No comply wallie - foot placement

[yghartsyrt]

Just had the discussion during the last session. When doing a straight no-comply over an obstacle, what do you think looks better: front foot on the obstacle or front foot right in front of the obstacle?

I prefer the version with the front foot right in front of the obstacle and the hucking your entire body and board over the obstacle. Placing the front foot on the obstacle looks a little more like cheating.

What’s your take?

And spare me with your “ugh, no comply s are illegal and shit” l. don’t care about that discussion

[radcunt]

Over a curb I kinda like the foot on for extra launch

[silhouette]

That one is a weird one I'd argue both feel like different tricks, if trying to clear a high obstacle, putting the foot down before the wall will feel like a high ollie kind of challenge, whereas stepping and potentially resting over the foot on top then dragging the board up is going to feel more akin to a miniramp footplant type of maneuver (think iceplant except you rely on your back leg for the board to follow through instead of grabbing). I don't exactly prefer one over another, to me is two distinct maneuvers although I do respect the first type more when I see it because it's more rare (and the way I personally like to do it).

The real question I think is for flat/street gaps, when it's pure length and no (or really low) curbs are involved it's super tempting to step down in the middle of the gap because then you get some extra reach and sometimes the nature of the spot seems to call for that. On the other hand whenever there is a significant drop between the curbs and the road then putting the foot down and jumping before the gap feels a lot safer and allows for more control.

Up stairs I'll usually slide my foot off and onto the second or third stair depending on how big the set is.

[yghartsyrt]

That one is a weird one I'd argue both feel like different tricks, if trying to clear a high obstacle, putting the foot down before the wall will feel like a high ollie kind of challenge, whereas stepping and potentially resting over the foot on top then dragging the board up is going to feel more akin to a miniramp footplant type of maneuver (think iceplant except you rely on your back leg for the board to follow through instead of grabbing). I don't exactly prefer one over another, to me is two distinct maneuvers although I do respect the first type more when I see it because it's more rare (and the way I personally like to do it).

The real question I think is for flat/street gaps, when it's pure length and no (or really low) curbs are involved it's super tempting to step down in the middle of the gap because then you get some extra reach and sometimes the nature of the spot seems to call for that. On the other hand whenever there is a significant drop between the curbs and the road then putting the foot down and jumping before the gap feels a lot safer and allows for more control.

Up stairs I'll usually slide my foot off and onto the second or third stair depending on how big the set is.

Interesting perspective - regarding them as two distinct maneuvers. Never thought that way.

Regarding a street gap. Foot needs to be down before the gap. Otherwise it looks really bad and more like cheating.

Up a stair, I put my front foot down before the stairs start. I’m way too scared of spraining my ankle because of missing a step

[silhouette]

The two different maneuvers thing I think in my mind comes from the original no-comply and step hop differenciation where step hop was the variant you would do on flat, strictly relying on pop whereas a no-comply typically involved curb assist. That's also why I don't really call the assisted ones 'no-comply wallies', to me they're basically (curb) no-complies just using something taller than a curb, or straight walls and bashing off the side instead of over. No-comply wallride though I will call that but necessitates involving an actual wallride with four wheels on and (ideally) getting into the correct position and weight distribution too once on the wall. And step hop into wallride would be something I never really see anyone do.

Street gap comment I generally agree with, sometimes in the case of particularly absurd length though I can give the foot down in the middle a pass when it's obviously required by design, sometimes stepping down before the gap will just be impossible and then one might actually need the extra boost and reach in order to do it, those are exceptional instances though and the clips usually end up looking like long jump world records.

[yghartsyrt]

Gotcha ….. the step hop / no comply differentiation never really was a thing for me, since I was only aware of the no comply name, when growing up skating in the late 80s in Germany. So I never really spent a thought on the potential difference between both tricks and their history.

Regarding the gap thing: I can imagine a photo might be looking cool, as long as both feet are in the air. Besides that - it would probably look a little ridiculous in real life or on video, when the gap is too large

[biaherl]

I can never get my foot on the obstacle but I suck

[yghartsyrt]

I can never get my foot on the obstacle but I suck

The amount of personal suckage is irrelevant here. I’m just interested in the aesthetics.

[bob george]

have you ever no-complied off your leading foot - as in put your footdown, then bonk off your foot as if it were a curb. it's a fun little challenge.

[yghartsyrt]

have you ever no-complied off your leading foot - as in put your footdown, then bonk off your foot as if it were a curb. it's a fun little challenge.

you go first

[backside_frontside]

Your foot gotta go before the obstacle whether it’s a flat gap, stairs, or anything else. Otherwise you are using the obstacle as a crutch and cheating the difficulty of the trick. The only valid reason for putting your foot on the obstacle is when Ishod did a no comply over a Jersey barrier for that one Thrasher cover. It would be nearly impossible to get over such a high object with your foot on the ground.

[Frank and Fred]

It's just a No Comply not a No Comply Wallie.

Blender started doing them by placing his foot on top of a parking block. The whole point was to use the curb as a way to boost the back wheel up and over.

Don't get me wrong I like the version where you don't touch the obstacle with your foot, wheels or tail but its a variation.

[Uncle Flea]

I definitely prefer on the ground before the obstacle.

Mark does them the other way so idk which is correct.

[yghartsyrt]

It's just a No Comply not a No Comply Wallie.

Blender started doing them by placing his foot on top of a parking block. The whole point was to use the curb as a way to boost the back wheel up and over.

Don't get me wrong I like the version where you don't touch the obstacle with your foot, wheels or tail but its a variation.

I was always under the impression that a regular no comply was using the back thigh for boosting/straightening out the no comply. In always thought the one where you smack your back wheels or your tail against something is more of a tail bonk / wallie variation - depending on the height of the obstacle)

[yghartsyrt]

I definitely prefer on the ground before the obstacle.

Mark does them the other way so idk which is correct.

Mmmmh. Complicated dilemma.
Still like the foot on the ground before the trick better.

[biaherl]

Expand Quote

I can never get my foot on the obstacle but I suck

[close]

The amount of personal suckage is irrelevant here. I’m just interested in the aesthetics.

So for me putting your foot on the obstacle is the cooler trick because it's impossible for me to do. I, like a lot of people lean my heal on the ground, flop my toes off and jump and pray. Plus when you step on the obstacle you can boost it higher.

That doesn't mean that it looks better


Style is objective




I judge with my spending

[Frank and Fred]

I'm no purist. I think Ray Barbee may have been among the first to do the no bonk, foot on the floor no complies and Pontus really learned how to boost them. My best no complies have been with a bonk and foot placement but I suck...

One of my fav modern Thrasher covers was Ishod with the J Barrier No Comply. As mentioned above, he had to put his foot on it. Any footie of it?

[yghartsyrt]

I'm no purist. I think Ray Barbee may have been among the first to do the no bonk, foot on the floor no complies and Pontus really learned how to boost them. My best no complies have been with a bonk and foot placement but I suck...

One of my fav modern Thrasher covers was Ishod with the J Barrier No Comply. As mentioned above, he had to put his foot on it. Any footie of it?

That Ishod cover is fire. Thanks for the history bit

[silhouette]

Pontus typically credits Gonz as an inspiration for his variations, he's shared sequences of Gonz doing step hop into lipslides on full sized benches all the way back in the late 80's before, and called his own a tribute. He has really good ones and at the same time I'm sure he wouldn't ever call them new.

Also pretty sure Taylor Nawrocki was doing that Ishod trick switch mid-part the same year, if not the year before that Ishod cover came out which is way cooler. Same part in which he was doing switch flip tailgrabs (?).

[maxpalmerfan]

if you put your foot on the ground instead of the obstacle i've always called it a no comply and if your foot is on the obstacle i call it a step hop. they definitely feel like two different tricks. just straight up no comply is my favorite trick to do up and over stuff

[switchfakie]

front foot on the obstacle

[j....soy.....]

I think on the obstacle is a no comply aka no comprede, John Lucero done, named by Neil Blender? 

Step hop is a 180 : Ray Barbee trick tip? Aka 23 in the bay

No comply wallie is arguably correct but it’s 2023 so we just say what’s easy and everyone knows what you’re saying, but we find a way to natter on about it to no end over what it’s called….

[silhouette]

I think on the obstacle is a no comply aka no comprede, John Lucero done, named by Neil Blender? 

Step hop is a 180 : Ray Barbee trick tip? Aka 23 in the bay

No comply wallie is arguably correct but it’s 2023 so we just say what’s easy and everyone knows what you’re saying, but we find a way to natter on about it to no end over what it’s called….

43 no? And backside is 34. Ray's trick with the 180 I always figured he called 'step hop' as short for 180 step hop... May be regional but I've always heard/read things like varial step hop so wouldn't surprise me. How would he call the straight ones he does with no obstacle otherwise. No comply regardless? Mind games, it all is.

Mostly undocumented but Ocean Howell also had some really good ones. And more obviously Matt Hensley's name deserves a mention in this thread too.

[Frank and Fred]

This thread made me go back to look at 80s no comply photos and clips.

All had front foot on obstacle.

A "no comply wallie": would look pretty different.

[j....soy.....]

Expand Quote

I think on the obstacle is a no comply aka no comprede, John Lucero done, named by Neil Blender? 

Step hop is a 180 : Ray Barbee trick tip? Aka 23 in the bay

No comply wallie is arguably correct but it’s 2023 so we just say what’s easy and everyone knows what you’re saying, but we find a way to natter on about it to no end over what it’s called….

[close]

43 no? And backside is 34. Ray's trick with the 180 I always figured he called 'step hop' as short for 180 step hop... May be regional but I've always heard/read things like varial step hop so wouldn't surprise me. How would he call the straight ones he does with no obstacle otherwise. No comply regardless? Mind games, it all is.

Mostly undocumented but Ocean Howell also had some really good ones. And more obviously Matt Hensley's name deserves a mention in this thread too.

I forget which number, but it came from Orb…..

The shelf life of so many of these tricks was so short as skating was progressing so quickly, there were only so many captions and a lot was word of mouth so who knows…..

[yghartsyrt]

This thread made me go back to look at 80s no comply photos and clips.

All had front foot on obstacle.

A "no comply wallie": would look pretty different.

Not sure what you are hinting at? Do you mean a no comply while doing a wallie? Confused…

[Frank and Fred]

Expand Quote

This thread made me go back to look at 80s no comply photos and clips.

All had front foot on obstacle.

A "no comply wallie": would look pretty different.

[close]

Not sure what you are hinting at? Do you mean a no comply while doing a wallie? Confused…

I am as confused as you are. I was referring to the title of this thread. I think what people are calling a no comply walle, is just a wallie.

foot placement and bashing the back wheels also has people a tad confused.

[yghartsyrt]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

This thread made me go back to look at 80s no comply photos and clips.

All had front foot on obstacle.

A "no comply wallie": would look pretty different.

[close]

Not sure what you are hinting at? Do you mean a no comply while doing a wallie? Confused…

[close]

I am as confused as you are. I was referring to the title of this thread. I think what people are calling a no comply walle, is just a wallie.

foot placement and bashing the back wheels also has people a tad confused.

now i'm even more confused. i would have understood, if you had said "a no comply wallie is just a no comply", but "a no comply wallie is just a wallie" – i don't get that.

[Frank and Fred]

Sorry. I meant "is just a no comply" haha.... 

fuck this discussion. i suck. time to go skate.

[yghartsyrt]

hahah. Enjoy.