Jeffy Gabrick tryin to lay down that front blunt pretzel on the quad kink. Â And in return? Â The phone number of a minor. Â Brought to you by Trollhaugen.com
Justin Parkhurst likes hats.
Email this author | All posts by Justin Parkhurst
Bold move by calling ending it on that
can’t count that
You try it ^
Thats my fav song
alitttttllllle early just sayin
that’s probably the ugliest trick in snowboarding.
thats probably the worst bet you cant yet
thats a double kink…right?
fuck all you guys this is sick
thats like the hardest trick… on a hard ass rail, go try that before you judge this one…
This is a f–k–g hard trick on any rail.
id love to see someone else go full blunt to pretzle like that. hardest trick ever
could of used one more try
Bet you can’t….. come off a little early. Wait, you did.
There is only one rider that truly has those type of tricks on lock: Forest Bailey. Check his Too part. I bought the DVD, but I am sure Transworld snatched already givin’ (no pun intended) that Bailey is filming for their new video.
youre drunk or high or something ^ ^ so am i though
I saw the description , i just came for the blunts and some salty pretzels
Rather than speculate via quick opinion, let’s take a scientific approach.
Did he, or didn’t he, complete the trick?
When one is challenged to this type of trick on a rail of this fashion, upon riding through each of the transitions there are 3 possible exit strategies. (4 if you count bailing like a dandy.)
1. Exit stage left. 2. Exit stage right. 3. Drop front stage.
Pausing at :55 we can see the rider has made it through each kink – successfully navigating the challenge though each kink & flat transition, and is – based on angle of the landing, personal preference, and snow conditions – making the judgement to exit right. These conditions can only be determined by first-hand knowledge. Thus, from a scientific perspective I would propose that the rider did complete the trick through the kink, and his exit. Could he have waited a moment longer? Perhaps, however I think that’s a tough judgement to make without first-hand knowledge of the rail and based on the conclusion above I don’t believe it’s necessary.
To the issue of whether this is a Double, Triple, or Quad kink rail. Pausing at :35 gives you a great perspective on the rail.
2 panels – Kink – 1 panel – Kink – 2 panels – Kink – 1 panel – Kink – 2 panels
It would seem that 4 kinks in the rail would make it a Quad. Depth of field on the fluid shot gives an illusion of a straight rail in a couple of areas, however looking up at the rail from :35 gives you a direct view of individual kinks.
In conclusion, my scientific evaluation has determined that the rider successfully navigated the trick, and thus “Can”. Conclusions to the contrary are of course acceptable, however if you are unable to perform said trick, you may have come to an erroneous judgement about what qualifies as a successful conclusion. Thank you for your time.
a down flat down is 1 kink!!!!!!! so this is only two….and im probly a way better rider than most of u
People are really dumb, this was dope, Jeffy is a G, the front blunt pretzel is a rare trick that doesn’t get thrown on such gnarly rails as that one, whatever number of kinks it is
I revoke my statement per Mr Wizard’s study.
when did sam bakken get sponsored by jordan?
when i became the rawest ninja in the game and i ripped the head off a crow on camera…. and drank the blood off camera
People (let alone snowboarders) really don’t understand what a kink is? A down-flat has one kink. Now go from there all y’all gaping fools.
yup. i did come off early. mother fucker.
math is for gayfers
^ not jeffy ^
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>