Original Pass?

jesuspuerta · Jul 7, 2013

Hey guys so i recently created a pass ,and im not sure if its original or not.i havent seen anything like it before but i

would like to see what u guys think. Thanks alot i appreciate it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqWnBhr99kM

yyyyyyy · Jul 7, 2013

Well, I'm not sure if I've seen anything like it before. But, that being said, that's an awful lot of motion for a pass. There's the dipping motion and a Cascade type motion. How are you supposed to justify that? Hard to do that sort of thing on the offbeat.

jesuspuerta · Jul 7, 2013

ik . i would never use this in the real world .i just want to know if its original or not .thanks tho

TylerRouss · Jul 7, 2013

I mean. Yes, it's original. I'm willing to bet no one else has published that... It has great cover, but.. I cannot imagine any situation in which you could do that without absolute and complete suspicion.

WitchDocIsIn · Jul 8, 2013

I've seen it. It's just a slightly modified turnover pass like Mahdi Gilbert does.

TeeDee · Jul 8, 2013

It also has a flavour of Ollie Mealing's Barrier Shift (the first move demo'd on this trailer):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9Jfq4UgHqY

WyattSB · Jul 8, 2013

TylerRouss said:
It has great cover, but.. I cannot imagine any situation in which you could do that without absolute and complete suspicion.

It has almost the same covering motions as Victoria. The cascade itself is good because the spectator knows you truly cant get the card back once they see it stay in the middle and then you dribble the cards.
So yeah, its more or less a hermann variation, and I would say no, its not too original, not to say I dont like it though. If I were you I'd try and reduce that dipping motion a little.

KonTW · Jul 8, 2013

I wouldn't call that original, because it's just a mix of some old moves, like the Herman Pass, Victoria, ...

yyyyyyy · Jul 8, 2013

Guys, I'm not sure where you're seeing Victoria in this one. I just see a standard cascade, if that. Victoria's cascade is like an anaconda done sideways, his technique is much different.

WitchDocIsIn · Jul 8, 2013

Pav said:
Guys, I'm not sure where you're seeing Victoria in this one. I just see a standard cascade, if that. Victoria's cascade is like an anaconda done sideways, his technique is much different.

And this perfectly exemplifies my point about how flourishing all looks the same to the uneducated. How on earth is an Anaconda Dribble different than a regular dribble done over a long distance? To that end, how is a regular cascade so different from an Anaconda done sideways (Cascading) that it warrants a different label? Is it really that much of a difference?

yyyyyyy · Jul 8, 2013

Actually, yes. The mechanics of the Anaconda and normal cascade are different. I wasn't saying the cascade motion looked any different to the spectator, I was commenting on the mechanics of the move itself. There is a difference between doing the Victoria dribble and just dropping the cards. I'm only mentioning it because people were saying the move looked like the combination of the Herman Pass and Victoria, and I disagreed.

WitchDocIsIn · Jul 8, 2013

Pav said:
Actually, yes. The mechanics of the Anaconda and normal cascade are different. I wasn't saying the cascade motion looked any different to the spectator, I was commenting on the mechanics of the move itself. There is a difference between doing the Victoria dribble and just dropping the cards. I'm only mentioning it because people were saying the move looked like the combination of the Herman Pass and Victoria, and I disagreed.

I see. Thus highlighting the difference between the educated (You) and the uneducated (me).

Regardless, I think it's been pretty well established that this is not a new move.

yyyyyyy · Jul 8, 2013

Fair enough, no point in continuing the disagreement.

ZachMueller · Jul 8, 2013

I would say that the specifics to your variation may be new, but as many have said, it's a combination of the Hermann Pass and the cascade control. Keep it up!

WitchDocIsIn · Jul 8, 2013

I will add this though - while I don't see myself using this, I do like the look of it.

TylerRouss · Jul 8, 2013

WyattSB said:
It has almost the same covering motions as Victoria. The cascade itself is good because the spectator knows you truly cant get the card back once they see it stay in the middle and then you dribble the cards.
So yeah, its more or less a hermann variation, and I would say no, its not too original, not to say I dont like it though. If I were you I'd try and reduce that dipping motion a little.

Maybe I'm just too into the simple style of performance... but I just do not see how this much motion, the tilt, the rotation, and the half cascade, could possibly not arouse suspicion. Victoria is very different, because it looks as though you are simply playing with the cards. This has too much motion that is entirely unmotivated.

WyattSB · Jul 9, 2013

TylerRouss said:
Maybe I'm just too into the simple style of performance... but I just do not see how this much motion, the tilt, the rotation, and the half cascade, could possibly not arouse suspicion. Victoria is very different, because it looks as though you are simply playing with the cards. This has too much motion that is entirely unmotivated.

The cascade is motivated, as it is a cascade, to lose any natural breaks or anything. The only particularly suspicious motion is the dipping down when the bottom half is seperated, as I suggested.