Threads involving LukasR

^Tom_ - 1/30/2017 20:21 - Parent #

We watched it live on two Arte videostream on Saturday night. It certainly had a couple of moments. I'll let you guess my favourite acts once you've watched it.

The Void - 1/31/2017 00:37 - Parent #

Wanna buy a tee? https://www.capsule39.com/tlmb_vertax.php

Colin E. - 1/31/2017 10:58 - Parent #

I think it was a bit of both - I'm pretty sure this was on the edge of his abilities, but with the 'skit' around having someone come and pick them up being entirely rehearsed. I very much doubt his act is planned to have an exact number of drops. It's part of what keeps the performance fresh.

mtb - 2/2/2017 07:18 - Parent #

Yeah. Although he got a really strong crowd reaction after the first drop, which is why I thought that that one might be planned. And then maybe one more was expected.

Still good going!

mtb - 2/9/2017 14:58 - Parent #

Nice review! I would love to see the other show, do you know if it will be going online?

I watched it again on the weekend, and noticed that the Zhejiang Troupe's finale is even more mental than I thought: The base was actually in a handstand with the antipodist lying on his feet.

Daniel Simu - 2/9/2017 22:56 - Parent #

The other show was not recorded by Arte, so it will not go online as a full show. Probably some artists have recordings of their own, and might decide to release those online in the future.

Sadly I didn't snap a picture of that finale nor did I rewatch the video, but now that you remind me, yes that was the case. I really saw little of that act, much too distracted by the background dancers and trying to make a Dutch joke about it (die 8 dansers vormden de ACHTergrond ;) )

mtb - 2/10/2017 05:40 - Parent #

Ah well. Will keep an eye out.

The background dancers did seem superfluous.

I really enjoyed the whole show though.

Daniel Simu - 2/10/2017 13:42 - Parent #

Oopsy, that error slipped through! Thanks for the correction, this is the only way for me to improve my English :)

Mïark - 1/25/2017 01:43 - Parent #

Sadly I am also missing issue 13 of The Catch. If you spares of issues 5, 6, 19, 21, 22; I would be interested (was 24 the last issue or were there more after that?)
If you have spares and could bring them to Chocfest on Saturday, that would be neat.
Thanks

mike.armstrong - 1/25/2017 07:39 - Parent #

Hi Miark,
I'll bring copies of 5, 6, 19 and 21 on Saturday. There was no Catch 22 (for literary reasons) but there was a 23.5 - have you got that?
Cheers
-Mike

Mïark - 1/25/2017 14:40 - Parent #

Thanks, no I haven't got any .5 issues

mike.armstrong - 1/25/2017 11:12 - Parent #

Watch this space!
https://online.fliphtml5.com/lsvq/djcl/ is a test that might whet your appetite...

Little Paul - 1/25/2017 12:12 - Parent #

Well done for getting started on something which we've talked about doing for over a decade.

Have you had any more thoughts about how to overcome the OCR problems? Last time we talked about it, I think we decided the easiest way to deal with the use-every-font-in-the-box design was to copy type all the articles (ignoring the adverts)

I ask mostly because I have a huge stack of other non-juggling documents which are proving difficult to OCR, and any ideas I can pinch to make them easier to deal with would be appreciated!

mike.armstrong - 1/25/2017 12:19 - Parent #

For the moment I've decided to ignore the OCR problem and just get something scanned and uploaded. Details have derailed this too many times before!

Little Paul - 1/25/2017 12:26 - Parent #

Jolly good!

Mïark - 1/26/2017 03:11 - Parent #

I think the best case scenario would be for the text to be recognised as text not an image of text, which would enable the text to be searched for specific words.

Little Paul - 1/26/2017 07:45 - Parent #

Unfortunately, given the design choices made by the catch the text is very difficult to extract automatically. This is the OCR problem I mentioned.

Feel free to experiment with different tools for doing so, if you find one which works great!

Otherwise, I think mikes approach of "worry about that bit later" is a wise one :)

mtb - 1/26/2017 11:16 - Parent #

Huh. Taking a look at the scanned version from above, they do not look insurmountable if there is good OCR software out there that can do OCR in a column. I have no idea if such things exist, or if I am just being naively optimistic.

But yes, just getting it scanned is an excellent step to be going on with. Well done, that man.

Little Paul - 1/26/2017 11:33 - Parent #

The thing that trips up every OCR approach I've tried so far is that in some issues every article is in a different font, some times multiple fonts in the same paragraph, with odd shaped columns that flow around a breakout quote...

However, if you've got access to OCR tooling that I don't (I've only got free stuff, iPhone apps and a really old version of acrobat), and are willing to try, please do so!

If you can report back with something that works I'd be extremely grateful as I have other documents that have so far evaded my attempts, and would be willing to spend money on the right tooling!

Orinoco - 1/26/2017 12:49 - Parent #

It was a few years ago that I last looked into OCR software I couldn't find anything that was even remotely successful. Correcting dodgy OCR is considerably more time consuming than just typing up the article manually.

I got permission to type up a couple of articles from the Catch for the IJDb: The business of shows by Steve Rawlings & Juggling & Puppetry by the Parachute Theatre Company. Which is a start...

Mike Moore - 1/26/2017 12:57 - Parent #

Back in 2010 I had the job of translating physical paper from Russian to English. I didn't/don't know Russian, and the instructor's advice was to use Microsoft Word's insert->symbol to manually insert each character in this 10 page paper.

Took some doing, but I found a multi-language OCR program (free trial) that must have had an amazing success rate. When I put the file into google translate, I had a fully-English document, with the only mistakes being around specific jargon!

It was that day that OCR impressed me.

Dee - 1/26/2017 17:09 - Parent #

Ditto.

mike.armstrong - 1/26/2017 21:23 - Parent #

Thanks folks, I'll get the basics done and up somewhere and then be I'll be in touch with the wider community about making it better

The Void - 7/13/2016 18:27 - Parent #

It's a well-known concept. Slight tweak to design and rebranding in this instance.
Here's an excellent video from 6 years ago:
http://juggling.tv/4629

Orinoco - 7/13/2016 18:33 - Parent #

I first saw this technique used by Funty on the Crawley renegade stage in 2009 & was suitably impressed at the time, the number of possibilities being performed with this style of string set up has progressed a lot further since then though.

DavidCain - 7/13/2016 20:22 - Parent #

I saw Steven Ragatz use the same concept perhaps 20 years ago.
David Cain

lukeburrage - 8/15/2016 07:40 - Parent #

So we all learned something about the "blah blah seen this before 20 years ago" type response, which, to be honest, I would have posted in this thread except a handful of people already had done it :)

The Void - 8/15/2016 11:15 - Parent #

Ha, yep! Never be afraid to say you're wrong...

Little Paul - 8/15/2016 11:18 - Parent #

damnint! I so wanted you to have put "your"

_{Although realistically, that wasn't going to happen was it.}

The Void - 8/15/2016 11:52 - Parent #

Only if autocorrect had been working against me. If you like, you can pick me up on the lack of a "that" in that sentence though. :-)

Daniel Simu - 7/13/2016 07:24 - Parent #

Hi Lou,

I'm far from an expert, but here are my opinions and beliefs:

Don't change the starting hand. What you're saying makes sense, I myself start left and spin left. I've always recommended this order to others. However, the more I watch people who are actually really good at pirouettes, the more it seems that they start with their favorite hand, even if they have to spin the "wrong" way around!
For example Lauge Benjaminssen spins "wrong". In the time of the AGschool I talked with Gatto about this and he wished for me to switch spinning direction, and absolutely start with my dominant hand. I did not change my spinning direction, as I also need this direction for acrobatic moves.

As for the feet:
Definitely on the toe! By bending (minimally) both the ankle and the knee you can correct your balance mid-spin, which becomes very useful for double or especially triple spins. If you already remove the ankle joint from the range you have to work with the knee and the hip, which breaks the alignment of your upper body.
In general with pirouettes, body tension is key. Lock the second leg to the first after the push off.

Good luck :)

Brook Roberts - 7/13/2016 10:19 - Parent #

Interesting that you've said this. I've always gotten the impression that toe was easier, but heel was faster and potentially better if you were serious about doing lots of spins.

Patrik Elmnert and Ofek Snir both do heel, right? And Patrik has done 1440s at least, and Ofek all the things, and certainly Patrik strikes me as someone who thinks a bit about movement.

Little Paul - 7/13/2016 10:49 - Parent #

I thought it was the other way around, in that heel is easier but toe is more efficient.

Have you tried asking someone who knows a lot about pirouettes in general such as a dancer or ice skater?

Brook Roberts - 7/13/2016 12:02 - Parent #

I asked a bit about it with a dancer when I was learning a long time ago, although it was only a bit to do with technique of spins on the ball of the foot (I'm presuming that's what everyone here means when they are saying toe?!).

I've never been particularly keen doing spins with juggling, although I have started doing them more relatively recently. But I'm pretty sure I'm not keen enough to consider switching technique! (which I might consider if I was going to have serious goes at 720s).

Of course, toe feels easier for me currently because that's what I learnt!

Austin - 7/13/2016 15:00 - Parent #

As for dancers, it's all very well asking them for general technique tips but they don't just go for all out speed, they have to look good. They also tend to do the toe- heel acceleration theing, not just pushing off very hard at the start. I'd say the heel must be faster because the area of contact is smaller. Or rather, your speed lasts longer. And Ofek definitely has the fastest spin :P

mike.armstrong - 7/13/2016 15:44 - Parent #

As for dancers, it's all very well asking them for general technique tips but they don't just go for all out speed, they have to look good.

Jugglers have to look good too. Otherwise what's the point?

Orinoco - 7/13/2016 17:31 - Parent #

Indeed, Anthony Gatto has said that he never bothered with more than one spin because audiences could rarely tell the difference between a single/double/triple etc.

When I was performing a diabolo act as a teenager I used to do a lot of pirouettes in my routine both singles & doubles, but in the end stopped doing doubles because I felt a slow controlled single looked much better than a fast double & the higher risk of stumbling out of a double wasn't worth the risk.

As a wannabe dancer I also recommend spinning on the ball of one foot, bend at the knees to lower your body & keep your core tight for a more controlled spin. Remember slowing down at the end of the spin is just as important as speeding up into the spin.

lukeburrage - 7/13/2016 21:26 - Parent #

I do a double pirouette in my diabolo act. It gets a big reaction because I do a series of single pirouettes before it, and then throw lower and spin way faster. Also, if I'm doing it as part of my theatre show, I tell people what I just did, which always helps people notice a hard trick.

Elsewhere someone said learn pirouettes without juggling. I say learn double pirouettes while throwing a single object. I find it really helps me spot where I should be stopping on the second spin. Without throwing a diabolo up, or any other object, I lose my balance when doing double pirouettes and fall over. While juggling clubs or with a diabolo? Way easier.

Dee - 7/13/2016 21:32 - Parent #

The art of spotting is much different for dancers than for jugglers; therefore Luke's advice on beginning with a single prop rather than practicing without any props. This is because dancers are trained to "spot" on a fixed point (I don't do pirouettes while juggling having trained to do them in ballet) but I'm reliably informed that this is not the done thing while juggling.

mike.armstrong - 7/18/2016 13:39 - Parent #

Maybe we have a different idea of aesthetics for juggling. By "look good" I didn't necessarily mean pointy-toes and graceful movement - but juggling, like dance, is essential a visual art/sport/hobby. It should look as you intend it to look.
If you're not thinking about how it looks then, IMHO, you're doing it wrong. You can make it look grungy and clumsy if you like, but you need to make it look like something!
The start of this thread drew a contrast between juggling and dance. Dancers are not all performers.
Imagine the street dancer who simply wants to nail that next trick.
Imagine the salsa dancer who only goes to the club to chat to her friends at the bar, but has a couple of dances anyway.
Imagine the beginner ballroom who only starts taking classes when they retire.
Imagine the child's ballet class where most will give up before they're out of primary school.
None of them are performers, but they should all care about how they look. Just like the numbers/siteswap juggler, or the tea-drinker at the juggling club, or the struggling beginner at their first convention, or the enthusiastic kid who'll either quit or be doing 7 balls next time you see them.
Performers have a duty to their audience to "look good" by the standards of their stage character, but everyone else should aspire to look good by their own standards, otherwise they may as well not bother.

Mike Moore - 7/18/2016 14:58 - Parent #

Hmm, I'm still not convinced by this. When you say, "everyone else should aspire to look good by their own standards," why do you think that this is truly necessary? Would you say the same thing about a baseball player, practicing their swing? If we think about a context where juggling is being practiced solely as a sport, why shouldn't that numbers/siteswap/technical juggler ignore how they look?

Personally, I think it comes down to who one juggles for. If you're juggling to entertain, enthuse, or potentially even impress, then yes, I agree with you that aesthetics are important to consider. What if you're only juggling for fitness? Or because it feels good? Or because you have an irrational drive to juggle 10 balls? In those situations, I don't see the necessity of considering aesthetics.

In essence, while I understand that for many people, "juggling, like dance, is essential a visual art/sport/hobby," I don't see that as a completely necessary consideration.

Lou Duncan - 7/13/2016 16:13 - Parent #

Thanks man, I'm going to really try to experiment with them and find out which is better for me. I'm going to keep practicing both left and right hand though because I want back to back 5ups, in the distant, distant future:)

James Hennigan - 5/3/2016 20:18 - Parent #

I learned 3 clubs this way, and haven't done much club juggling since.

7b_wizard - 5/4/2016 14:15 - Parent #

Yeh, but for 5c there's the option to do 4c tricks and siteswaps containing high crossing throws first instead. Which, i guess, is the most common way?

7b_wizard - 5/4/2016 14:08 - Parent #

So, did you come from 4c with crossing 5-s?

Austin Hurley - 5/10/2016 09:17 - Parent #

I don't think I understand what you mean. I can do 4club fairly ok and I only learned with clubs. I didn't do 2b2c, 1b3c or 3b1c or anything. Is that what you mean?

7b_wizard - 5/10/2016 13:09 - Parent #

I simply meant how you got (from 3c, then what?) to 5c. Like not with skipping 4c or sth.

Yeah .. 552 an' stuff, .. that's what I meant (also what Scott Seltzer says below, guess, that's the ``regular´´ way).

I always have some quarrel with siteswaps being ``good for´´ a simple cascade .. you do different rhythms, different beats, holds an' stuff. I can't do any chases or other ``Frankensteins´´ with 4 balls, still I'm pretty much okay with my 5 balls. That's why I'm out for outlooks on 5 clubs without having to do any odd 4 club stuff and wondered if anyone skipped 4 clubs.

Austin Hurley - 5/14/2016 11:10 - Parent #

Ah right.

I'm Irish and I was talking to the guy that sells all the juggling gear in Ireland Stephen, about these one piece clubs that were cheap. He was telling me about some guy, who is considered the only guy that can do seven clubs in Ireland (or at least he was at the time). Stephen was saying that he needed the one piece clubs cause everything else kept breaking. He didn't do any other props or training. His goal was seven clubs and he did it two years. I think Stephen said he skipped the fountains when learning cause it wouldn't help in crossing patterns. I can find out exactly and maybe even talk to the 7cluber if you'd like.

James Hennigan - 5/14/2016 13:00 - Parent #

Stephen can juggle 7 clubs!?
Who is the other guy who can do 7?

Austin Hurley - 5/15/2016 14:31 - Parent #

I don't think Stephan can but he was telling me about the guy that bought them from him. I think I asked at the time but I didn't know the person so I forgot the name

Orinoco - 5/6/2016 12:01 - Parent #

I've also tried juggling a mix of 5 balls & clubs in various permutations.

When juggling with more balls than clubs it was very difficult to keep the pattern at a 5 club height, I found it much easier to throw the clubs at my usual much lower 5 ball height. I also found the lack of symmetry very off putting. The force required to throw a club is a lot more than that required to throw a ball which causes a small but very noticeable twisting effect on your body which I found uncomfortable.

It's an interesting exercise once you are comfortable with 5 clubs, but I wouldn't recommend it as a training exercise.

7b_wizard - 5/6/2016 13:44 - Parent #

So then the common way to get from 3 to 5 clubs would be to go over 4c tricks and siteswaps containing high crossing throws (5-s)? Or is it feasible to skip 4c for the sake of sticking to the cascade pattern, like after mastering 3 clubs' various heights, speeds, widths, different dwelltimes, numbers of spins at different heights, very well?   I'm not that good yet, but I could think clearer about it with having a plan, an approach to choose, with knowing if I can, or else will not, get around getting into queer s'swaps with 4c.

Scott Seltzer - 5/6/2016 15:06 - Parent #

I'm sure that there are already a lot of resources online for preparing for 5 clubs. Many are like 5 balls: 50505, 55500, 552, 55550, and maybe 5551. triple-singles and double-singles might be good, too. Perhaps even 534 (kinda hard on doubles). The stronger foundation you have with 3 and 4 clubs (even body tricks and tricks without doubles) will prepare you better for the challenge of 5 clubs. Bend your knees and go for it!

7b_wizard - 5/18/2016 13:47 - Parent #

Hm .. I'm still undecided .. I'm not even reluctant to get into 4 clubs (i even like 4c-345, single double triple). And nothing also hinders me to try both ways .. or even flash 3up to collect with 5c until I get a fourth and fifth throw thrown, or better do that first with 3c2b.

7b_wizard - 5/18/2016 13:37 - Parent #

Oka-ay .. "mixed object skill". Good point.

david - 5/3/2016 16:13 - Parent #

https://dev.juggle.org/history/archives/jugmags/35-1/35-1,p24.htm

which refers to

https://dev.juggle.org/history/archives/jugmags/34-4/34-4,p23.htm

Daniel Simu - 4/27/2016 18:37 - Parent #

I have worked with 2 different candy cotton machines, and our team has often wondered how these foreign machines work.. This is not like any candy cotton machine you see in the western world! Where the normal machines have a spinning bit that slings cotton to the sides of the bowl, this one launches the cotton upwards which allows you to catch it earlier on, pull out long strings, divide the cotton better over your sticks.. Does anyone know how this works? We've searched where to get such machines, but without success.
Another effect that can be achieved with such machines:

https://youtu.be/o6Sl5TUCPJU

Little Paul - 4/28/2016 14:59 - Parent #

I spent some time researching this last night, and I didn't get anywhere concrete.

However, I did find some instructions from various commercial machines which describe leather "floaters" attached to the head which appear to act to provide an updraught. The instructions I found suggested that adjusting the angle on these floaters is required to get it to collect neatly in the centre of the wall of the bowl.

I suspect that further adjustment of these (or some modification of them) along with an increase in the speed of the head could well get the candy to stream upwards as seen in these videos.

Perhaps I should hire one for a weekend and see what I can make it do.

The biggest downside would be that I really don't like eating the stuff!

Little Paul - 4/28/2016 15:03 - Parent #

No sooner do I post that, than I find https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/162048695536

The large version of the image has enough detail on the head to show how they work. There are two angled blades at the base of the head which force air up past the head so the floss collects above it.

It's a pretty good price as well.

Orinoco - 4/28/2016 17:40 - Parent #

There's an interesting article on BBC Future today about candy floss machines being used to create a framework for artificial tissues to be grown in.

Mïark - 4/28/2016 18:08 - Parent #

I have a domestic candy-floss machine in the kitchen, but its output is quite disapointing (though better than the hand-held children's machines you used to be able to buy). I prefer the the French name for candy-floss - Barbe à papa.

Daniel Simu - 4/25/2016 16:40 - Parent #

And after the multiplex-split pattern: 1 up 4 up

7b_wizard - 4/11/2016 22:57 - Parent #

Like .. Is there any logical necessities when learning, when improving, that are without any doubt possible always true?

Orinoco - 4/12/2016 11:42 - Parent #

Joggling will never be cool.

Mike Moore - 4/12/2016 12:55 - Parent #

Joggling is/was considered pretty cool where I live...we had the most world-record holding woman who frequently trained here, along with some others because we have an annual race. It's posted about fairly often on our "overheard/overseen" facebook group, always positively. The people I run by while joggling almost always smile, and say "That's amazing/impressive/so cool/etc."

Somehow, here (maybe not there) the juggling part lifts or removes the stigma that running has to non-members of the community.

Actually, juggling in general is pretty well-respected in our city, as our club does a fair few charity shows, and is pretty popular. Last Thursday, someone came up to us while we were practicing in a lecture building lobby and said, "I've had classes here for the last four years, and I want to finally thank you guys for brightening up the place."

7b_wizard - 4/12/2016 13:50 - Parent #

Convinced.

Daniel Simu - 4/12/2016 21:53 - Parent #

I say bullshit.

Of course all the other art forms continually reinvent themselves, and of course juggling has howto books.

Javelin throw and tennis and sport fishing have objectives: winning. Ineffective paths can be removed from the tree and ultimately the sport will come close to perfection. With anything that doesn't have an objective or rules, there are limitless directions.

Does juggling have rules? Depends how you define juggling. The rules question is pretty pointless, but if for the arguments sake you were going to set some rules, for example that juggling means throwing AND catching, then a truth is "a drop is an error".

But even without written rules, the laws of physics are still applying to juggling. There are truths about the path a ball can make, about the possibilities and limits of the body.

I don't really know what you want to discover through your hypotesis, but juggling is not at all creatively superior to the other "artforms".

Little Paul - 4/13/2016 03:30 - Parent #

"a drop is an error"

I thought the quote was "a drop is a sign of progress" and "a touch is as good as a catch, because you knew where it was headed"

Daniel Simu - 4/13/2016 09:02 - Parent #

Don't tell my students I said that ;)

7b_wizard - 4/13/2016 13:05 - Parent #

.. and (toss-)juggling is not only an art, but also sport, gymnasics, body-science (?), physics, where I would expect common default guidelines, juggling-truths for a schoolbook of juggling.

Daniel Simu - 4/13/2016 14:31 - Parent #

Yup, and they exist:

Break down tricks, start with an easier step for faster and better learning (start with one ball)
Use big muscles rather than small ones, e.g. don't throw from your wrists. Larger muscles are more accurate.
Visual feedback is useful. Don't look into the sun, juggling white balls on a white background makes juggling harder
Underfilled beanbags are easier to collect, especially if you are juggling large numbers.
The pattern 423 can loop forever but the pattern 432 can not. (invalid)
Holding time influences the minimum throw height.
A cascade with clubs takes more time to learn than a cascade with balls.
What goes up will come down, even if you are Ignatov jr. and you juggle propellers.
The same trick with larger props can be recognised from further away.

This list could go on and on and on, but most seem too obvious to even mention.

Daniel Simu - 4/13/2016 14:34 - Parent #

And of course you can ignore all of the "truths" above and say: But what if I want to be groundbreaking and juggle with only my wrists? But this is also true anything else like gymnastics: A summersault requires a 360 rotation.. but what if I want to break my neck?

Daniel Simu - 4/14/2016 00:52 - Parent #

I'll give them numbers so it is easier to respond:

1 (breakdown)
Yeah the only thing the upside down and the normal box have in common is their rhythm. I hope you started with 2 balls and not 3? Until we teach 2 large group of people the same trick through different methods, we can't tell for sure if it really helps to break down. However, I know from my own experience that I'll do better runs of 3b backcrosses if I do 1 minute of practising one side at a time and 1 minute of running it, than if I go for 2 minutes of just running the pattern. There are too many things going on which after all these years I still can not understand unless I break it down and correct errors one by one.

2 (muscle size)
Look up "best dart players" on google image.. all have big arms!
Of course all muscles are involved, but the roles of applying force and transferring force are assigned to different ones. In circus school anatomy class I was told that larger muscles can perform more accurate actions but I can't quickly find a source to back this up. Juggling will become a question of force. Try and run 5b non stop for half an hour, and see afterwards if you can still make it to half of your personal record.

4 (saggy balls)
Everything works, or doesn't work, depending on the goals. The saggy balls are just an example, you could name any prop for any other benefit. Obviously flashing 11 balls is going to be much harder with golf balls than it is with the bagladies finest number bags.

6 (holding time)
Same thing here. Things work or don't work depending to the "rules".

7 (clubs)
Motivation issues aside, I can't be convinced that people with no prior throwing and catching experience will ever be quicker to learn clubs. Juggling a cascade with balls was a challenge of 2 hours. With clubs 2 weeks.

8 (gravity)
again: You make up the rules! Wanna talk about juggling as this meaningless all-containing concept, or wanna talk about juggling as we know it? Yes, I've seen some great acts using hair driers to keep balls afloat, but it is completely irrelevant if you want to understand juggling better and you're just working on that 97531.

9 (size)
Hahaha, so involving helium is allowed but involving an audience not? In my definition of juggling, the audience is very very relevant. Juggling to me is a visual medium, anything I do has to be seen.
As always, it depends on the rules.


And since everything depends on the rules, there will never be an ultimate truth. Until god steps up and writes the bible and lawbook of juggling, we'll be free to do anything and call it whatever we like. For communication sake I have some boundaries to my concept of juggling, but I wont force them onto anyone else.

So, next up on our agenda:
Are there any truths in life?

7b_wizard - 4/14/2016 14:40 - Parent #

1 - break down - Oh! .. you got me there .. i think, yes: broke the inv box down to two balls at first. So let my objecting examples be exceptions from the rule that is then not logically necessarily always true, but very much mostly true by experience.

2 - muscles - I'm not taking that argument: anything, even simply keeping your arm held up for ½ an hour or merely standing immobile for a long time will of course stress any involved muscles, even lying still without moving every once in a while. I agree that going to some (not all) extremes (enure, high numbers) might or will stress muscles - but that doesn't go for (toss-) juggling in general or as guideline, and still then, technique and skill will make up for lotsa unnecessary effort. I'd say, there's lotsa a room for research on optimizing movements - it's being done for one-armed robots, engineers are far ahead there in knowledge about kinetics and forces involved. So: "highly disputable" if not wrong, the way, you said it, or not the whole truth about biokinetics and just a minor aspect neglecting a view on optimizing the whole.
MCGilligan, LØfberg and Sobolieva have thin arms. (Raise! Double or nothing.)

4 - saggy balls - Disputable. I believe, hard balls give higher precision, but i think have greater spread on smallest differences in releasing them. Saggy balls might be easier to collect in sum (they do roll around your finger more easily), but are less precise, i believe, and for sure consume thrust, i am convinced of. Any proven or experienced and agreed on properties of props will furthermore be highly individual and depend on many things like which pattern, how you throw or catch or juggle, depend of the style you have, depend on your grip, depend on combination with other ball properties (underfilled + slippy surface; overfilled + grippy surface; their shell, their filling and its behaviors, endless combinations). So, I don't see any obvious simple truths easily stated here - just single experiences stated out of again a whole context.

5 - s'swaps - I'll add Ben Beever's Axioms here. Add that universal siteswap map, built on states. But also relativize any notations as being abstract and describing only parts of the whole, the calculable aspects. Any siteswap-maths statements are true within their system, that is assuming a lot be idealized (beat, hands, vanilla setting, or extended). For a lot of juggling, upto this day's notation systems have their limits.

6 - dwell-time - Yeah, but again the whole set of involved factors is needed here for describing the physic's ratioes: When you don't account for different beats, it's only half the truth or only for juggling at a constant beat, which in practise is not an obvious thing to do (when still learning or when allowing for changes of the beat). But when you include a changing beat, you have three variables: height, beat-speed and dwell-time. Nonlinear. Complex. And that is for an ideal pattern, with idealized hand movements. Reality might involve even hand and arm positioning for different patterns giving different measure values.

7 - clubs vs balls - Hm: undecided? I wouldn't wanna call club-only-jugglers an exception from a rule that favors balls. Maybe we need a club-only (or mainly or better) juggler state on this.

8 - gravity - make up rules, concept vs juggling as we know it   A concept, structured knowledge, valid guidelines that apply, for what we know it from doing it (but, okay, that's generally thinking, not in this concrete gravity issue).   - That act was great! I thought it's done, but he did it with more and more and he didn't even want to lol -   Okey, if it's true, then it's soo trivial. Or, we can question it - after all the intention of juggling is to make gravity disappear, right.

9 - dependsdependsdepends   yeh, .. that's why i wondered if there's truth that not ..endsdependsdep.., but generally serve to guide you along a well structured learning or improving.

truths in life   Yes! You have to break down challenges to their parts an work with one ball first.

7b_wizard - 4/15/2016 13:11 - Parent #

10 - unnecessary movement - Can You give one or two examples of which in particular unnecessary movement there is. (unnecessary walking with pattern instead of doing pure, isolated? unnecessary flourishing? unnecessary, exaggerated use of shoulders, upper arms for an easy small 3b pattern?).     I also see a problem defining "unnnecessary" for vivid, dynamic, dancing style juggling vs static, immobile styles (doing the same patterns). It would be very helpful, though, to know which movements or parts of movements are necessary (wouldn't go without, somehow the prop must go up), and which really aren't. And I wonder if such required minimum movements necessary can be easily spotted and defined.

  .......................................................... .,-~°~-,.................................................

Are there elements of toss-juggling? Is there an elementary most basic (easiest, uncomplicated, minimum) throw?

I lately tried to break down the simplest very low 1 ball throw from relaxed standing position with hanging arms and stronghand holding the ball, intending to find  t h e  most basic element of toss-juggling (possibly in order to build a natural optimized juggling theory up on from there): So, in that position, I thought, it might be a good idea to lift my forearm to get prepared for a throw. I lifted it to 90° angle to upper arm. I found by the weight of my forearm up, the upper arm would sway back slightly, then pointing slightly backwards. Then I lowered the forearm a bit to build up momentum and continued the movement back up to release the ball. It (instinctively?) happened with rather stiff wrist which seems to provide greater control on the flight direction (straight up in this case).   A day later, I wondered, why I had lifted my forearm just to get upward rid of the ball in the hanging hand, when I might just aswell throw earlier from further below and could use my wrist more to make up for a long way up of the forearm. So, this time, I threw right on fromout hanging arm, mainly from my wrist, without lifting my forearm more than necessary to not throw ahead, but up.     Long paragraph to say only this: really nothing seems granted from the moment on that you decide to throw sth up. Is juggling complex from the very first moment on, does it have no basics, no elements? (And I didn't even throw it to the other hand and it hardly left my hand)