ONO, I have a Louie Ferreira 6’2"x20 1/2"x2.5 fun big squash thruster fcs (fixed cracks) with big/wide nose super fast wave catcher, but the nose would catch on frontside cutbacks, my no.1 reason I start making my fishes again after 30yrs always loved them, Made the nose like the board on the left instead of a longboard nose.
Got some blanks today, have several guys wanting a fish, diamond/lighthouse crew diehards, a great board for them surfing around all the kooks at the cliffs. pease out G.
LeeDD, and others
Thanks for the feedback…
Man people really love the fish. Most likely will shape both at some point.
The waves these guppies will fly in would be anythng from 2-3 foot summer mush to 4-6 foot top to bottom, near closeouts.
On the old skool at 6’ would you go even wider than 20"?? 21" or even 22"? Rider is about 5’9 160ish and is very good on an HP thruster, but i sense that he is looking to add some more soul to his surfing…
Adobe Illustrator, created these, and all my templates.
Thanks again
Drew
fish?
there’s flounders,sun fish.yellow fin tuna,blue fin tuna, salmon, and steel head trout.
theres smelt and perch and manini.
the Moorish Idol is really cool,good for shower curtains.
dont forget the humuhumunukunukuapuaa
but most important is the Noble Shark is not a fish and the only one with a rideable nose planshape except for them pointy nose sharks
…ambrose… any of these noble evolved organisms can be elevated to homage with a surfboard shape and called a fish,though it can become confusing without specifying order, family, phylum and species.
don’t forge the genus.
Drew
"benny’s take sounds reasonable enough to me…i can’t speak as to fact or fiction, but your logic…well, let’s just say i haven’t heard logic that fallacious since the LSAT. " — Brandon
Then obviously you must have failed the LSAT!
Or perhaps you simply failed to grasp the central concept at play here, so I will reiterate and lay it out in a simple, easy to follow fashion:
The Fish was first designed as a kneeboard,
All (or almost all) kneeboards have their wide point forward of center (and this was true long before the Fish came along),
According to Benny1, Fish are called Fish because their wide point is forward of center, therefore… (drum roll please)
All kneeboards are Fish!
A clearly absurd argument, yet one that is based on Benny1’s logic…
So which is the more ‘logical’ of the two arguments, mine or Benny1’s?
If you still answer Benny1, then perhaps you should ask for a refund of the money you paid to take your LSAT!
However, this is a rather trivial argument and I suppose the only way to settle it would be to contact the man himself, Steve Lis, as I am sure he would know why it was/is called a Fish.
Go 5’6" x 21.75 for 160 lbs. The wide tail, around 16.5, is what makes the fish different than a small wave design tri.
I’ve ridden a 5’6" x 22.5" fish, a little too floaty. I hopped off my 7’9" funboard and onto it, and it was still floaty!
I never like the terminology “fish”.
Instead, I like “swallowtail twin fin, designed for small waves”. Small is just overhead down to as small as you can ride.
alright retroman…time for school…take your seat, cuz class is in session…
Then obviously you must have failed the LSAT!
the LSAT isn’t pass/fail…you get a raw score which is then grouped into a percentile…i did far better than most.
Or perhaps you simply failed to grasp the central concept at play here, so I will reiterate and lay it out in a simple, easy to follow fashion:
The Fish was first designed as a kneeboard,
All (or almost all) kneeboards have their wide point forward of center (and this was true long before the Fish came along),
According to Benny1, Fish are called Fish because their wide point is forward of center, therefore… (drum roll please)
All kneeboards are Fish!
A clearly absurd argument, yet one that is based on Benny1’s logic…
just like you said…simple…easy to follow…and completely fallacious…and therefore, invalid. you reversed benny’s statement to the converse, which does not maintain sound logic. benny stated that the fish was named so because the plan shape with forward WP resembled that of a fish. that’s not to say that all other boards of similar shape must be called “fish” as well…as you so wrongly concluded through the categorical error of composition. furthermore, your entire argument is a hasty generalization. and because i believe that people learn best from their own efforts, i’m going to leave you to look up the underlined words on your own. but if you need any help, feel free to ask.
So which is the more ‘logical’ of the two arguments, mine or Benny1’s?
well, benny’s argument is far more logical, as i’ve just pointed out. much like our legal system, an argument is considered valid until proven otherwise. but please keep in mind that validity and truth are two completely different things. an argument can easily be valid and false, or invalid and true. that’s why valid arguments must be proven false, and invalid arguments (such as yours) are never even considered.
If you still answer Benny1, then perhaps you should ask for a refund of the money you paid to take your LSAT!
nah, i don’t think so…i did pretty well, and i’m happy with the score i received. i did best in the logic games and the logic reasoning sections. i could probably pull my reading comp. up a little, but there’s really no need.
However, this is a rather trivial argument and I suppose the only way to settle it would be to contact the man himself, Steve Lis, as I am sure he would know why it was/is called a Fish.
kokua provided us with steve’s email address a couple weeks ago…if you want the truth, it’s best to go right to the source…send him an email and ask…and then, when you present your finding, make your best effort to do so with a valid structure…otherwise, the email you got back from steve won’t be worth the paper it’s written on.
Wow! All those big fancy words and terms you used. I mean, you like passed the LSAT and all, and it wasn’t even pass or fail, how impressive! (But do work on that reading comprehension score, will you please?)
But then, what chance could I possibly stand against a great big BRAIN like yours, Soulstice? I’m so intimidated (NOT)!.
Alas! Poor little me! All I have to argue back with are a few simple college courses in logic. Oh, and that Master’s Degree in Anthropology (which everyone always told me would be of no use whatsoever…what little they knew!).
Anyway let’s just cut to the chase, shall we? I will email Lis and ask for an answer. And whatever the answer is I will post it here for all to see.
i’ve got one more to add to your list of fallacies to look up…“attacking the person”…it falls under the category of “changing the subject”. you’re welcome.
By that, don’t you mean to say “ad hominem”?
Of course, this argument is becoming “ad infinitum” real fast and causing me “ad nauseum”!
for the traditional fish id go something like 22" to 23" wide. thinner all around. regular shorboard rails or down the whole way around. concave(s). either twin or quad fins.
it will be alot easier for him to transition to a fish like above then a tradional round railed keel finned one.
i would have gone with the latin, but i feel it’s rude to speak in a foreign language in a primarily english-speaking forum. i wonder, does babel fish translate latin? anyhow, yes…“ad hominem” is the latin name for the fallacy of attacking the person…i’m very proud of you…and i’m glad to see that you looked up your definitions. and you even did some bonus words! unfortunately, you got them both wrong…so you won’t get any extra points. however, for future reference, the fallacy of an ad infinitum argument makes an incorrect assumption that you won a never-ending argument simply because the other person stopped arguing. you said nothing to rebut my critique of your argument, nor have you ever made a single logical argument in the first place. as such, ad infinitum simply cannot describe this case. furthermore, ad infinitum and ad nauseum are essentially synonymous…ad infinitum follows from ad nauseum (which also doesn’t apply here, because no one has been repetitive)…must you be so redundant?
The one on the left isn’t a fish. Its a swallowtail shortboard. Fish were fist called fish not because of the tail shape or the nose width or the fins (keels) or the rocker, but precisely because the wide point is forward of center like the shape on the right.
“Fishform” boats & kayaks have been built for hundreds of years.
Actually as a design element all short boards from the 60’s-70’s all had their wide point front of center.
There were some short lived deviations, one of which might have been the ‘pig’ early 70’s.
But a fish wasnt termed a fish because of a wide pt designation back then, else all boards of the late
60’s and through the 70’s would have been fishies.
must we go through this all over again??..ugh, i give up…retroman, now it’s an example of argumentum ad nauseum resulting in argumentum ad infinitum. so i guess i’ll give you those bonus points under the assumption that you’re clairvoyant and were in fact predicting the future.
The one on the left isn’t a fish. Its a swallowtail shortboard. Fish were fist called fish not because of the tail shape or the nose width or the fins (keels) or the rocker, but precisely because the wide point is forward of center like the shape on the right.
“Fishform” boats & kayaks have been built for hundreds of years.
However, the argument of wide pt. forward essentially serves as a good basis between delineating
between a swallow tail and a fish fairly well at one level, if we get away from the exact cut of the tail.
After all if you took the board on the right and made the cut more swallow, with inner edges straight,
it would still be a fish, and would ride exactly like a fish.
As to these arguments about semantics, its usually engaged in by psuedo intellectuals over at Surfermag.com.
Please stop cutting the cheese, and start cutting to the heart of an argument.
i think retroman has won this arguement.
i have a feeling that if you ask why a fish is named a fish you will get somehting along the lines of “cause it looks like a fucking fish you dumbshit”
how about the board on the left is not a classic fish but a contemporary fish?
would you tell someone that their mustang is not a real mustang because its not a '67?
now if we must put others down can we please do it on something a bit more substantial then their surfboards? How about morality or intelligence?
I think the new rule in this forum should be that we all have to speak in symbolic logic, that way it will be easier for everyone to get their point across and to point out fallacies.
“ONO, I have a Louie Ferreira 6’2"x20 1/2"x2.5 fun big squash thruster fcs (fixed cracks) with big/wide nose super fast wave catcher, but the nose would catch on frontside cutbacks, my no.1 reason I start making my fishes again after 30yrs always loved them…”
to the ? hawaiian ? who lived in Woomera [man , that must have been hard for you , then …]
you may enjoy THIS …my brother Simon took this shot at the 1978 Burleigh Stubbies contest …[a nice winged swallowtail twin fin ]
Quote:you may enjoy THIS …my brother Simon took this shot at the 1978 Burleigh Stubbies contest …[a nice winged swallowtail twin fin ]
thats a cool board! any info…?
Dane Kealoha twin fin …5’10 x 20 x 2 1/2 …vee…in quite a few movies from the late 1970s.