Alright, look at this website and read the first sentence: https://www.koblikov.com/index.php/resume
If your to lazy to look at the site then this is what koblikov claims: "Alexander Koblikov is currently considered the best juggler in the world." This is a really bold claim!!! I mean, could I say that on my website???? "Ethan Brain is currently considered the best juggler in the world!"?????
It surprised me because I didn't know koblikov was so full of it......."sigh" first it was Gatto, then Garfield, and now Koblikov...........It's weird, it's like all the good jugglers are really egotistical and full of it......hmmmm, I might do a study on it. Give me a week and I'll have a 50 page paper on the subject. No joke.
Stephen Meschke - - Parent #
The source is obviously a non-juggler. Further down on the page:"Phenomenal technique ... poetic and stylish ... simply the best juggler in the world"
(The Times)
It's helpful to look at this from the perspective of a non-juggler. An uneducated non-juggler may think that there could be a 'best' juggler in the world. While, jugglers know that due to the diversity of juggling, there can never be a 'best' juggler. Most jugglers would agree that Koblikov is the best multiplex-numbers juggler in the world, the probably isn't a majority agreement that he, or anyone else, is the best ball juggler. The skill is too diverse and multifaceted to have a best.
Gatto will always be exceptional in the juggling world because in his prime, he was almost unanimously considered the best juggler by other jugglers. Since then juggling has grown, and now it's only possible to be the best at a given style or aspect of juggling.
JackJuggles - - Parent #
On Gattos channel I remember him posting a video about his daily practice routine(I'm too lazy to get the link).
I noticed that he didn't drop much in his practice, he focused on perfecting the basics instead of spending a long time trying to get a new trick. Do you think it's possible that not dripping in your practice, no matter the difficulty, could affect your ego?
I remember Gatto saying on his forum once that he sees things in slow motion compared to other people. I think he literally believes that he has some kind of juggling super power. This attitude is probably what made him so good and the reason why so many top jugglers (and top sports stars in general) have a big ego. They simply wouldn't be able to reach that level of skill without extreme confidence in their potential.
Daniel Simu - - Parent #
Nice theory, but haven't we all met a lot of humble superstars as well? Maybe they are not at the actual top, but definitely close to the top! Do you consider yourself to have a big ego/extreme confidence in your potential? (I consider you to be a juggling star)
I don't know if Alexander truly believes the statement on his website, but if I were him I'd put exactly the same out there. For marketing to non-jugglers I'd feel very comfortable to repeat the (too)high claims of newspaper.
I do have extreme confidence in my potential because I believe that everything comes down to training and not genetics. By this logic everyone else has the same potential and so I don't consider myself to have any greater potential than anyone else. Some jugglers think this way, while others (maybe Gatto) believe that they have some kind of natural or God given advantage over others. Either way helps to promote confidence. Maybe the second way is stronger psychologically but is too illogical for me to believe in.
Thanks for your praise by the way - that will help my ego for training this evening.
That's an admirably egalitarian attitude, but I don't think it's accurate to say that genetics plays no part.
Some people definitely have a genetic advantage over others for a particular skill - eg. shorter people tend to learn tumbling more readily than taller people. That's not to say tall people can't learn it, but it usually takes them more effort/time to achieve the same standard.
Many high-level skill training institutions (eg. The Royal Ballet) screen/select based on body attributes (ie. genetics). Chinese acrobatic troupes assign acts to trainees based on their physical characteristics - if you don't like the act you're assigned to... tough luck!
I would expect that in juggling, a genetic predisposition to agility would be more valuable than strength - it's just a guess however, I don't have any evidence to back it up. In fact, now I'm thinking about it, juggling requires more hours of maintenance than most other circus skills, so some level of obsession has to be an advantage - perhaps that's the true intersection of training and genetics...
You talk about agility, strength and obsession like they're things you're born with. They can all come from previous experience, which includes training. Genetics can have some effect but as you said, training can overcome any disadvantage. There's quite a lot of flexibility in juggling for different techniques (e.g. high and slow vs low and fast) and so I think genetics has even less relevance. Take Alex Barron and myself for example. We have very different genetic body types but are the only people to have flashed 13 balls.
Ballet is a bit different because it's highly aesthetic, which I'm not bothered about much with my juggling. However, I think that even a ballet dancer's physical characteristics could change with training if it were required.
Cedric Lackpot - - Parent #
Could Danny de Vito train himself to be tall enough to play basketball? Could a male gymnast seeking to improve his splits train himself to be a woman so that he could enjoy the extra pelvic span and flexibility that bestows? Can an amputee paralympian train their limbs back?
Some aspects of human genetic disposition are plainly and inviolably expressed. I take your points about training but that simply isn't the whole story, genetics matters, sometimes unavoidably so.
Contact sports are a bit different to juggling, but I do think that Danny de Vito could have become a basketball player. Not all of them are tall. Being a different gender isn't really the kind of genetics I was talking about but I do believe that men and women can train to be as good at most things. Being an amputee isn't genetic but I see your point. Of course if you take it to the extremes then genetics has some influence, but not much in my opinion, especially for juggling.
Brook Roberts - - Parent #
I'm all for believing that a lot of stuff is down to practise and learning, and certainly in juggling you don't need particular advantages as much as other things. Worth noting though that juggling isn't as competitive/high level as quite a lot of sports.
Also - https://www.forbes.com/sites/dandiamond/2013/06/27/nba-draft-is-being-7-feet-tall-the-fastest-way-to-get-rich-in-america/
Brook Roberts - - Parent #
Also, with regards to basketball, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_shortest_players_in_National_Basketball_Association_history lists all players who have been 5ft 9 or less in the NBA. Given that 5ft 10 is apparently the US male average, the number of players who are below average height who have ever played in the NBA is less than two squads. I can't believe this doesn't show a huge genetic advantage, and even more so when you realise that all but one of those played the same position.
One of the things I like about juggling is, in fact, that this sort of factor is far less pronounced.
I suspect height is a big advantage in combat.
I feel like you're missing out on a couple of other explanations here. I am of the opinion that small differences when you're young make a much bigger difference as you grow up. Similar to Malcolm Gladwell's example in Outliers of hockey players being born in earlier months.
Those who are naturally taller are more likely to be able to play decently *without* any training (it's fairly obviously easier to shoot without practise if you're taller). Having a slight advantage, especially at a young age, makes people far more likely to consider it as a hobby or career. As with the hockey example, the small difference at the start is increased as they practise more/join a club/get more special training and are more motivated to continue. I'm not convinced that a shorter person (even significantly shorter) couldn't become equally useful in a team, sure they might need more training focused on accurate shooting but they would likely also have an easier time at other areas (weaving throughout other players, for example).
It's also almost certainly exacerbated by societal influences too, I've on multiple times heard tall friends asked if they play basketball and I suspect shorter people playing basketball would have definitely faced significantly more dissuasion to continue, coupled with the fact that many may feel intimidated being significantly shorter than everyone else on the court (though I don't have even anecdotal evidence for the last two, I'm fairly confident that they would have some influence).
In general my feeling is that in absence of a major physical disability, a few years' training can overcome pretty much every genetic difference (I remember a redit AMA by a circus performer saying something to this effect too, I think he said one year though). I also think height has less of a difference in combat than you think. I'm consistently able to beat those taller than me if I've had more experience. Even if we're about the same level, it's just a matter of you can't do the whole obvious throw-one-club-really-high-and-do-stuff-tactic and have to think/plan a bit more.
I'm not saying that height has no impact, I'm just saying that the vast majority of it is psychological.
JackJuggles - - Parent #
Muggsy Bogues who used to play in the NBA was 5'5. Height does not have the advantage in basketball most people think it does. Danny de Vito could have played basketball
JackJuggles - - Parent #
I'm 99.99% sure I have bad genetics though:(
pumpkineater23 - - Parent #
Training only goes so far I think. I read in an article a few months back that extreme intelligence and creativity is more about genetics.. according to the head of Mensa.
Well Mensa would say that. Intelligence is down to training as well in my opinion. You're only intelligent in the mental activities that you've trained. If some people appear to be intelligent at many things then it's only because they've learnt that intelligence is only down to training and so have not been put off learning new things (growth mindset vs fixed mindset).
Daniel Simu - - Parent #
I am all up for the growth mindset. But that does not include ignoring the influence of our genetics.
Why would the head Mensa say that? According to your theory, his believe would probably lead to less intelligence for him and his followers, rather than motivate people to train harder...
If cognitive disabilities are a thing (which I believe they are), why would cognitive abilities not be one?
Anyway, I realise we've had this discussion before at the edge, it seems our believes haven't changed since then ;)
Little Paul - - Parent #
It's in mensa's interest to maintain an air of exclusivity as their entire business model is built on persuading people that they are special and unique
Exactly what LP said regarding Mensa.
I'm willing to accept the possibility that some people may be genetically predisposed for higher intelligence to some small degree, but I would think it would only give them a small head start, which others could make up for by training. Of course it will be psychologically harder for them to catch up because they will probably believe they have a permanent disadvantage, which is why it's not often observed.
My personal experience is that I was pretty much remedial at almost all subjects at school until I was about 14. At that point I began to become interested in programming and building things at home. This lead to me improving greatly in maths and science at school and ultimately to me becoming an engineer. Funnily enough though, it had no effect on the other subjects such as foreign languages, which I never improved at (something I'm only now trying to compensate for).
Daniel Simu - - Parent #
Yep, that makes sense :)
Daniel Simu - - Parent #
Ah, I wanted to add:
Like you, I also base my believes on personal experience.
I was pretty much excellent at all subjects at school, until I was about 14. My parents are both intelligent people, though I don't believe they have trained me in any way. They were too busy managing their own lives at the time. School did not teach me either, school has always bored the shit out of me. People who did not perform well got extra attention and help. I received praise, but no extra stimulation.. I never had to learn, practise, do my homework, ended up being allowed to come less hours to school when I was around 10 and spent that extra time talking about video games and attending social training.
My primary school class consisted mostly of children of immigrants, and was located in a disadvantaged neighborhood. Also I was among the younger people in my class. All those 3 things should give me a statistically smaller chance to perform well...
Still my IQ tests scored very high!
So, my believe is that this is mostly genetics, since I can't imagine what advantage I have in stimuli and training over others...
At age 14 I dropped out of school, I believe mostly because the lack of stimuli terribly ruined my curiosity. :(
Mike Moore - - Parent #
What do you think about on the other side of the distribution? That some people may be genetically predisposed for lower intelligence? I've met people that, no matter how hard they try (it seems) they struggle to learn certain things. I'd considered it largely a genetic difference.
Then, to me, it seems like intelligence would be about Gaussian. I have no reason to think that way (I know how IQ is defined, but am not completely convinced with it) but it seems that, without information telling me otherwise, it makes sense.
Unless they have some actual mental disability I think that it's mostly down to mindset. If people consider you to have lower intelligence then you'll believe that yourself and not make the effort to learn new things. People will also not challenge you as they would others.
They may think they're trying and spend a lot of time working on something, but will get nowhere without confidence that they will succeed. Many people can also get stuck in an ineffective training strategy and are unwilling to change.
Mike Moore - - Parent #
Hmm, I don't think I see mental disability that discretely, more as a spectrum. Well, at least for some disabilities.
I had a particular person in mind with my last post. I don't think she has an inefficient training strategy, and, at least in the classroom, she was challenged about as much as a typical student. If it's not genetics, I imagine it must've been due to earlier childhood experiences.
pumpkineater23 - - Parent #
I remember you saying this before - brains are the same and it just down to mindset, I'm still not sure I agree with that theory. Aren't there different kinds of intelligence? Surely it's not just about learning ability, (although I think genetics also has a part in this), it's also what people do with the things they've learned. The article was about child geniuses, head of Mensa said 40% nurture 60% nature.. or perhaps the other way round. This is what most people would say I think, myself included.
JackJuggles - - Parent #
I guess someone with bad genetics could overcome anything with training, although I have some sort of problem called hypotonia and I barely have any muscle memory, which is the key to juggling, which cause me to get 5 balls for 100 catches almost 4 years after I started juggling
I also seem to see things in slow motion compared to other people and I am sure I am not a juggling super power. I suspect most edgers gather visual information at a faster rate than the general population and can see several "frames" of the incoming object in a situation where the non-juggler might not even see one. It comes with practice and it brings with it changes in the brain, an expanded visual cortex. Gatto had more practice than most and at an early age when the brain is more moldable.
It's possible that this could be trained, but how could you possibly know that you're seeing things in slow motion compared to others?
I guess I should restrict my claim to seeing objects moving in the air in my vicinity and some times noticing the experience is reminiscent of watching a slow motion video. I remember a time before I had this kind of experience and I see children that behave as if they are not seeing the details of the flight path that are obvious to me. Of course there is no way to know exactly what other people are experiencing.
The training idea comes from the first before and after MRI study showing changes in the brains of people who were trained (to juggle), compared to sex and age matched controls.
I'm no expert, but how we measure the passing of time may be directly related to the amount of activation in our brain. As someone improves at juggling they will be getting greater activation in their brain as they take note of things that they weren't previously aware of, which may give the impression that time is passing slower.
Little Paul - - Parent #
Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so
I've seen things in slow motion once - when I rolled my car. The cliche of everything going into slo-mo was absolutely true. It was a very interesting experience, but not sufficiently interesting to want to repeat ;)
DawnDreams - - Parent #
I have had some slow motion experiences when I have been training a lot. It's something that can happen when you're in deep, not a super-human experience, but more of a meditative experience.
Subscribe to this forum via RSS
1 article per branch
1 article per post