Talk:Ollie (skateboarding)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Skateboarding (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skateboarding, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Skateboarding on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

What is an Ollie?[edit]

I came to find out what is an Ollie? The opening paragraph should say what it is, instead of all the other stuff that the opening paragraph currently says. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I second that! Looked it up, only to find that this article bizarrely never states what an ollie is, except that it is a skateboarding trick. I knew that much already! Also, reference is made to a "switch ollie", and the word "switch" links to Footedness. If the link is relevant, you'd never know it - there is no attempt to explain what a switch ollie is either. leevclarke (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I also agree.. Article jumps into jargon mode and never explains clearly what is a ollie.. for us stupid people Camille Lambert (talk) 12:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree also! What is it?!? I have no idea and the article does not state in anyway what it is. Nick Beeson (talk) 03:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


I just removed: "As the tail hits the ground it rebounds bringing the board completely airborne." The tail rebounding off the ground has little to do with lifting the board. People can ollie without their tails hitting the ground at all.

Unfortunately, I have no evidence for this claim, other than my own personal experience and knowledge of physics. Pingswept 23:09, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you should also delete everything else from Wikipedia that you don't understand. Tp 10:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia always this friendly? I didn't say I didn't understand it. I said I had no evidence. See my comment below. Pingswept 23:14, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Let me rephrase: Maybe you should also delete everything else from Wikipedia for which you have no evidence. Tp 07:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi Tp,
It's my understanding that Wikipedia has a policy against original research. That makes me think that deleting claims for which no source is cited (like the one we're discussing) would be a good idea. Are you opposing the "no original research" policy, or what? Pingswept 14:08, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It is true that you can get airborne using a technique similar to ollie but without your tail hitting the ground, but that is the not an ollie. I do not know the name of that trick, but I have heard people call it "ballerina hop". Verifying the efect of the tail rebound is very easy. You can do it with your own skateboard. Tp 11:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi Tp,
I noticed you reverted the edit I mentioned above. Do you have some source to back up your claim that the tail is rebounding off the ground?
I'm not claiming that the tail doesn't hit the ground, just that, since people can ollie without the tail hitting the ground, it can't be an essential part of the manuever. Pingswept 23:14, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You made the first edit (the one I reverted), so you have the burden of providing evidence (that the tail of a skateboard does not rebound off the ground during an ollie). If you own a skateboard you can easily try it an verify what the article says. And let me repeat: if the tail does not hiut the ground, then it is not an ollie. The subject of this article is ollie. Tp 07:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's true that your tail *usually* hits the ground when you ollie, but it's not always the case. Especially with nollies and fakie ollies, you can do the trick without your tail hitting the ground. On vert, it's even more common.
The burden on proof is not on me-- there are no sources cited in the article. I'd be happy with the article if it just didn't describe the tail as regularly hitting the ground. How about something like, "Usually, the tail hits the ground, and the board is brought completely airborne." Pingswept 14:08, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Verifying this claim yourself with a skateboard is original research. Skateboard Science (external link from the article), on the other hand, seems to confirm it (as much as a single webpage can be said to confirm anything). Still, if it's possible to perform an ollie-like trick (note that it doesn't matter what is called what, since we're talking physics) without the tail hitting the ground (which you both seem to agree on), I believe we need more evidence. If that aspect is not required for getting the board airborne (regardless of whether it's required for it to be called ollie, which I don't care about) the statement should be rewritten. EldKatt (Talk) 15:07, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
So is taking existing knowledge and applying it to a new subject (ie. "I have no evidence for this claim, other than my own personal experience and knowledge of physics."). I request that you do original research for yourself, not wikipedia. Right now you are using the "no original research" policy as an excuse for being ignorant. Also, this article is not about physics. It is about how a skateboarding trick called Ollie is defined. Tp 13:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
To respond first to your first sentence, the difference is that Pingswept is arguing against having the claim in the article. My point: You don't need evidence in order to not mention something in an article. If you write something in an article, you have to be able to back it up with solid evidence, but if you remove something all you need is a reason to doubt it. Lack of verifiability is sometimes reason enough to remove something, without having to rely on personal knowledge of the specific area.
"[...] as the tail hits the ground it rebounds bringing the board completely airborne." The way I interpret it, this is a claim that it is the tail hitting the ground that brings the board airborne, which is a question of physics. All I'm propagating is that we shouldn't claim that without a source.
By the way, while I can't deny that I am indeed somewhat ignorant in this field, as you so politely pointed out, I can't see how this affects my ability to refer to the no original research policy, or indeed anything at all.
Looking at this objectively, though, this discussion is far too long bearing in mind that we're just talking about shifting a few words around. This leads me the conclusion that we are to some extent discussing things that don't need discussion here. EldKatt (Talk) 15:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I have proven it myself on many occasions, but haven't got any way to prove it. So I will record a video tonight and put it up on a site like PutFile or Photobucket and have the article link to it, so as to end this once and for all. (PowerGamer6 19:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC))
PowerGamer6, that is original research (unacceptable as a source on wikipedia). heqs 10:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ollie without the pop is possible, if the definition of pop is that the tail has to hit the ground. It is based on lifting the nose a bit, then using the friction between the grip tape and the front foot to throw the board into the air. This way doesn't give you a very high ollie, but certainly is enought to jump small gaps. Also, there is nothing that points that this technique isn't an ollie; it just emphasizes different phazes of the move. The other way around you could ollie without using the front foot very much, which woul propel the nose high into the air going vertical, but leaving the tail only inches from the ground. A slight variation would be to now kick the middle /front of the board with your back foot, which would turn the trick into a no comply. Anyway, my conclusion is that you can ollie without touching the ground with the tail, but it requires a good grip with the grip tape and the shoe and also only a small gap. -- 00:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Revising physics[edit]

It's a sad state of affairs that five years later this page omits basic facts about the fundamental skateboard trick. Readers get no clue how this trick actually works, or how to perform it. I'm going to resolve, taking the above debate into account, and also these resources:
  1. Rodney Mullen explaining how he invented the Ollie, with repeated mention of the "pop",
  2. Physics explanation,
  3. Every online resource I could find mentions popping the tail to Ollie:
  4. Finally I will mention that a 'pop-less' Ollie is possible, but has different characteristics. --Air (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Thankfully the page wasn't quite as bad as the discussion above, but I've removed the POV and made it clearer what we're explaining. --Air (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


From the article: "Crouching down to grab the board while riding through the transition absorbs momentum and makes the skater slow down"

Maybe I missed too many of my physics seminars while at university, but how does the repositioning of a system in motion, under its own power and perpendicular to the main axis of the system's velocity, serve to slow the system down as a whole? Alvis (talk) 07:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of the transition is to change the direction of the skateboarder from a horizontal vector to a vertical vector, while also turning some of the skater's kinetic energy in to gravitational potential energy. But the skater already has gravitational potential energy when riding through the flat bottom, as his center of mass is several feet above the ground. By crouching down the skater lowers his center of mass and reduces his gravitational potential energy. This in turn reduces the amount of height he can achieve. Opon further thought, that statement in the article isn't totally correct, so I'll change it. But it remains true that crouching down in the transition reduces the height the skater can reach. Shreditor (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


Just removed this from the page:

"The highest ollie ever recorded was measured at 1000 feet and was completed by Hitler."

It sorta tickled me. Chris 21:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)it is true he really did


In this article, and in the articles for the individuals, there are claims that Alan Gelfand and Rodney Mullen invented the "ollie". Does anyone know of any reputable sources for these claims? BlankVerse 09:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Gelfand invented the ollie on a vertical ramp. Mullen adapted this trick to the flat ground. I've edited the article to reflect this Steve-g 20:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The claim that Mullen invented the flat-ground ollie at the age of thirteen in 1982 does not jibe with his own entry, which indicates that he was born in 1966, making him 15 or 16 in 1982. Does his autobiography clarify this? Are there other sources out there to confirm when he actually invented the trick? --otherlleft 13:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just looked through Mullen's book. On page 115 he writes about 'inventing' (his words) the ollie. Thrasher magazines from 1982 also feature Mullen pulling the trick which was first called the 'ollie-prop pop'. It's generally regarded that Mullen was either the first to ollie on the flat, or at least the first to get recognition for pulling the ollie. And he was 16, not 13. Steve-g 06:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


I've removed the variations section from the article as it's full of jargon and useless information such as: "A switch ollie is an ollie in switch". Steve-g 08:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

How do you do it[edit]

When ever I try to do a ollie I never get of the ground. 12:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


12.5 feet is 3.6metres i highly doubt, do they mean 1.25metres? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 07:56, 20 April 2007

There is also a mistake on Danny's record, it was mesured at 44.5 inches, not 45.5 (this can be checked easily, just google it, or check in mags). And there is a record claimed by Luis Tolentino at 45 inches but far from beeing legit and officialized so I keep Danny's record here. 13 April 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


He doesnt thoroughly explain the full details and processes you have to do to do an ollie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fastcash70 (talkcontribs) 23:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


"Luis Tolentino Ollied a record breaking 45 inches and landed it successfully, it was recorded by Nick Shenker and can be seen on YouTube." I have no idea what the wikipedia standards are for citations, but YouTube? Really? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


Boneless is being redirected here but never mentioned. The only "near match" is "bonned ollie". I expect that "bonned" is the opposite of "boneless" which doesn't make it much clearer :-) -- (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


The opening states "This trick is also a registered trademark." but doesn't give any further information. If it's trademarked, who or what owns it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Date discrepancy[edit]

Still not resolved. In this article, the maneuver is dated to 1978, but in the Alan Gelfand article ( ) it is dated to 1976. The former has citation, but even the cited pages differ. The first (Merriam-Webster dictionary) says the term itself was used in 1979. The second source, mumblemagazine, says the trick came in 1977. Which date is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC)