nt
-
we all known that the basic moves are atw, co, htw, hatw,
and the rest are infact just combos,
this is a good topic actually, because I've think about that it would be good for beginners to have a trickbook to read,
but the fact that it are like 5000 diffrents of tricks and combos, so would that be pretty hard..
-
haha once i said tatw is a combo out of atw - co (nt) and everybody started hatin on me and now u say it consists out of atw and co:D
well, if u say the 4 basics are htw, co, atw AND HATW, hhtw is also a basic trick;)
atw --> hatw
htw --> httw
-
Ok technically a trick like tatw is a combo, but we all know we consider it a trick. if it is a combo then tatw-atw-tatw would be a combo within a combo! lol ahhh :17:
-
:103:
-
341
did you actually count every single one?
Lol nooooo
I've counted 343 actually. You've probably missed "the Evading Kamikaze" and "the Svomb".
:You_Rock_Emoticon:
-
Well what do you guys define as an own trick? Do you perceive amatw like a combo, or an own trick?
tbh I like the trick names we have now,
matw is easier than saying (i)atw-co(nt) the "i" - means inside because i think thats how we'd have to distinguish if its by todays standards a tatw or a matw
or say you wanted to tell someone you did beck-amatw (nt)
you'd have to say i did hhjatw-(i)atw-co-htw-co (nt) ------- i think *im not good at naming lower combos*
If ANYTHING I say lets stick to the trick names we have now, and stop making new ones unless their truly new
-
341
did you actually count every single one
Lol nooooo
I've counted 343 actually. You've probably missed "the Evading Kamikaze" and "the Svomb".
Oh Sven! I completely forgot about those tricks :embarrassed:
-
Well what do you guys define as an own trick? Do you perceive amatw like a combo, or an own trick?
tbh I like the trick names we have now,
matw is easier than saying (i)atw-co(nt) the "i" - means inside because i think thats how we'd have to distinguish if its by todays standards a tatw or a matw
or say you wanted to tell someone you did beck-amatw (nt)
you'd have to say i did hhjatw-(i)atw-co-htw-co (nt) ------- i think *im not good at naming lower combos*
If ANYTHING I say lets stick to the trick names we have now, and stop making new ones unless their truly new
matw isnt insideatw-co nt, they look differant
-
Well what do you guys define as an own trick? Do you perceive amatw like a combo, or an own trick?
tbh I like the trick names we have now,
matw is easier than saying (i)atw-co(nt) the "i" - means inside because i think thats how we'd have to distinguish if its by todays standards a tatw or a matw
or say you wanted to tell someone you did beck-amatw (nt)
you'd have to say i did hhjatw-(i)atw-co-htw-co (nt) ------- i think *im not good at naming lower combos*
If ANYTHING I say lets stick to the trick names we have now, and stop making new ones unless their truly new
matw isnt insideatw-co nt, they look differant
....yes it is....
-
an own trick: two moves put together no touch, where the 2nd part of the move isn't a crossover, x-over or them type :017:
-
imo there are two ways to do in atw-co nt
it can be done in one movement (matw) or a high-ish in atw - co nt
the latter is where you put your foot down before the co, and the former is one flow, without putting your foot down before co
so to me, they're similar but they're definitely not the exact same thing
in matw, atw and co are combined in "one move". if they're the same then you have to call one of them fast matw, the other slow matw. Or fast in atw-co nt and slow in atw-co nt
-
NOOBS EVERYWHERE!
If you haven't been here for a year, learn to shut up and pay attention to those with more experience. Read what they say and learn.
Notice how there isn't many freestylers with experience taking this seriously?
PATW IS 3 ATWS NO TOUCH IN BETWEEN :sign0066:
:stupid:
-
I don't think any one will start to say atw-co nt-htw-co nt for tatw-amatw nt. Nevertheless my intent was to figure out what the majority define a trick as, in order for us to be able to count the tricks. If you think that matw should be called an own trick and not atw-co nt, then there are many tricks. If you think that amatw is entitled to be called an own trick there are even more.
-
theres AT LEAST 4..
I wouldn't go as far to say that...
Five at the MOST
-
Well what do you guys define as an own trick? Do you perceive amatw like a combo, or an own trick?
tbh I like the trick names we have now,
matw is easier than saying (i)atw-co(nt) the "i" - means inside because i think thats how we'd have to distinguish if its by todays standards a tatw or a matw
or say you wanted to tell someone you did beck-amatw (nt)
you'd have to say i did hhjatw-(i)atw-co-htw-co (nt) ------- i think *im not good at naming lower combos*
If ANYTHING I say lets stick to the trick names we have now, and stop making new ones unless their truly new
matw isnt insideatw-co nt, they look differant
....yes it is....
nope, atw-co (nt) has a step in between where you put your foot down before you begin the co whereas matw is a smooth motion
-
Since we are not able to realize what is "trick" and come over with different names we are not able to count it down. Not even if someone (xixo) sucrifice himself and suck Satan's dick.
-
Well what do you guys define as an own trick? Do you perceive amatw like a combo, or an own trick?
tbh I like the trick names we have now,
matw is easier than saying (i)atw-co(nt) the "i" - means inside because i think thats how we'd have to distinguish if its by todays standards a tatw or a matw
or say you wanted to tell someone you did beck-amatw (nt)
you'd have to say i did hhjatw-(i)atw-co-htw-co (nt) ------- i think *im not good at naming lower combos*
If ANYTHING I say lets stick to the trick names we have now, and stop making new ones unless their truly new
matw isnt insideatw-co nt, they look differant
....yes it is....
nope, atw-co (nt) has a step in between where you put your foot down before you begin the co whereas matw is a smooth motion
it depends on how you look at it
-
there's only atw
and the rest are just combos
uppers are not as important as lowers
and sits are too easy
s3 style is not freestyle
:098:
thats silly
crossover hoptheworld xover arent around the world
so i spose there are 4
eclipse isnt around the world
uppers are just as important as lowers sits are 2 it depends on the person
say uppers arent important to turlakov or bengau
if uppers arent important sam (usa) is insignifcant but he isnt haha
if sits are so easy how come theres your not matte linder there as hard as you make them
s3 is freestyle basket and football, they just do tricks which are entertaining and they find fun to do(thats what the sports all about) theyre trying to make a living so dont criticize themfreestyle is different to everyone ; its free
Defo agree with u there Damian !!!
-
haha this topic is hilarious, we will never be able to count all tricks. And stop being retarded, amatw IS NOT htw co NT amatw is amatw and no others. Patw s patw and not 3 atws nt, tatw is tatw and so on. Stop arguing about it.
-
this topic can go on and on till one day the people on the west of Atlantic run out of gas
and the ones on the east run out of petrol :)
-
Well what do you guys define as an own trick? Do you perceive amatw like a combo, or an own trick?
tbh I like the trick names we have now,
matw is easier than saying (i)atw-co(nt) the "i" - means inside because i think thats how we'd have to distinguish if its by todays standards a tatw or a matw
or say you wanted to tell someone you did beck-amatw (nt)
you'd have to say i did hhjatw-(i)atw-co-htw-co (nt) ------- i think *im not good at naming lower combos*
If ANYTHING I say lets stick to the trick names we have now, and stop making new ones unless their truly new
matw isnt insideatw-co nt, they look differant
....yes it is....
nope, atw-co (nt) has a step in between where you put your foot down before you begin the co whereas matw is a smooth motion
it depends on how you look at it
no it doen't, wether youb look at from left, right of even head-on it will always be hw-co (nt) andnot amatw
-
Well what do you guys define as an own trick? Do you perceive amatw like a combo, or an own trick?
tbh I like the trick names we have now,
matw is easier than saying (i)atw-co(nt) the "i" - means inside because i think thats how we'd have to distinguish if its by todays standards a tatw or a matw
or say you wanted to tell someone you did beck-amatw (nt)
you'd have to say i did hhjatw-(i)atw-co-htw-co (nt) ------- i think *im not good at naming lower combos*
If ANYTHING I say lets stick to the trick names we have now, and stop making new ones unless their truly new
matw isnt insideatw-co nt, they look differant
....yes it is....
nope, atw-co (nt) has a step in between where you put your foot down before you begin the co whereas matw is a smooth motion
it depends on how you look at it
no it doen't, wether youb look at from left, right of even head-on it will always be hw-co (nt) andnot amatw
i dont know what a "HW" is...
-
Well what do you guys define as an own trick? Do you perceive amatw like a combo, or an own trick?
tbh I like the trick names we have now,
matw is easier than saying (i)atw-co(nt) the "i" - means inside because i think thats how we'd have to distinguish if its by todays standards a tatw or a matw
or say you wanted to tell someone you did beck-amatw (nt)
you'd have to say i did hhjatw-(i)atw-co-htw-co (nt) ------- i think *im not good at naming lower combos*
If ANYTHING I say lets stick to the trick names we have now, and stop making new ones unless their truly new
matw isnt insideatw-co nt, they look differant
....yes it is....
nope, atw-co (nt) has a step in between where you put your foot down before you begin the co whereas matw is a smooth motion
it depends on how you look at it
no it doen't, wether youb look at from left, right of even head-on it will always be hw-co (nt) andnot amatw
i dont know what a "HW" is...
wtf do you think it is if he's talking about amatw? why didn't you say that you don't know what "doen't" "wether" or "youb" is?
:stupid:
-
Well what do you guys define as an own trick? Do you perceive amatw like a combo, or an own trick?
tbh I like the trick names we have now,
matw is easier than saying (i)atw-co(nt) the "i" - means inside because i think thats how we'd have to distinguish if its by todays standards a tatw or a matw
or say you wanted to tell someone you did beck-amatw (nt)
you'd have to say i did hhjatw-(i)atw-co-htw-co (nt) ------- i think *im not good at naming lower combos*
If ANYTHING I say lets stick to the trick names we have now, and stop making new ones unless their truly new
matw isnt insideatw-co nt, they look differant
....yes it is....
nope, atw-co (nt) has a step in between where you put your foot down before you begin the co whereas matw is a smooth motion
it depends on how you look at it
no it doen't, wether youb look at from left, right of even head-on it will always be hw-co (nt) andnot amatw
i dont know what a "HW" is...
wtf do you think it is if he's talking about amatw? why didn't you say that you don't know what "doen't" "wether" or "youb" is?
:stupid:
i didnt understand any of your post, "wether" "doen't" and "youb" arent words either :stupid:
-
Well what do you guys define as an own trick? Do you perceive amatw like a combo, or an own trick?
tbh I like the trick names we have now,
matw is easier than saying (i)atw-co(nt) the "i" - means inside because i think thats how we'd have to distinguish if its by todays standards a tatw or a matw
or say you wanted to tell someone you did beck-amatw (nt)
you'd have to say i did hhjatw-(i)atw-co-htw-co (nt) ------- i think *im not good at naming lower combos*
If ANYTHING I say lets stick to the trick names we have now, and stop making new ones unless their truly new
matw isnt insideatw-co nt, they look differant
....yes it is....
nope, atw-co (nt) has a step in between where you put your foot down before you begin the co whereas matw is a smooth motion
it depends on how you look at it
no it doen't, wether youb look at from left, right of even head-on it will always be hw-co (nt) andnot amatw
i dont know what a "HW" is...
wtf do you think it is if he's talking about amatw? why didn't you say that you don't know what "doen't" "wether" or "youb" is?
:stupid:
i didnt understand any of your post, "wether" "doen't" and "youb" arent words either :stupid:
Because that's what Patrick wrote in the same post where you didn't understand what "hw" was when he was talking about amatw. So I was stating previously that you were basically being awkward and trying to act smart when you're clearly not. Which is why I pointed out his other typos in the post and was asking you, why you didn't refer to those typos when you knew exactly that he meant "htw" and not "hw". Dude, you can't fucking read, look at Patrick's post onwards and you'll see. :embarrassed:
-
Well what do you guys define as an own trick? Do you perceive amatw like a combo, or an own trick?
tbh I like the trick names we have now,
matw is easier than saying (i)atw-co(nt) the "i" - means inside because i think thats how we'd have to distinguish if its by todays standards a tatw or a matw
or say you wanted to tell someone you did beck-amatw (nt)
you'd have to say i did hhjatw-(i)atw-co-htw-co (nt) ------- i think *im not good at naming lower combos*
If ANYTHING I say lets stick to the trick names we have now, and stop making new ones unless their truly new
matw isnt insideatw-co nt, they look differant
....yes it is....
nope, atw-co (nt) has a step in between where you put your foot down before you begin the co whereas matw is a smooth motion
it depends on how you look at it
no it doen't, wether youb look at from left, right of even head-on it will always be hw-co (nt) andnot amatw
i dont know what a "HW" is...
wtf do you think it is if he's talking about amatw? why didn't you say that you don't know what "doen't" "wether" or "youb" is?
:stupid:
i didnt understand any of your post, "wether" "doen't" and "youb" arent words either :stupid:
Because that's what Patrick wrote in the same post where you didn't understand what "hw" was when he was talking about amatw. So I was stating previously that you were basically being awkward and trying to act smart when you're clearly not. Which is why I pointed out his other typos in the post and was asking you, why you didn't refer to those typos when you knew exactly that he meant "htw" and not "hw". Dude, you can't fucking read, look at Patrick's post onwards and you'll see. :embarrassed:
well if you dont know i dont train lowers, so i thought maybe "hw" was an actual trick, i didnt even know he was refering to an amatw, and if he was hes an idiot because i was refering to a MATW not AMATW, i dont know where amatw came into play