Htlatw

[{++ } Lukas fs {++}]

I summon the ones wich have a doctor degree in freestyle football.
You say that changing names of trick is for the better, stopping with palle move and skora atw and shit like that.
You found other ways to call trick,- well here is a challenge.

Explane to me Datw,- like you explaned pallemove as hatw amatw nt

Thank's for helping in the discussing Yoacim but I think it's hopeless with these noobs. First it was matw = inside tatw and now this. Incredible!

lol, whose the noobs?

i bet ur the kind of person that thinks tatw is exactly the same as out atw-co nt

If a person who only knows what atw and crossover is how are you going to tell him what tatw is? I'd explain it's outside atw - co no touch in a fluent motion and after that I'd explain that there's another way to do atw crossover aswell

correct ;)
u could say no touch, fluid motion and no touch the ground in between the 2 tricks.
wen ppl say they r exactly the same! 

oh yeah... so now we have to call tatw-amatw nt as tatw-amatw nt with fluid motion without anytouch with one foot on the ground???
because there are two ways of doing it aswell.... and it still is tatw-amatw nt... so If that is your philosofy then I dont understand how u call "noob" to ppl that say tatw is atw-co nt....
if atw-co nt is for u the trick wich michryc comonly does, wich is the same as tatw just that u let one leg in the floor... tell me then, when u do  consecutive atws, do u let your foot on the floor??, the answear is no... so if u understood my statement, then u'll probably know that tatw is atw-cross nt aswell...

 :cheers:

And who has done tatw amatw in this non fluent motion that you speak of?

Nobody  :thumbsup:

maybe noone has done it... but it is a possibility.,..right?? I mean,, you can do it... its not something impossible

well, I guess I gave a bad example... but that wasn´t the point of my post... the point is: blablabal(read again)

[L_I_S]

tatw is not exactly like atw-co nt. unless nt means not touch between the tricks and no touch of the ground and in 1 fluuent motion all in one then i agree. but if its not, ur wrong.

[{++ } Lukas fs {++}]

tatw is not exactly like atw-co nt. unless nt means not touch between the tricks and no touch of the ground and in 1 fluuent motion all in one then i agree. but if its not, :cheers: ur wrong.

nt can mean both things depending on wich side you look at it... If u read my last comment I talked about tatw amatw nt
in that trick everybody does the both trick intersection with only one foot on the floor.... but what happens now if I do it with both feet on floor??will it still be tatw-amatw nt??.. well, I think the answear is yes, its just the same shit as the difference between tatw and michryc weird thingy... both are the same "combo"(atw-co nt), just that they are performed differently....


I think I've got at least a good point, I hope u understand my statement, and if not, well, I really dont give a fuck, everybody has their own opinion's... what I've said is my opinion...what you said was your opinion....
 :cheers:

[L_I_S]

tatw is not exactly like atw-co nt. unless nt means not touch between the tricks and no touch of the ground and in 1 fluuent motion all in one then i agree. but if its not, :cheers: ur wrong.

nt can mean both things depending on wich side you look at it... If u read my last comment I talked about tatw amatw nt
in that trick everybody does the both trick intersection with only one foot on the floor.... but what happens now if I do it with both feet on floor??will it still be tatw-amatw nt??.. well, I think the answear is yes, its just the same shit as the difference between tatw and michryc weird thingy... both are the same "combo"(atw-co nt), just that they are performed differently....


I think I've got at least a good point, I hope u understand my statement, and if not, well, I really dont give a fuck, everybody has their own opinion's... what I've said is my opinion...what you said was your opinion....
 :cheers:

i think u have a misconception about wat is 'ur opinion'
1+1=23452, that is my opinion. its wrong no matter wat, its not an opinion really coz, i dunno how 2 explain, but i think u get wat im trying 2 say.

let me break it down 4 u, does michryc's atw-co nt look like tatw? no, so how can u say that atw-co nt IS tatw?

[{++ } Lukas fs {++}]

tatw is not exactly like atw-co nt. unless nt means not touch between the tricks and no touch of the ground and in 1 fluuent motion all in one then i agree. but if its not, :cheers: ur wrong.

nt can mean both things depending on wich side you look at it... If u read my last comment I talked about tatw amatw nt
in that trick everybody does the both trick intersection with only one foot on the floor.... but what happens now if I do it with both feet on floor??will it still be tatw-amatw nt??.. well, I think the answear is yes, its just the same shit as the difference between tatw and michryc weird thingy... both are the same "combo"(atw-co nt), just that they are performed differently....


I think I've got at least a good point, I hope u understand my statement, and if not, well, I really dont give a fuck, everybody has their own opinion's... what I've said is my opinion...what you said was your opinion....
 :cheers:

i think u have a misconception about wat is 'ur opinion'
1+1=23452, that is my opinion. its wrong no matter wat, its not an opinion really coz, i dunno how 2 explain, but i think u get wat im trying 2 say.

let me break it down 4 u, does michryc's atw-co nt look like tatw? no, so how can u say that atw-co nt IS tatw?

again... I wrote a long post for nothing...

read what I've said... I said atw-co nt can be performed in 2 ways... one is michryc thingy and the other is tatw.. and I even gave a long example about how can tatw-amatw nt be performed... you can have both feet on the floor in the intersection of both tricks or you can have only one leg on the floor when the intersection of both tricks happend(that ways everybody does it)... but 1 way or another it still is tatw-amatw nt...no matter how different/equal they look....
so the only fucking difference is that michryc thingy has feet on floor and tatw not...like the example I just explained

in some way I agree with you....yes they look different, are performed differently... but they still are atw-co nt both

You haven´t read my post at all... isn´t it?? and btw you are very arrogant saying that I cant have my opinion because things are like you say...
so next time you want to reply to my post please take the time to at least read the whole post... not just a fragment like u did this time
 :cursing:

[Lenn]

HFXATW hmm htlatw was good to,, the trick of szymo most call szymo atw,
but i think it isn't a big problem
 :dontknow:

[{++ } Lukas fs {++}]

HFXATW hmm htlatw was good to,, the trick of szymo most call szymo atw,
but i think it isn't a big problem
 :dontknow:

its exactly the same shit.... you wanna call it hfxatw?? well call it... you wanna call it htlatw?? well call it...

its like sagami atw... I personally call it sagami atw, but it could be called hjatow the same way(wich noone does it but its a possibility)...


so in fact its htlatw, but calling it hfxatw is a possibility...so you decide..  :dontknow:
 :cheers:

[Christiaan]

i think both is allright!

hfxatw
htlatw :thumbsup:

[GrIzz]

i think both is allright!

hfxatw
htlatw :thumbsup:

Naming a trick after something that has been done later is just silly.

Michryc atw can't bee seened as another variaton or anything like tatw beacuse it involves a kickup to 360, somebody explane to me where the 360 in tatw is?

[{++ } Lukas fs {++}]

i think both is allright!

hfxatw
htlatw :thumbsup:

Naming a trick after something that has been done later is just silly.

Michryc atw can't bee seened as another variaton or anything like tatw beacuse it involves a kickup to 360, somebody explane to me where the 360 in tatw is?

nono... we aren't talking about THAT michryc thingy... we are talking about another one, wich he commonly does too

feature=related

watch the combo wich starts at 0:52, the first trick at all wich looks like a atw-cross nt

[GrIzz]

i think both is allright!

hfxatw
htlatw :thumbsup:

Naming a trick after something that has been done later is just silly.

Michryc atw can't bee seened as another variaton or anything like tatw beacuse it involves a kickup to 360, somebody explane to me where the 360 in tatw is?

nono... we aren't talking about THAT michryc thingy... we are talking about another one, wich he commonly does too

feature=related

watch the combo wich starts at 0:52, the first trick at all wich looks like a atw-cross nt

Thank you Lukas for enlighting me up

[L_I_S]

tatw is not exactly like atw-co nt. unless nt means not touch between the tricks and no touch of the ground and in 1 fluuent motion all in one then i agree. but if its not, :cheers: ur wrong.

nt can mean both things depending on wich side you look at it... If u read my last comment I talked about tatw amatw nt
in that trick everybody does the both trick intersection with only one foot on the floor.... but what happens now if I do it with both feet on floor??will it still be tatw-amatw nt??.. well, I think the answear is yes, its just the same shit as the difference between tatw and michryc weird thingy... both are the same "combo"(atw-co nt), just that they are performed differently....


I think I've got at least a good point, I hope u understand my statement, and if not, well, I really dont give a fuck, everybody has their own opinion's... what I've said is my opinion...what you said was your opinion....
 :cheers:

i think u have a misconception about wat is 'ur opinion'
1+1=23452, that is my opinion. its wrong no matter wat, its not an opinion really coz, i dunno how 2 explain, but i think u get wat im trying 2 say.

let me break it down 4 u, does michryc's atw-co nt look like tatw? no, so how can u say that atw-co nt IS tatw?

again... I wrote a long post for nothing...

read what I've said... I said atw-co nt can be performed in 2 ways... one is michryc thingy and the other is tatw.. and I even gave a long example about how can tatw-amatw nt be performed... you can have both feet on the floor in the intersection of both tricks or you can have only one leg on the floor when the intersection of both tricks happend(that ways everybody does it)... but 1 way or another it still is tatw-amatw nt...no matter how different/equal they look....
so the only fucking difference is that michryc thingy has feet on floor and tatw not...like the example I just explained

in some way I agree with you....yes they look different, are performed differently... but they still are atw-co nt both

You haven´t read my post at all... isn´t it?? and btw you are very arrogant saying that I cant have my opinion because things are like you say...
so next time you want to reply to my post please take the time to at least read the whole post... not just a fragment like u did this time
 :cursing:

i read the whole thing, i just didnt comment on it. atw-co nt doesnt look like tatw so thats it, its not the same. doesnt matter how u do tatw, its not going 2 look like tatw unless u dont touch the floor, is in 1 fluent motion. not the case wen it comes 2 atw-co nt? u know y? bcoz they r 2 tricks! not 1 trick.