{"id":2245,"date":"2020-03-01T01:11:08","date_gmt":"2020-03-01T06:11:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/marcosticks.org\/?p=2245"},"modified":"2021-08-09T23:05:34","modified_gmt":"2021-08-10T03:05:34","slug":"under-swing-n-crossedness","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/marcosticks.org\/zh\/under-swing-n-crossedness\/","title":{"rendered":"Out with the Crossed Type, in with the Under Swing"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The state of chopstick research lacked depth, as documented in History of Chopstick Research<\/a>. As recounted in The Art and Science of Chopsticking<\/a>, we have steadily increased our knowledge on how human hands wield chopsticks. For instance, the world now knows that the planetary gear train principle<\/a> enables the Standard Grip<\/a> with power and dexterity. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

With this new article, we attempt to advance chopstick research one more step forward. We will dispel the folly of “crossed type<\/strong>” vs “parallel type<\/strong>” which has dominated both public discussion and academic research to date. This false dichotomy is unable to elucidate the richness of alternative grips<\/a>. It alone cannot explain relationships and differences between dozens of documented alternative grips. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In place of this simplistic crossed vs. parallel argument, we propose a better way to describe two common variants of many alternative grip. Both variants are often called “crossed grips”. But they are very different. One is not “crossed” in a functional sense. And both are more related to the given alternative grip, than they are related to similar variants of other alternative grips.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Table of Contents<\/p>\n