Expand Quote
Fakie 5-0 and switch nosegrind are the same trick.
someone with the knowledge should be able to correlate musical vocabulary here.
"B flat is A sharp" and vice versa
if you take a photo mid-grind, then yes they're the same position. but that doesn't make them the same trick.
the difference comes from the wider context of how you got into that position. if you popped switch, it's a switch nose grind. if you popped fakie, it's a fakie 5-0. if you popped regular or nollie and span 180 into it, it's also a fakie 5-0.
to go back to the musical metaphor, while b-flat and a-sharp are - in of themselves - identical, the wider context of the piece determines what name you would use. if you are in a key that has a b-natural then you would say a-sharp to avoid having two versions of b (which messes up the stave system of notation) and if you were in a key that had an a-natural you would call it a b-flat for the same reason.
in both the case of the 'identical' grinds and the 'identical' notes, the different available names are actually reflections of other factors going on around the grind/note rather than the grind/note itself.
do you know the expression 'blowing hot and cold'? it comes from a folk story (there are various versions of it in different cultures) where a creature observing human behaviour is amused to see a peasant blowing on his hands to warm them up while out working the fields, and then blowing on his soup to cool it down at lunchtime. same gesture, different context.
it gets interesting when you start changing the borders with regards the semantic units making up a trick name.
for instance, with 'regular 180 to fakie 5-0', i've got four elements to the name (stance, spin, stance, grind)
but i could shorthand that to a single unit: pupecki grind
now, with the original longer name i can't simply place switch in front of it to designate the mirrored version. the name changes entirely, becoming a switch 180 to regualr nose grind.
given that that's the case for the longfrom name, is it acceptable to say 'switch pupecki grind'?
i'd say no, but i struggle to fully articulate why.
i also - contrarily - wouldn't have a problem with 'switch barley grind' even though the same logic applies.
in conclusion: shrug.