Viewing all threads tagged #competition.
What are some nice club passing patterns suitable for larger numbers (5-8 people)?
I'd guess Mats1 was going for a survey.
We don't have a survey option!
I'm still voting for number 6 though.
I think, you're in an old or other competition type mode
and were going for answers like:
1. this pattern for 5 jugglers
2. other or same pattern for 6 jugglers
3. pattern for 7 jugglers
4. pattern for 8 jugglers
.. then people vote for answers and find patterns most voted for.
Maybe radio button "Most votes wins" does that (instead "Poll"), but I haven't used that yet.
But you might then be able to vote for the whole set of proposed patterns (5-8 jugglers) only, not distinct patterns for different numbers of jugglers.
I vote 5, the more people you have in a passing pattern the more time you spend getting started and not actually juggling/passing.
Have you checked out the Madison book for multi-person passing patterns, there are also a few 5 and 6 person patterns on Aidan's website
This poll has now ended. The results are:
There seems to be a superfluous line break there, Marvin. Tsk.
Oh, and could you stir this coffee for me, please?
When you teach someone to pass, which end of the spectrum are you closer to?:
I want to click an option but find it almost impossible to do so.
If I'm teaching someone to pass, I merrily tell them it's time to move on whenever we get a short run, and head straight towards one count, whereupon they really just need to make sure the clubs go forward and up and we can run it.
If my partner who I can pass 9 clubs with is doing 7 club one-count/giving me 6 club 2 count for body throws, and they aren't perfect, then I tend to point out possibly a lot more things than they would like. And get frustrated that they don't!
I think passing body moves is probably the best example of this. If someone is learning shoulder throws with me, I'm a huge fan of telling them to just try and run it once they've landed like two - I'll catch everything and not complain - because it lets them get a feel for the trick. But if they're feeding me, they better not be lazy just because they're passing 6 club 2-count! (yes I know my stupid albert combo pass was 3 feet to the right and 1 1/2 spins over, but your pass was a little low, could you fix it please :) )
I think it's also really useful to say how much feedback you want. Some people I know will say 'no feedback yet', and then in a few minutes when they've sorted out the pattern, request feedback. Ideally I would be giving them the right amount of feedback, but I often given too much or too little, so feedback feedback is useful, and is conveying how much spare capacity you have at your end of the pattern.
Yes, I think there's value in saying how much feedback you want. When I do a pattern for the first time, it normally takes me a few runs to get my hands to automatically make the correct types of throws before I can start dealing with accuracy issues.
"Give me a few runs to get this sorted"
Saying how much feedback you want up front is a good plan if you know what is going to be useful to you, but will a newbie really know? I think there is a lot of pressure to take feedback even when it is not helpful. I think there is a point where a newbie becomes ready for feedback but it takes a while to get to it. In the face of a battle-scarred veteran passer I think most virgin passers will panic & say, "Ooh, constructive criticism, that's good. Honesty, that's good too. I'll have lots of that please." I've seen poor newbies battered by a catalogue of errors way beyond their current ability to correct. I've never asked anyone I've taught how much feedback they want. Probably arrogance on my part because I think I know best?
I'm definitely closer to option 2. I find that if you take away the pressure to make perfect passes the pupil improves much more rapidly. A lot of the people I teach to pass haven't got a very solid cascade yet. I'm a strong believer that learning to pass as soon as possible is a good thing. I really do it to give them a bit of variety to their practice so they don't get bored of drilling the cascade on their own (which is apparently a problem for some other people), so I don't care what their passes are like, I'm sneakily trying to get them to do more self throws.
Ah, I missed the idea that this was complete beginners at passing. Since everyone I know is "still learning", even after several years, that's what I'd assumed!
For complete beginners, I think if I'm capable of catching the passes, I'd just keep quiet and let them improve. If I can't catch them, then I'll wait until I've noticed a pattern to what they're doing wrong, then suggest a change there.
Yes, I agree, I was talking in general. For complete beginners, none, or really basic, one comment.
1.5 Give them enough feedback to work on. But don't overload them with too much to think about.
I'm assuming this is assuming there's a big skill asymmetry between me and the other person. If so, I deal with whatever they throw at me until the variability in their throws starts to tighten up. At that point, I think they're ready for feedback.
That said, normally the feedback (for a new passer, anyway) is "okay, good, let's change the count."
Eesh, a triple post, but I want to say this anyway: I get bored when someone throws me perfect passes!
I'm probably somewhere in the middle of those two options. I'll deal with anything that's within arms reach, if it's not in arms reach I'll keep sending good, on-time passes until I can recover the drop. I try to give encouraging feedback during the run ("nice!, that's it! more like that!")
But I'll save more detailed feedback at the end of a run if there's a consistent problem (eg, "those passes got longer as they went on" or "you're consistently sending half a spin too much")
Oh, and because I'm British, I'll spend as much time apologising for not being able to catch everything...
However, if I'm passing with an experienced passer and trying to improve my throws (which given that I pass about once a year these days, leaves quite a lot of room for improvement) then I tend to criticise my own throws and actively seek detailed corrective advice.
 which basically means Mamph
3. Pick one thing they would get most benefit from working on. Tell them about that one thing. Then point out every pass where they get that thing RIGHT.
Also teach them to look through the pattern so they can see more easily for themselves what's going wrong.
Right in the middle of the two.
I don't point out mistakes unless at least half their throws have the same mistake, in which case I'll point it out during the next pause.
I think I'm closer to option 2. Definitely not commenting on every pass, but after a drop I might say something like "Okay, good, but many of your passes are a bit short. Do you think that you can make them a bit longer?" or "Did you notice that I got one of your passes to the wrong hand?". The second more to see if they have learned to see my cathces than to correct something that happened once...
It depends a bit on how much I think they are able to fix too, if it looks like the pattern is very difficult to them or I know they don't really have a solid cascade yet I'll probably give less feedback, at least as long at it's good enough to not mess up my passes to them.
Not that I have taught many people to pass yet, very few, and only like 3-4 of them had never tried any passing at all before.
Like Orin I think learning to pass soon is a good thing, and of course, since I think passing is the best kind of juggling I want every new juggler to learn and have fun with passing. Sometimes I try to teach someone 5 clubs 1-count before they have even learned to juggle...
The first few rounds, I usually don't say much. I stress them making eye contact, though, and watching their own clubs less. If they do that, they get some sense of the corrections I'm making (reaching out to snag their outside pass, moving to avoid their inside pass, reaching for short or long passes, etc,). I tell them not to worry about it, just get used to passing. Once they get comfortable letting the club go like that, then I give them feedback to work on their passing.
When I learned, I was told (and I teach) that the responsibility for the pass is with the passer, but once the pass leaves your hand, there is nothing else you could do; you can only fix your next pass.
This poll has now ended. The results are:
Wow, that was a one sided poll!
I haven't really followed much of the discussion, but perhaps I'll read some now that I figure that I am the only one who voted for option one.
I am just closer to that end of the spectrum, not at all pointing out EVERY flaw, mostly focussing on one at a time. Starting with distance, then width, and only later spin. And not just correcting passes, also receiving, selfs, body position, etc. Just small bits at a time.
Of course there is a lot of fast progress at the very beginning even without my interruption, and the first few minutes it might be more important to provide for motivation instead of critique. However, I think anything goes better when you are aware of what goes on. And there is so much new stuff going on at once, that it might help if I shift your focus to a specific aspect, especially since I can compensate for any errors that follow from correcting something simple like a tongue out of mouth.
Well, it's a bit tricky, since hopefully most of us would pick something inbetween the two! Also, I changed my vote when Orinoco clarifed he was talking about real beginner passes, rather than just teaching someone, or passing with someone of comparable ability.
Normally when I teach complete beginners, I like to excite them by getting them to power through quite a few patterns. I like their first experience of passing to be exciting rather than me badgering them about technique (plenty of time for that later ;) )
What's my name?
This poll has now ended. The results are:
I would find it much less confusing if you followed the naming convention of European monarchs & called yourself Julius IV or however many Julius' there have been in your family.
I hadn't seen this poll.. I would have been twisted between voting "new" and "Jefferson Camarota".... But since only "new" is spelled correct, that would make the decision easier ;)
It would be a really cool name, I think I'll call my kid Jefferson Commarota
Oh man, I should have googled it beforehand!
Well, I guess I have a New name! All credit goes into the void for suggesting it.
Do you invent things (tricks, siteswaps, moves, combinations; props; own show \ choreography; .. ) or do you depend on it being there already (siteswap- & trick-libraries; shown to you; seen it done by someone live or on video or written of; .. ) ?
[ my focus is meant on inventing on juggling .. so, if you have the choice - doing several artistry - please vote how much you invent or not in juggling! .. Else feel free to vote for any your art! ]
thk 4 voting!
[ #poll #creativity #endlessthread ingenious originative innovative resourceful ]
Hmm...I'd like to say 1 or 2, but I try very hard not to invent *a lot*. Rather, I notice a lot of things that haven't been done, and I try to do ones that are particularly meaningful. It should introduce a new movement, frame something in a different way, or combine movements in such a way that there's some kind of emergent property.
Reverse backcross -> backcross -> behind the head kind of has an emergent property in that it's surprisingly easy. That's not typically the kind of thing I look for.
Backcross -> reverse backcross -> behind the head causes there to be an interesting motion between one hand throwing a behind the head and catching the reverse backcross. It's a very unnatural follow-through of a behind the head to rotate at the elbow to make the reverse backcross catch.
Both are nice because they have you looking in one direction for three throws, unlike all of the component patterns!
I realize I'm kind of rambling, but this is the stuff that excites me in juggling.
1 or 2 [..] hard to invent ``a lot´´
Yeh, .. maybe ``frequently´´ \ ``very inventive \ creative \ innovative´´, or ``always having an eye \ part of brain looking out for changing something´´ but that overlaps with point 3. "adapt given tricks" .. or else also ``explore & discover the possibilities of juggling (\ props \ ..) mainly in own resarch & work or finding out´´ ? .. Had same problem (with my own poll?! :oY ) .. but chose 1. 'cos "a bit" is definitely too few. Also 1. & 2. will in the end be put together as "is inventive" (not "not inventive") vs. mainly reproducing what existing stuff can be found and seen, i guess.
Also working with siteswaps is a bit ambiguous to vote .. you can find them out or `make them up´ for your needs, but they are always already there calculable in their mathematically-logical system .. it would then depend on how someone feels, they are being "innovative" like actually doing queer unusual siteswaps or having the idea and the guts to actually try and do a vera hard given siteswap (considered like `impossible´ or `merely theoretic´ stickman-stuff), or else simply "finding" or "adapting" a passing siteswap for one, two, .. more person(s) ..
E.g. I thought of how to siteswap a split 3b-cascade ball and worked out: http://www.pic-upload.de/view-28372554/4b-90090990_split_ball.gif.html, which I'd call clearly more "inventive" than adding a prop or adapting a given siteswap for another passing partner or finding another transition fro & to ground-state than usual for a siteswap.
bx .. rbx .. bth
I'm afraid - having tried and done only single behind the neck over other shoulder (throw btn) and back (catch btn) - that I can only guess sort of what you mean with your example .. are you there a) following the beats with every hand throwing, the movement in question being a bth throw + bx catch (clawed, i guess) all behind the head on that hand's `side´ in the first example and a bth-throw on its side + hurried rbx-catch (normal? \ claw?) near the other shoulder (with that ball threatening to get out of reach fast), or are you b) following one ball flying the described orbits?
I don't read, you're asking what to vote - in that case just vote how much you feel your juggling and work on it being "inventive" (\creative \innovative) or just "adaptive" (or maybe you want to read point 5. as "other: deeply, strongly and thoroughly adaptive"-creative) - but your post already tells more than your vote would and chosing any "inventive" point will - I think - represent you well against the non-inventive reproducers and trick- and siteswap-`collectors´.
[edit .. "worked out" .. ] http://www11.pic-upload.de/21.09.15/8ur45vaq2ur.gif (3b-casc, split-ball)
= 4b-90090990 .. one can play around and get slightly adapted spacing with e.g. 4b-f0000f00f0f0000
Inventing a trick \ move \ sth that existed before, but you didn't know, counts as "inventive" ( 1. or 2. or 5. .. or 3. if its "adapting" by minor change).
rem.: Last day to poll on creativity \ inventiveness against doing what's given \ collecting all there is.
This poll has now ended. The results are:
Are you eager to learn many or all different unrelated new and other things like props, juggling or circus-utils and -tools, styles,
Do you try to be a complete juggler / artist? Learning even what you rather dislike?
[ "different unrelated new things" means "really different", no helpful related preliminaries, no related upgrades from like ball-trick to same with clubs or going from 3b cascade to 5b cascade or learning shoulder throws after mastering backcrosses or doing them reverse or alike, and not just altering a siteswap. - But rather e.g. diving into a new trick-family, e.g. use rings or e.g. sit on an unicycle for the first time or alike, or e.g. an upto then never tried sort of body-moves or alike, or simply daring and getting into a very hard trick. "rather dislike" means what you've always been avoiding or hated or been too awkward with, e.g. doing gap's and holds-preliminaries, or e.g. disliked fountains (evens andor separated andor uncrossing) versus cascades (unevens crossing), or e.g. being scared of tall giraffes. ]
[ The scale is meant to go from "few new" (1. & 2.) over "lotsa new for fun" (3.), "if not too hard or longtime work" (4.) upto "even everything I dislike" (5. & 6.). - Else, please choose whatever comes near! ]
Thanks 4 voting :o)
Huh. I'm not an artist. Juggling is my hobby... And it would be fun to be able to do some other circus stuff, but juggling takes a lot of time (because I want to be better at it and because it's fun) so I don't really practice anything else. So... Not really looking to become an artist at all, I'm quite happy with trying to become a good club juggler and a good club passer. :)
I have mostly focused on toss juggling, but in that I dedicated time to work on all of the traditional disciplines (balls, clubs, and rings). Rings are hardest in terms of getting interior space to practice for me, so that falls by the wayside more than I want it to.
When I was first learning I was really into devilstick. I"m still better than most folks at club, but no one here really does it. I can get a diabolo spinning, but not much more than that. There's some cigar boxes here collecting dust.
The last two years or so, though, I've expanded into contact poi, staff, double staff, and meteor. I practice poi and meteor about as much as I do ball and club juggling. They are no incorporated into my practice routine as much as possible.
Last day for this poll if you wanna vote on trying and working (or not) on everything there is.
This poll has now ended. The results are:
'k thanks all for voting & `resulting´!
Could myself not decide (on my own poll!?) between 2 and 5 .. I do want basics like fountains and Ones, which I always avoided and never liked, and worked myself into these, but it turned out fun (found the `windmill-fountain´; and want Ones with utter stretched arms some day), and I do it only casually and don't put too much work in it, thus never been prior to bite into seriously. = in mind add a 2 for me. Will be same with rings if I ever find any that suit me.
Would you like juggling and artistics to be more popular? ( e.g. taught in regular schools(?), e.g. daily practising groups(?), e.g. more small conventions(?), e.g. more to be seen around(?) )
See also: http://www.jugglingedge.com/forum.php?ThreadID=2070&SmallID=14684#Small14684 (world cup; WJF; combat; esports) [use browser search for "popular" for posts touching the topic].
Thk 4 voting :o)
[ #poll #popularityOfJuggling (not "of Jugglers") ]
What do you think the consequences would be .. would it get more expensive (club-fees, convos, props) or would there else be more opportunities to meet other jugglers anywhere around or else both .. would there be more & better props on a bigger market .. will there be commercial juggling-studios (just like fitness-centers) .. would conventions simply become too big .. wouldn't also passing become even more popular .. would there be more exchange on and for the rare props ( e.g. astrojaxx(?) s-staff(?) ) .. will there be more concurrence for the pros or also a bigger clientèle, will stage-level raise .. would there be more juggling on TV and more gigs, background-acting, for the pro .. will there be juggling-schools .. ? Would that be good or bad in your eyes?
In German "artistik" means something like "circus", so I guess it was an attempt to tranlate that?
Yes, didn't doubt, thus see no need to look it up, ..
should be "artistry" or indeed better "circus (arts)". What I actually meant was "not pure juggling, only, but everything else also" :o])
This depends on where... juggling/circus is pretty popular in the England, with clubs everywhere, and conventions more or less on a monthly basis. This is probably due to the England being so small, so it's easy for anyone to get to a convention and back. This isn't the case in Canada/US where the country is so large you usually need to set aside a day or so just for travelling!
Think, I meant like worldwide, considering also new talents might rise from Africa or China allowing for more modern / not traditional chinese artforms, which would also provide for lotsa new ideas and combinations, or (rise from) unsuspected places in the world.
Do you have a v i s i o n or do you wait and see where juggling gets you, or do you not think about where it might lead to at all?
This poll has now ended. The results are:
Hey! .. rather many votes again :o]) Thanks! Thanks to Marvin for sorting out the results!
My "one strong vision" is a dim and distant (but my vision of one day doing it myself is strong) more imagined than remembered black & white tv numbers ball-juggling in a manege .. I wouldn't even recognize it with today's eyes.
That vision got an `upgrade´ and refreshing years ago in that here https://www.youtube.com/v/Jp335OQpxaQ [Hiram Meza Pastor (Chile), "Juggling in Cagliari"] my vision of playful Seven Balls is pretty much reflected .. a five ball video mainly, but he does 7 balls at 1:32, 5 up 360°; cascade at 3:09; bounced against a wall (8 balls even?) at 3:40; (8x,6x) (? i think) and another 5 up 360° at 4:23, .. but it's not the tricks andor their difficulty mainly, that bewitched me, (and I might even have misconceived the video e.g. a turning-drift with "gee, he's even walking with the pattern", or e.g. saw more balls, or e.g. wasn't aware of possible fails outside the vid or..or not aware of even more difficult tricks being possible), but [ .. bewitched by .. ] the lightness and playfulness in mastering such a puzzling number of balls simply flying `all around the place´.
I am a bit surprised that only so few people have any longtime far-aim, or only would be curious to see how far or in which direction (/sub) they will get, or wanting to reach a distinct skill or pattern or level. .. Well, .. some do have (changing) part-time goals (maybe long-term in case), just not the (distinct) "one and only all-time" ambition andor destination andor vision so I guess, that half makes up for it.
Thanks again for reflecting on this "outcome of my juggling"-issue!
.. but I shouldn't wrong anyone having (strong) "goal or longtime far-aim" for not choosing "vision", which in fact has much stronger a notion of more of like a (powerful) imagined, visualized `pictured dream´. (which is exactly what I wanted to poll on)
.. so it's not so surprising after all .. Three out of Sixteen have, every Fifth, has a juggler's dream. That's great! ;o])
I think it might be good to have aims when we're younger.. to help push to the next level.
Eventually though progress slows, stops and then everything starts to fall apart as our bodies and mind deteriorate. "You live and learn - then you die and forget it all"
I suppose that's ultimately where our juggling leads to. But like life, it's really about the journey, the path rather than the destination.
I think we leave something behind when we stop though, a tiny piece that goes towards changing and evolving the amazing infinite juggling puzzle.
common and deprecated misconception about aging .. you forget that it's possible to early learn how to learn, to early learn how to stay aware, and to learn how to cope with and handle your own strengths and flaws (at learning on and on and pursuing aims). You never stop learning and adapting and doing and figuring out new things (need be learned first again) - getting into new stuff becomes a routine and optimized, and awareness of erroneous ways in the labyrinth is trained and stronger. Juggling is not only athletics [athletistry? athletry? lol], but a whole lot of skill.
Also researches have proven that, .. that new synapses are being built (=learning) also at old age.
I also don't think many jugglers (among all) go to their limits (daily), and many stop to practise a lot at a certain high level, so you can get to such high levels - no matter what age - by simply investing time and work (that others don't) and with ardour. ( But I'm afraid, I'll stay owing proof on that for say another decade or two haha IF I DON'T GET THAT `BREAKTHROUGH´ on "playful seven balls" .. ).
I like juggling-videos better ..
thk 4 voting!
4. Depends if the music is blocked in Germany on YouTube, and there isn't a version uploaded to Vimeo or juggling.tv
5. I prefer natural sound track to silence, and "appropraiately chosen music that I dislike" to "music I like that doesn't suit the video"
2. .. I like the sound of the props in the hands and anything the juggler utters, sigh, sough, groan, moan, breathe, kiais (intimidating the props), gihaps (기합, 氣合), rrRRaaAAHH, OUFFH, PAAHW, yesss, yipi, .. everything ..
'k, then .. any random surprise juggling video, and you have to decide which one version of it with or without music, you will be seeing.
.. or - weighing the risk of seeing it without music, fitting the juggling act or music, you'd have liked over the risk of seeing it with music you don't like or that doesn't fit ..
but all that's not the point: can you even generally / in principle / basically decide for (rather) "with or without", no matter any distinct given "depends-on-this-or-that"-s.
If s/he who makes a juggling video can either add music or leave it without, would you want it "with" or "without" ` i n t h e f i r s t p l a c e´ ?
I don't mean to frustrate you, but the term 'juggling video' is just too general. It's like asking if I like music with lyrics or without. I like both in different contexts. For short juggling videos of a single trick I like no music and the original recorded sound. For longer montage videos I like music, especially if it's been timed with the juggling in some way.
Poll is conceived for those who are willing or capable of categorically deciding for either option.
( I was well aware of the complexity of arguments for and against including - which what how why if - music for a distinct juggling-video .. the poll is meant to see if there's a general preference even regardless of any distinct context. Raw. )
It's a "yes or no" Music-poll, not "with this or with that".
Please, please, stop that witchhunt on the poll .. i did mark it "gun-to-head"-poll to avoid exactly this .. [ and my anxiety towards next Green Eggs report is increasing with every futile attack defending my poll against http://www.jugglingedge.com/greeneggs.php?Year=2015&Month=6 ahead by half more
vote.. erhh! .. posts :o[ .. ]
I don't think anyone meant to attack you. Just explaining why I'm not voting. Why do you care so much about the Green Eggs report?
I am getting quite concerned with your preoccupation with guns to peoples head, is this a cry for help? In my experience of encounters with people with armed weapons, they pointed the guns at my body rather than head and issued commands rather than asking trivia questions (but my experience is obviously eurocentric).
I wouldn't worry about having a high post count on the Green Eggs Report, people like Orinoco or Little Paul regularly have an embarrassing high post count. Perhaps you could be happy to have to started a discussion about music with juggling videos and ascertaining it is not as simple as liking with or without. For me there can be other factors such as whether I like the music or how well it suits the juggling, or if I watch it via facebook or while travelling I will have the sound turned off.
Does the cake have icing (frosting)? Is it milk or plain chocolate (or shudder white chocolate)?
Tomato or other ketchup? English or German mustard?
Just throwing this in here - because I can
Tempted to try baking this as it looks pretty amazing though 1 litre of icing sugar seems quite a lot, do Canadians have very sweet tooths?
I apologise to the judges of next years chocfest for any ideas I may have inadvertently given Miark
Mïark now enters CCCC under a proxy name due to judges deliberately stopping him winning since the 2000 success.
TBH ever since watching a particularly ear wrenching video (I won't say which juggler's), I watch all on mute.*
Unless I've been told that the music adds something to it, which so far has been never...
Thanks for not putting a question mark, .. I can that way spare an answer and not be first July's Green Egg.
#poll How much do you juggle?
thk 4 telling! .. [if your shedule is not represented above, please choose whatever comes near your practice (lately / ever / under condition)]
Let twirling, swinging, unicycling, handstands (=balancing=juggling your own weight), balancing, poiing, prop-flowing, diaboloing, astrojaxxing, .. anything, you wish to call "juggling" be included.
Usually 4-5 times a week, during school weeks scheduled practice 3 days a week (Wednesday 1½ hours, Thursdays 2 hours and Sundays 3 + 1½ hours). Once or twice at home between that, but that's usually just half an hour. During holidays/summer usually shorter sessions (unless I'm at a convention) but still 4-5 times a week.
So somewhere between 5 and 6. I choose number 5... Even if a normal week has 8-9 hours of practice, it's more common that it is less than that it is more. It's also more common that a day has less than 1 hour practice than that it has more (normal weeks have 3 days with more than 1 hour practice and 4 days with less than 1 hour or no practice).
I'm a hobbyist and not aiming to make a living of juggling (I already have a full time job that's not juggling related at all)... It would be fun to perform a little every now and then if I had the skills to entertain an audience, but I don't think I have that and I'd rather spend my the time practicing juggling than practice entertaining.
Most weeks level 5, occasionally spiking up to level 6. This doesn't include intensive events like festivals, of course.
When Ī'm feeling like a juggler, like for the last 7 days I get in about a level 5. I've peaked higher years ago, but didn't see much faster improvements. Up until last week I'd have been at a level 2 for quite some time, so I've been slacking.
I am just beginning all of this, and I wish I could say that I had time to practice all day everyday. Unfortunately, that is not the case. With my full time job as a mom to my 2 children, my 40hr/wk $$ job, and taking 9 credits in college, I can only squeeze in about an hour a day Sun - Thurs,and probably 7-9 hrs total Fri & Sat. It's not where I'd like to be, but it will do for now.
8 hours a week since one year.
Time training is my only goal each year and I'm tracking it carefully (using some iphone app each time I juggle)
Now looking for 10 hours in average and probably 15-20 hours a week next year when I'll quit my job.
(juggling balls only)
This poll has now ended. The results are:
Thanks again, Marvin, for sorting out the results!
Wow .. so many (25 votes) took part! Thanks!
( That >=4 hours was me .. guess Ethan would be "9.", way more )
Would have predicted 2 to 4 hours per week would be average, but its nice to see more are doing round an hour per day / 5 to 7 per week in average.
Would have liked to find more compassionates doing serious amounts of lifetime, but well .. constantly an hour/day average is pretty `serious´ to pursue.
Btw, 25 participants is already expressable as percentage of all nearly 900 Edge-members .. like every 36.-th member found the poll and voted. Taking into account there's many inactive or didn't find the poll, that's maybe round every twentieth Member, (which, I think, is sort of palpable as a group in a crowd).
Is that a request for the poll results from Marvin to include the total number of people who voted (and that number as a percentage of people registered on Juggling Edge)?
No no, just meant to visualize the numbers (as a comment on the poll results and the many took part) in relation to `the whole´.
Hypothetically... if you were to do that, then it'd be interesting show not just the percentage of votes against total people registered, but maybe against users active in last week|month|year. Could also filter with && post_count > 0.
Thinking about it... are these on any of the reports (I've never actually read them)
#poll - Do you even a i m ?
thk 4 voting :o)
[ wrong format .. didn't get options when checking "set as competition" .. @ Orinoco: Please delete, thk! (did saved html for evtl retry later) ]
(@ Orinoco) okey .. don't delete then .. everything okey .. it has become a votable thread in own dynamics lol
Too late, converted to poll :P & missing poll options fixed after breaking after fixing something else last week...
Wow! Thank you soo much a n d plenty of it! :o) .. [thought it was my oldversion + unupdated browser] .. I get the options now.
I'd put 2 or 6/7. The problem with aiming only relative to other objects in the air (eg crossing point) is that the point you're aiming for changes with error in previous throws, leading to error accumulation and eventual breakdown of the pattern.
thats why I myself am rather #1 - aim highest point or area. (thk 4 voting this post lol)
This poll has now ended. The results are:
Options 3 and 8 spill over onto 2 lines, as does the bar. It gives the impression that they are twice as populated as they are.
That's 'cos I made these's option's texts so long.
It counts, how far the results reach to the right.
I was mainly interested in if there's jugglers not aware of any aiming at all. But also how many do aiming how.
I take: 6 voters consciously do aim - but 3 voters seem to not have to bother with or aiming (or the question) doesn't apply for them. Also, jugglers, who do aim do it in different ways. Votes in 4 or 8 ("other") might comprise aiming on crossing points of a pattern (as I forgot to list that option).
thk all 4 voting! Thanks, Marvin for results!
Maybe this conclusion: aiming is not trivial or obvious.
I do find this result remarkable .. well spread between "yes, like this or that", and (maybe) "not at all", whereas one might think, aiming is trivial or obvious and everyone does it like oneself and or in the same way ..
but it seems to be quite a topic to take into account talking and comparing about in given contexts ..
Maybe this conclusion
My conclusion is that 9 responses on a survey with 8 possible answers isn't a large enough sample size to draw any meaningful conclusions from
.. thinking of e.g. 56 in a sequence, collision-bound sequences in general, it is - when e.g. teaching or learning - helpful to know, that others might aim or throw in a different way .. thus how to avoid the 6 to hit the 5 would be a question of throwing either more from the middle, but also makng sure, you know where you're throwing (at), .. is sort of what i meant.
Thanks for making me think about this: It helped me. I found that like LP I typically look at the crossing point, apart from the first throw.
The first throw I look where I want it to go and then all the rest are then aimed by crossing point. Although this gets a bit weird for fountain throws but essentially still applies.
View newer threads
View older threads
Subscribe to this forum via RSS
1 article per branch
1 article per post
Green Eggs reports