I just linked (\merged) 7 ball splits to
7b-[43]
7b-([66x],2)*
The merged records are now to be found under 7b splits.
[I actually right-clicked in the merge-dialogue-window, which already did merge to ([66x],2)* .. so I merged again to have them under splits ( - else I'd have discussed or asked which writing to prefer) .. hope, it's okey]
.. ["to be found under 7b splits" .. ] using record search, or under 7 ball [43] in the "Records section statistics" --> balls --> 7 .
Btw [87][22]2 is same too (but that seems to have been linked already).
Seems fine to me.
I'm also enjoying the fact that you think I might need help searching for records on the Edge!
Brook Roberts - - Parent #
Note [43] is a bit different, as it implies that you are doing squeeze catches!
Do you imply, they therefor shouldn't be linked together?
I was - btw - referring to this: https://www.jugglingedge.com/forum.php?ThreadID=2088&SmallID=14886#Small14886 ( [#n ball] "horizontal split multiplex", lukeburrage).
I also believe, some slight differences in many siteswaps can hardly be described by siteswap-notation only, like `galloping´, slight delays, different dwell-times for different throws, squeeze catches(?), .. so siteswap hardly ever describes an actual juggling act wholly exactly.
I'm also not sure, that [43] couldn't be done without squeeze catches - i e.g. spread them by different lever (but I don't know what exactly a "squeeze catch" is).
If you do [43] with precise timing then 2 objects will be landing in the same hand at the same time. That's a squeeze catch. [43] is therefore significantly harder than ([6,6x],2)*.
Very instructive! .. but I doubt people logging their records will make that difference. And I also doubt, that even skilled jugglers doing e.g. the [43]-splits will not have a slight delay between the double-caught props. Which would make the juggled splits sort'a hybrid in matters of writing them down.
If someone logged a record for [43] with a delay between the catches then I wouldn't accept it. It's certainly possible to do it with proper squeeze catches. If we allow people to submit a record by doing it incorrectly then it devalues the efforts of the people who are doing it correctly.
Maybe we have to distinguish between very high level juggling records and world record level versus users logging their practise efforts and successes here on the Edge. I think it would be hard to apply your very high standards ( \ demands on records' valuability ) on users just sharing and comparing their levels by logging here.
.. and for those who care, commenting their records offers the opportunity to precise their record's details. (Even without video evidence)
Brook Roberts - - Parent #
I think that's mostly because [43] is very hard. I don't think people should put records up for db97531 under the siteswap 'db' and say it's obvious that the person didn't mean db because it's obvious that they weren't actually doing db!
If you aren't catching the 4 and 3 at the same time it's kind of like writing (4,4) for 4 ball async fountain - yes, you will never get it perfectly on time, but if you're not very very close then it's a different trick!
Mike Moore - - Parent #
But then, when people say they're doing the pattern [33] or [55], they practically never mean with a squeeze catch.
Cedric Lackpot - - Parent #
> I also believe, some slight differences in many siteswaps can hardly be described by siteswap-notation only
That's because siteswap is neither intended for nor suited to describing some of the finer points of a pattern.
Siteswap theory was never meant to describe all aspects of a pattern, although it is a widely held misconception that it does. For instance some people might interminably argue that 333 is a cascade, whereas 522 is a slower and bigger cascade, and 900 is a *really* high cascade, when in fact all three expressions are functionally indistinguishable within the terms of SS.
At its simplest it describes order of events, period. As such, it does a bloody good job of describing exactly what it intends to, and nothing more; it takes meddling jugglers to start to overload it with all manner of unintended nuances of meaning.
Little Paul - - Parent #
I would argue that 333, 522 and 900 *are* distinguishable (although they share common characteristics) in that with an event happening on every beat the first "every beat is a throw", the second "1 throw, two hold beats" and the third is "1 throw, two empty hand beats"
I don't really buy the argument that "they're the same pattern with different timeslice resolutions" because as you say, siteswap says nothing about timing, only order.
522 for example gives you the opportunity to do something with those twos (so many "active two" options) which aren't possible to accommodate within the 333 throw order.
900 gives you the opportunity to do something with your empty hands (eg snap your fingers) which it's not possible to accommodate within the 333 or 522 orders.
So while I agree wholeheartedly with your intentions, I think you picked a poor example to illustrate it with :)
Brook Roberts - - Parent #
I don't think anyone normally claims mills' mess isn't siteswap 333, but I'm accomodating quite a lot of movement there!
I would treat them as the same unless you are actually activating them. OTOH, that might not actually be any different whatsoever to what you are saying.
Subscribe to this forum via RSS
1 article per branch
1 article per post