So, there's this fairly common where one stick gets tossed and the other stick gets circled around it really fast before the first stick is caught again.

Do we have a name for that?

I've been privately thinking of it as saturn toss for a while, and then realized that I've never actually seen / heard anybody name it before.

doubt there's a name for it (IMG:http://www.glowsticking.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

LET'S NAME IT!!!
I vote to name it the Orbitted Toss

no, we shouldn't name it. if we name that, we name everything. it's just a simple thing most glowstickers do.

Which is a good thing.Which is a pretty good argument for giving it a name.

I am of course fond of my own name of 'saturn toss', but 'orbit toss' sounds good to me, too.

I was always against naming anything really, but i decided that the solution is to name EVERYTHING so that everyone will eventually just completely abandon naming ANYTHING.

LOL

I've asked this question before and I got the same answer "nope, just something freehanders do" what's cool about it is that with freehand its easy to describe things with no major confusion so there is no need to name and be meticulous about every move.

We all know what your talking about, that's what matters. (IMG:http://www.glowsticking.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

The more moves we give names too, the more standardized they become. If we give names to every type of toss, people will start tossing in the same way thinking it's the "correct" way to toss

...thus all freehanding will start looking the same

i vote we dont name freehanding moves (IMG:http://www.glowsticking.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/thumbsdown.gif)

We don't need names for every move - that pretty much kills the entire creativity process for freehand. Once we start naming moves, those moves will definitely become more popular since they have been named. Freehand is heavily based on concepts and combo creation. People that focus on just getting moves down won't get very far in freehand.

My vision of pushing freehand to the limits is exactly how it's been in the past. People just need to spend time learning the basics and find out what other variations can be done with them. In the process...maybe they will come up with something new that hasn't been done much before. Refine those ideas and you possibly have a new concept to work with. This is what pushes freehand forward, not naming moves so they get outplayed like no tomorrow.

Err... what!?That makes absolutely no freakin' sense.
Giving something a name doesn't magically remove people's ability to be creative. Do you honestly think that, say, all heli tosses look the same just because they're named? Or all foot stalls, or all helicopters? Have you got any evidence to indicate that any bit of terminology has had any significant adverse effect on the range of people's styles? What real difference is there between calling something "a toss where I use the other glowstick to draw circles around the first one" and "an orbit toss" aside from the fact that the latter is a whole lot easier to say? Or between "a toss where the stick spins" vs. "a heli toss"?Has anybody ever actually proposed that naming moves all by itself somehow pushes the art? I don't think so. Naming moves just makes things easier to talk about. I don't think anybody would disagree that you need to experiment with your own variations, but I really don't see how that's in any way relevant to whether or not its useful to have names for what you do. Having a good foundation to experiment with does help out with all of that experimenting that people need to do to actually push the art. If naming moves makes them more common, that's *good*. Would you prefer that nobody communicate and require that everyone come up with all of their own patterns completely from scratch?

I am just absolutely baffled by the prevailing combination of apathy and outright resistance to common terminology in this community. It just makes no sense. For all that we're about creativity and invention and whatnot, I don't think I've ever encountered another group of people more inexplicably opposed to neologism.

I quote melvenorc from elsewhere, 'cause he described my feelings well: