So here we have three recent stabs at the elusive single-photo capture of a backside 360. Years back I was flipping through a California Cheap Skates catalog and came upon a pic of Josh Beagle backside 360ing some smallish gap, and right now I can’t for the life of me remember if there was a caption or not, but I do recall being super confused as to how the trick pictured was a 360 of any shape. Probably this isn’t an issue now, with plentiful footage of backside 360s available around the clock on the internet, but it’s still a hard concept to get across in a still photo. I think the Chris Cole one might be the best. You need some extra lank in the leg to fully communicate the contortion involved.
Tags: 360s, Chris Cole, difficulties, Jim Greco, Moose, over-thinking and over-analyzing, photography
boil the ocean 
November 3, 2009 at 12:21 am |
Yeah it’s definitely one of those tricks that lends itself to a sequence better than a still photo. Sort of like inward heels. Still shots of that trick just make people look like retards.
At least people are doing the hella 90s style back 3s anymore where they one foot the fuck out of it a la Willy Santos. That makes for an even uglier/confusing photo.
November 3, 2009 at 12:49 am |
The TSM cover was a mind fuck for a sec. Cole could be doing a horrible switch ollie. Like, really horrible.
November 3, 2009 at 3:51 am |
‘the 90s way’ of doing backside 360s is the only real way of doing them; it’s all in the back foot, in ONE MOTION. the one foot aspect isn’t integral, but as a side product of proper execution it’s at least perfectly acceptable. most of the ‘clean’ backside 360s of today are backside 180 late 180s, or backisde 90 late 270s. awful.
i think the pull-out frame of gino’s sequence at javits could have been pretty good if framed and intended as a still.
November 3, 2009 at 5:48 am |
Agreed, the mid “back three” image of Cole (disliked by the author, i.e me) clearly demonstrates best the way to capture a back three as a still:
Front foot pointing to, and eyes on the landing; it is clear what this trick is.
November 3, 2009 at 6:07 am |
Pictures of spins often make more sense if they are taken directly behind or infront of the skater. Not under, or sideways.
November 3, 2009 at 8:27 am |
the deathwish ad looks like a great photo of a fs 360.
November 3, 2009 at 10:46 am |
Pat T, I disagree with you. There’s no way you could call any of the 360s pictured above (or almost any back 3s people do down things nowadays) a backside 180 late 180. There’s nothing late about it, it’s one fluid motion. Sure when you see people do them on flat often they will land and pivot, I could see that. But not down big stuff. It wouldn’t work.
Also I grew up skating in the mid 90s, weened on early 90s footage, so I am very aware of the 90s back 360 and that it was acceptable for your front foot to come off. But I think it looks like turd. I didn’t like it then and I still don’t.
November 3, 2009 at 1:38 pm |
ccs isnt california cheap skates. i dont know why i care or bother cus thats actually a better name but ccs stands for central coast surf. its a surf shop in san louis obispo and has a very small skate section and just runs 90% or its skat stuff through mailorder.
November 3, 2009 at 1:54 pm |
a good amount – on flat or launched – are NOT one fluid motion: it’s an initial rotation, a split-second pause, and then the dreaded pretzel motion to finish it off. it makes all of the difference. it’s what makes the backside 360 ollie a thing of beauty, and separates it from, say, a 270 done out of a backside lipslide on a skatepark flatbar .
November 3, 2009 at 2:58 pm |
Funny as I have thought the same thing about the 360. Shooting skate photos as a hobby, I’ve found several other tricks that don’t work as single frames either.
November 3, 2009 at 4:09 pm |
Giving credit where it’s due, even back in the 90s, Danny Way and Shiloh both managed to keep the foot on the board. Made all the difference.
November 3, 2009 at 6:57 pm |
^ the front foot, that is
November 3, 2009 at 7:56 pm |
that josh beagle 360 was a front 3. didn’t heath kirchart shoot the photo?
November 4, 2009 at 1:18 am |
I picked up that Skateboard Mag this weekend and wondered what I was looking at as well (looks ill, though). When I first saw the Moose ad I thought maybe he was catching something switch (a pop shuvit, maybe?). Definitely a weird trick for photos, I kept re-reading the Greco sequence to make my brain grasp it.
As for 90’s back 360’s, they still look fucking great when Carroll does ’em with the front foot leaving the board.
November 4, 2009 at 10:56 am |
there was a still photo of Nick Trapasso doing a back 3 in a skateboard mag i think. shot from the bottom of the stairs at about 270.
all ways thought it was a sick way to shoot that trick
November 4, 2009 at 12:50 pm |
I’ve always liked any one-footed ollies. The 360 kind especially, they look harder to land. Who’s gonna dis Hensley’s? And Hirata especially had some beauts in his Powell breakout part.
November 4, 2009 at 2:34 pm |
Fowler also has a mean bs 360
Gino’s are top notch as well
foot on or foot off, if you can get it around, then kudos
November 5, 2009 at 7:03 am |
I was thinking the same thing when I saw the Moose ad. What the heck am I looking at? it took a minute to picture what direction he was rotating from.
Anther trick that doesn’t photograph well is front pop shuvs
November 5, 2009 at 3:23 pm |
Am I the only person that thinks the cover looks like Jim Greco is ollieing straight out of a Tony Hawk game?
November 5, 2009 at 6:30 pm |
Marc Johnson had a still photo in Thrasher years back of a kickflip backside 360 on that yellow bank which I think is in Australia. The thing he did the hardflip and double flip on in Yeah Right. The caption of that photo echoed the same idea that this post does, yet went on to mention that due to Marc’s body posture you could tell it was a 360. It was a good photo, that’s why it stuck out in my memory.