Viewing all threads involving Kelhoon
Guinness world records for juggling...
I recently heard that for (some/all?) marathon-style events, GWR permits (accumulating) breaks every hour — for example, a 5-minute break every hour. Since the 3- and 4-ball endurance world records were both awarded by GWR, I was wondering whether anyone knew whether this was also the case for the juggling records?
Call me a purist, but it seems that, as impressive as juggling for 12 hours, with only short breaks in, is — it wouldn't be fair to strictly count time after taking breaks, and it'd be nice to know if this was the case for those records. Anyone know, or have any thoughts?
I'd like to know that as well, I always wondered how a normal human being deals with basic human commodity for 12 hours while juggling!
It's been suggested that an adult diaper might be helpful. Also drinking from a straw and being fed carefully.
Once you sign up for doing an actual entry, you get an email including aaalll of the specifications and rules regarding that particular entry (if one has been set before). So I recommend pretending you're going to set something.
I've done so ages ago for a record, wasn't too complicated.
Ah, that's good advice, thank you! I just sent a general enquiry a moment ago, but if they can't give me the information, I shall do that! I'll report back here when I know more.
Their general enquiry reply was a lot of auto-generated nonsense, so I've submitted a record attempt form. Let's see where that goes...
Doesn't answer your questions, but here's an interview with the record holder that was just published: https://www.juggle.org/interview-david-slick/
From the interview: "No breaks allowed and the throwing must alternate hands."
And then in the promo video posted in the article there is a news caption:
"David Slick goes 12 hours without eating, drinking or bathroom break"
That's much more detailed than anything I managed to find previously, thanks! That seems to support a continuous 12-hour record, which is comforting! (Especially the quotes about training for a long time to be able to do that.)
By "must alternate hands", does that mean you can't set records for synchronous patterns? Or would it still be alright since both hands are used? What about siteswaps with a "0" where you end up throwing with the same hand twice?
I guess for this particular record they want you to throw a cascade, and "must alternate hands" was the way Guinness describes the cascade. Of course one can try and be creative with the rules, but first we must consult the full rule document which Varkor might receive soon.
Okay. Here's my Christmas gift to the juggling community: the 4 part video tour of the Museum of Juggling History.
I've finally finished watching all 4, I quite enjoyed them.
Two (hopefully) constructive comments:
1) Use a high resolution scanner to digitise all that printed material and upload it somewhere, make sure it goes in to the wayback machine (aka archive.org)
2) You had some good stories about most of the exhibits, write them down, print them out and put them beside the respective exhibit.
If I ever visit the US again, I think I'd quite enjoy stopping by to check the museum out in person.
Congratulations to the Void!
I have just read on a Facebook post from Donald Grant that he has passed his 6th Dan Kendama exam. this is the highest level and he has become the first ever non-Japanese to manage it. I know that he has had several attempts beforehand and that it had proved elusive even though all the individual skills were doable. So many congratulations on his perseverance.
Apologies for the uncapitalised 't' at the start of a sentence. Just goes to show I should read my posts more thoroughly before hitting the post button.
Thank you, Nigel. I'll even forgive you the "t".
I wrote a Twitter thread about it, that starts here:
Today I became the first non-Japanese player to pass the highest grade of 6th Dan in kendama. It's the hardest thing I've ever done. 1/- pic.twitter.com/SdzusdcqQn
— The Void (@TheVoidTLMB) October 14, 2017
This is really cool. Congrats.
Is there an easy to read list of the tricks you needed to do, with video links?
I don't know enough about kendama to be sure, but this video claims to show all the tricks for 6th Dan in kendama: https://youtu.be/Yx47Uh6OfQo
http://kendama.co.uk/tricks.html lists them all, with gifs, if that will do you. Right hand column of the Advanced/Dan table will show you how many of each one I had to do successfully in 10 attempts. (Plus, of course, having previously done all the stuff to get to 5th Dan, and then wait a year before being allowed to try.)
Yes, the list is good and the rules are clear. The gifs make my eyes bleed though, so the video was highly appreciated.
If you want to read the long* story, it’s at http://kendama.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3098.msg29896.html#msg29896 (after the tweets).
* Don’t say I didn’t warn you.
That was a great read thank you. The story is always much more interesting than just the bare facts. All the more satisfying to learn that your achievement was in spite of sub-optimal conditions.
* As ever I disagree with the insinuation that 'long' equals 'bad'.
Well done Void! First in the world is a helluva thing!
I enjoyed the 'long' read.
Thank you. But it's far from "first in the world". There are ~30-40 extant Japanese 6th Dan players. But I'll take it. :-)
Yes, fair point. I actually meant first non-Japanese in the world, as per OP, but now you've got me thinking about it I see that doesn't really make a whole lot of sense.
How about this: Congrats Void! Approximately 41st in the world is a helluva thing!
I go along with that.
On foreign terrain it's so much the better an achievement as the natives always have an edge or two with a long tradition an' all on their side. On a side note, as a halfway decent chess player (over 50% on club level), I had been into Chinese Chess, Xiangqi, for a while, and the natives (real-life and online play) gave me a hard time to even win one game and leave rookie level, while I could win games against germans or other longnoses. However.
Congrats, The Void!
Well done mate. I didn't even know you were trying again this year. Is that it now or can you go even higher?
Anyone know if there’s a proposed date for chocfest yet? I can’t see anything in the events listing, but I’m trying to plan my January :)
Damnit! Chocfest have just announced they’re going 20th jan - the one weekend I didn’t want them to go for :(
Sorry, we booked it straight after last Chocfest, but the someone else had already booked our preferred date so we had to go for a week earlier.
Does this mean you might not be coming Paul?
It means I definitely won’t be coming, I’m getting married instead - venue and registrar we’re booked this afternoon.
It also means some of my guest list will have to choose too :(
If only you had announced yesterday!
Over 40 years old, juggling 7 balls/beanbags...
Looking to gather together 40 somethings working on 7 balls/beanbags... would love to share some stories/thoughts/ideas. :)
I'll turn 48 next month and I can still juggle 7 balls, although I'll confess that about a year ago I stopped working on it daily. I can still do it when I try, but it's not as consistent as it was. I've never been great at 7, with my personal best being only 70 catches. I have qualified 8 balls and flashed 9, but I'm not really much of a ball juggler. I can still flash 7 clubs, which I think is pretty decent for an old fat guy with health issues. So, that's where I'm at. I'm still learning new stuff all the time, but it's just not stuff where I'm trying to keep up with the 16 year olds.
Doesn't match: >50yo, going for 9b.
No, serious, ..
Hi emead, matches for me (serious for 7b at about 36yo, now daily practise).
I am 46 and can qualify 7 balls (pb=20-30 catches). I have (re-)started juggling 4 years ago, learning 4 ball tricks and siteswaps. After about half a year I have learned the 5 ball cascade. I mainly juggle self-made Russian balls. Progress with 7b is very slow compared with all other tricks. Now, I focus more on body throws, box variations, and passing (clubs).
43, will start working on 7 balls pretty soon. Solid 5, taking juggling class since last week. We all need challenges, right?
Wow! Good to hear there's more than a few of us. :)
I know one thing that has surprised me is that I never seem to get that "one day" where I best 30 catches and then the next day it's 40 and the next 70, etc. That happened for 5-balls, but 7-balls just seems to be one and a tenth step forward, one step back......
49, solid 5, occasional qualify of 6, 7 still eludes me. Mostly I juggle homemead Russians (90g)
Hi emead, welcome aboard. I'm (counts on fingers) 38 so not far off age wise. I'm regularly at around 20-30 catches, 7 balls is definitely a skill I'd like to keep into my 40s & beyond.
I'm 37 and haven't learned to juggle 5 balls yet... I will, though. Counting on having many years left to improve my juggling.
Awesome! Keep at it. It definitely takes more time than you expect (based on your history), but keep at it! Post your progress! Helps to have a sympathetic ear. ;)
Yeah, I think learning 5 balls will take a while, since I don't juggle balls very often. All the scheduled juggling practice is usually spent on clubs. I'm planning to learn 5 clubs, too, but that is difficult and there are many other things I want to learn, too, so I don't spend a lot of time on that either. Plus a full time job makes it difficult to find enough time for juggling at all.
Oh, and if there is such a thing as having the "talent" for juggling, I don't think I have it. You can get pretty far with determination and lots of work though. :)
Thanks for the encouragement. :)
Juggling Data Set.
I have created a juggling data set. It consists of several videos of different juggling patterns, graphs, and .csv (spreadsheet) files. Some of the data is visualized in this Youtube video: Juggling Pattern Waveforms.
To create the dataset, I first took video of myself juggling. Next, using computer vision, I recorded the locations of the juggling balls in a spreadsheet. Once the data is captured in a spreadsheet, it can be easily analyzed. For example, this is the data for the pattern 423:
Collecting the data (the positions of the balls) from the video and recording it in a spreadsheet requires specialization in computer vision, particularly object recognition and tracking. Now that the data has been taken from the video and put in a spreadsheet, it is much easier to analyze!
The data can also be analyzed using Python (with the help of packages Pandas and Matplotlib). This short Python script shows how to load and graph the data.
One of the applications of this dataset is to compare two different jugglers who are juggling the same pattern. But, for this, I need your help! I would like to include juggling from other jugglers in this data set. If you could supply me with a high-quality short video clip of juggling, I could track the locations of the balls and add it to the data set.
I don't quite see what result you trying to achieve here, but I'd really like to help.
I'll try to record something tomorrow.
I have several goals for the juggling data set:
"If you build it, they will come."
I don't know what people will do with this data set! Hopefully, this data will have some really cool applications in the field of machine learning.
I gave it another thought. You probably can find as many juggling videos as you want on you tube.
If you have any specific requirement for you soft to work, than you better list them.
I considered using videos from Youtube (This is the data from an 11 ball flash.).
There are a couple problems with using videos from Youtube:
I guess it's also obvious that the props should be visible all the time, so that for example claws hiding a ball are unapt for tracking ( or will the software just go on tracking where the ball appears again with data just not for only that hidden part of the balls trajectory, a hole in the rendered curve then ) ?
Yes, it is helpful if the props are visible. Sometimes the tracker will get lost if the ball is obscured, enters a different lighting condition, or changes direction rapidly. If the tracker gets lost, I can pause the program and reset the tracker to the appropriate position.
I can implement optical flow in Python, but I don't really understand it. Explaining how it works is way beyond me.
This video shows how optical flow works: https://youtu.be/-1ebo0YjQw8
Notice what happens when the ball passes in front of my face. The tracker is most likely to get lost there because the ball appears to be a blur on those frames.
What steps follow optical flow? I assume you're first segmenting the flow vectors to find the balls? Are you then using a predictive tracker that can predict the object's position when not detected, such as a Kalman filter? It must be possible for the tracker to know that the balls travel in parabolas when in the air, which would help tracking a lot.
The tracking program that I wrote is quite simple. It relies on the user to click on an object to be tracked, and then uses optical flow to track the object. There is no detection, that is done by the user. Segmenting flow vectors is not something that I had considered, but I will try to implement that.
I have considered using a Kalman filter, OpenCV has a Kalman filter class, and I am currently researching this. The use of a Kalman filter is probably the best tool to make juggling ball tracking software more robust.
Optical flow is more than adequate for tracking the balls when they are in the air. Most of the tracking problems I encounter are when the ball has a sudden change in velocity as it is caught or thrown.
Tracking juggling balls in highly optimized video is a fairly easy computer vision task, a heuristic approach to solving my tracking problems is to collect video in higher resolution. I am currently working with 1080p30fps video.
Any particular patterns you'd like me to film? I'll try and do this next week.
Yes, can you film 15 catches of 5 ball cascade (from launch to collect)? I have noticed that good jugglers tend to throw the first ball (or maybe two or three balls) a little higher than the average pattern height. Jugglers that are just learning the 5 ball cascade tend to throw the first few balls a little low and then struggle into the pattern.
I want to get video from several jugglers, all juggling the same pattern for the same amount of catches, so that I can compare things like average pattern height, dwell time, height of the first throw vs. the average height of the pattern, syncopation, etc...
Thank you for you interest in the juggling data set.
Sorry for the delay. I was going to film outside just now and then realized my balls are in the gym. Just letting you know I still plan on doing it :)
No rush! The juggling data set is a long term project for me.
A couple notes about uploading video:
Of course I read this post while it was already uploading to youtube >.<, so I'll post it here anyway for those interested. It's also on it's way to your email inbox. You can use this video in any way you like, including but not limited to using it in your data set.
Sorry for the terrible terrible quality! I hadn't tried 60fps mode before, at least now I know it is completely useless. If you prefer I can film it again in 30fps, which should be sharp 1080p.
I have a super wide lens and the camera allows me to zoom, probably some kind of digital zoom which made the sharpness even worse, but the lines of the building still don't seem exactly straight. I hope this doesn't skew the data too much.
Anyway, if you have wishes, let me know and I'll film it and send the raw stuff straight to you.
Thank you for sending me your video! Even though the resolution was not great, the contrast between the balls and the rest of the frame was amazing! The balls were very easy to track.
I have used my tracking software to extract the data, here are the results:
Now that I have data from another juggler, I can work on methods to compare your juggling to mine.
I'm watching this project with interest.
I'm wondering if professionals working on a synchronised routine would be interested in your software to analyse a video of their routine to easily identify areas where they are out of synch?
Most of the time it is easy to see for the professionals themselves when they are out of synch, no software needed. Perhaps for really precise things, such as isolations, this could be an application. But this software is not for that..
Excellent, both the juggling and the tracking. I particularly value seeing the start which inspires me to clean up my start to include the whole trough of the curves before the first releases.
I was surprised to find that the act of juggling started quite a while before the first ball was thrown. I'd like to collect data from multiple jugglers to see if everyone does two fake throws before launching the first ball.
I often do several (more than 2) fake throws when starting 5, but launch in to a lot of patterns with 3 straight away.
I tend to do the fake throws for 5 until I "feel" like I have the right rhythm and spacing.
Now for the stuff I'd be curious about:
In long runs, how stable are my throws? Like could you give my pattern a score based on how much the throws diverge from the average of all throws?
In what way do my L and R hand differ? Do they both throw equally high and wide, or how big is the difference?
In the shorter runs, it is completely fine for me if every ball behaves different. Here I don't want to compare throw by throw, but rather run by run. I gave 3 samples of 15 catches, I'd be curious to know if ball 1 of attempt 1 is similar to ball 1 of attempt 2 and 3. etc.
In the future it could be interesting to compare jugglers and their styles too. Average height, dwell time, width, etc.
In all of the scores above I'd like to bring to 0 difference of course, and if there was a tangible number it would be fun to keep track over the years and try to become as much robot like as possible.
Anyway, those are some ideas of what to do with the data :). I hope you find some uses for this. And since seemingly I'm only the second juggler you've got on video: Guys, record some 5b 15 catches! Super easy stuff, right?
I have been working on determining dwell time and throw height. I do eventually want to create some metric that can describe how far a juggling pattern is from perfection. This is an interesting question though, because I don't really know what perfection is in terms of juggling.
I wouldn't steer towards the question of what a perfect throw would be, that can be answered by others over time. You could however determine how far a throw is from your own average, or how far it is from the throws of this one juggler who you think throws pretty perfect.
My thoughts about a perfect throw/pattern can be found here:
Since throws would be perfect parabolas (are they?), can't we visualize most of the data when we'd just have the starting point, the highest point and the catching point of each throw? Would diminishing the data like that make it easier to analyze, possibly easier to visualize? Is it hard to acquire these 3 points from the data?
In the absence of wind the center of mass free flight paths are perfect parabolas to pixel resolution but the parabola may not be in the plane the camera is digitizing. There is also a little uncertainity about the end points. If you look at the velocity and acceleration plots you can see the noise. You can also see that, for the example shown, less than half is for free flight.
Tracking the ball during throws and catches is difficult for three reasons:
The easiest solution is to record video in a higher frame rate; 120fps is sufficient for most 5 ball juggling. Another solution is to use smoothing techniques on the data to reduce noise. I have applied smoothing techniques to Daniel's data, and these are the results (quite an improvement):
Right now I am focused on collecting good data, by working to make my tracking program more accurate.
I have identified five critical points that I would like to find: toss, crossing point traverse, zenith, catch, and toss onset. These critical points can be found in the data by using statistical techniques.
I think that your data request is not specific enough. If you want to compare the same pattern for different jugglers then you should specify exactly what data you want. I think you'd have a lot more response for that. I may be interested in filming something if you have a specific request. I have a nice plain wall outside and some bright balls.
For the purposes of comparing one juggler to another, it would be best to eliminate as many variables as possible:
It would be easiest to do this at a juggling convention, with one camera setup and an 'x' on the floor for the juggler to stand over.
Until then, if you (or anyone else) would like to have a short clip of juggling tracked and recorded in a spreadsheet, I am more than willing to help.
Come do this next year at the Dutch juggling championships. Plenty of ball jugglers who all believe they have the best 5b cascade, you can help them (dis)proove it and collect data at the same time!
I made sure to get explicit consent before including you in the Juggling Dataset to avoid future conflict if the analysis proved that your juggling is bad. Looking at my own data, and comparing it to yours I can see that you juggle much better.*
For jugglers that spend more than an hour a day with props in the air, juggling can become part of who they are. Finding out that they are not good at juggling (by some however arbitrary measure) can be a hard pill to swallow.
*I blame it on the balls.
Indeed, sadly, it's just an arbitrary measure... I'm not convinced that my stable juggling is any good until I get close to your 7b records ;)
Do I see correctly that this graph only displays the height of the balls over time? Variation in width of a throw and horizontal spacing would also be important to determine if your juggling is "clean".
Our graphs look very different. I assume the horizontal scale is based on the amount of frames? It wouldn't be too hard to adjust for actual time, no?
From the video with the overlay it seems like my two hands have opposite problems:
My right hand makes throws from a consistent horizontal location, but the throws vary in width. My left hand makes throws from different locations, but somehow manages to correct the width in such a way that the balls all land at exactly the same spot! I could have never noticed this without the visual aid. Can you check if this is also true in the longer runs? Can you think of a way of graphing out the data of the x axis in a way that this would be readable?
Of course, the same kind of graph but downwards, that could work...
(if only I could edit posts to include the thoughts I have seconds after posting, this thread wouldn't need to become a mess)
Also, the color coding is different in the graph and in the video. Sticking to one consistent order would make it easier to analize.
Sorry for the overkill of input, I'm just excited and curious to study more of my juggling this way :D
Yes, these graphs plot height on the Y-axis and time on the X-axis. I would like to include the horizontal position of the balls, but that would mean graphing in three dimensions, which I have only a little experience with (I'll try it in Matplotlib for Python, but if anyone has suggestions...).
The graph of your pattern is more stretched out because yours if filmed in 60fps and mine is filmed in 30fps. I am working on a way to normalize the data so that different frame rates can be compared.
I see that you have replied to your own comment several times! Glad to see you are excited about this. I am excited about this too, but as this is a long term project for me, I am going to take my time and try to produce high quality data and avoid publishing things only to have to retract them later.
Hello Stephen, I've been following this thread closely, it's a great project. I'll try to get some footage of myself juggling soon and send it to you.
I haven't got round to using Matplotlib yet because I've had access to Matlab while I am a student. I have done a fair amount of plotting, animating and other stuff. If you're willing to send me an example csv file of some juggling, maybe a column for each ball and each row being a discrete time step then I'd love to have a go at plotting some stuff. I can just send whatever I come up with to you, the Matlab code won't be directly useful because I suspect the syntax might be a bit different but it should be a nice little prototype.
The data for my pattern can be found here:
@Stephen: Until a 3d graphic is readable, 2 separate 2d graphics would also help to analize the juggling
Sorry Daniel, I wasn't paying attention to who-is-who there so my previous message was directed to you. Thanks for a link to the data, I've had a quick play around with it.
My working folder: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B9vCeC0EU8QLWHNiUE03aVFmZDA
My first quick test plot: http://i.imgur.com/t6CSrXk.png
Don't worry, this is Stephens data file anyway (of my pattern)
Looks interesting, I guess I'd have to view it in 3d to be able to see if it is analisable...
Nice graph! Did you smooth the data?
I made a .gif of the same graph using Python and Matplotlib, here's a link: Small: 3mb, Medium: 5mb, Large: 9mb.
You can find the code used to generate these (and lots more) in the Python Tutorials folder of the Juggling Dataset.
I didn't smooth the data but I did choose thick lines which can have a similar effect.
If your gif is animated then my phone isn't showing it properly, I'll check tomorrow on a desktop. Hopefully I'll make the switch to Python soon so I can use your stuff and my work won't be tied up in proprietary, expensive software... it's just so convenient though!
I'd like to do some animating of the data. It would also be interesting to seperate each 'cycle' to see how consistent the throws are. This steps into statistics and is a bit outside my territory but it would be a fun project to learn more with.
I made a few more animated graphs and uploaded them to Imgur for viewing on mobile:
These graphs are also available in the graphs folder in the Juggling Data set.
I have learned a lot about statistics and computer vision working on this project. You can find the codes that I used in the Python Tutorials folder (they aren't pretty).
It would be interesting to see how this relates to what Joost Dessing was doing at EJC2014 (a brief description was in Scott Seltzer's general review of EJC2014).
Thank you for that interesting link, I look forward to reading his publications. It seems that Dr. Joost Dressing and I have different aims for the data that we collect.
My goal for the Juggling Dataset is to create a dataset that others (who are so statistically inclined) can use to study juggling. I want the data to be as accessible as possible, similar to how the creators of Kaggle have made the Titanic Dataset accessible; by hosting the data online with a thorough description and several tutorials in multiple programming languages.
I assume Dr. Dressing collects data to prove or disprove a hypothesis and then publishes those results for academic prestige.
Early on in the creation of this data set I realized that creating a data set is difficult. There are several steps, and each of which requires specialized knowledge, software, and equipment to do well: juggling, video recording of juggling, computer vision analysis of juggling video, formatting data and hosting it online, writing tutorials and descriptions for the data...all of this has to happen before a hypothesis can be tested.
Fields like machine learning and data science are really starting to take off! By creating the Juggling Data set, I hope to leverage the machine learning practitioners and data scientists skills to advance the knowledge of juggling. They are nothing without data, but likely lack the ability to collect it. There are a lot of data addicts, but few data set creators.
I just recently joined the forum and I have few questions about record logging.
Hope you can help me :)
So the thing I'm confused with, is order of throws in siteswap notation.
Lets say I want to record 56 throws of 12345 (we all know this trick, and there is no questions that it is called 12345)
So I record 56 3b 12345.
My actual throws started with 3. Like 3451234512... So why do I record 12345 instead of 34512 then ?
12345 and 34512 considered different tricks by site engine, but they actually are the same one.
And how would I record this trick with additional 6 throw ? Is it 1234560 or 0123456 ?
Do we have any rules of resolving situations like this ?
Also, do you count 2 and 0 as a catch ?
And is there a way to tag people in posts ?
The convention among jugglers is to typically write down or say a siteswap starting with the highest value. Sure, you might get into the pattern with different throws, or start the loop at a different place, but for clear and easy communication, it's nice if everyone sticks to the same order for the same pattern.
This means 97531 is always easy to recognise, rather than each time the reader having to decode that 31975 and 19753 and 75319 are all the same pattern.
In your case, you are wrong that there is no question that your pattern is called 12345, as you yourself then explain. The convention is to call it 51234.
As for counting catches, with running a siteswap pattern it's often easier to count the cycles of the pattern. For example, here is a video of the b97531 record. Catches aren't mentioned, but "151 rounds" is:
I've never heard of this convention. 51234 sounds strange. Why not start a siteswap at its easiest point of entry? If it is a ground state siteswap, it's always obvious. 45123 makes much more sense to me than 51234. Obviously it's going to be 97531 and not 19753
Besides, how do you solve for siteswaps with recurring high numbers? 777171 could be written in 4 correct ways then?
I'm not an expert on states, but the excited state pattern 891 doesn't start with the highest number either. I believe that the easiest entry is 778, wheras the easiest entry for 918 is 7788?
"and there is no questions that it is called 12345" I think siteswap wise it should be called 45123, but 12345 is the obvious style choice. Which indeed makes counting tricky. You could link 45123 to the 12345 trick in the record section, claim that your version is the correct one and ask the current record holders for clarification of their counting method.
For myself I would also count cycles, not catches, but I understand that in the record section that doesn't work... I'm sure someone who uses the record section actively can comment on this?
The convention is actually to write the siteswap in numerical order. So 777171 would be the only correct way to write it. I assume that the reason is that it was convenient for early siteswap generators to write them in that format without having to work out the states. Writing them with highest values first is most likely to result in a low state start, unless you work out the states.
Well, Peter already answered this. It's the highest numerical value if converted into a single number. 777171 starts with 777 which is higher than 771, 717, 171 or 717.
As for this: "I'm not an expert on states, but the excited state pattern 891 doesn't start with the highest number either. I believe that the easiest entry is 778, wheras the easiest entry for 918 is 7788?"
Let's write those down.
Into 891 is 778? So that's 778891891891...
Into 918 is 7788? So that's 778891891891...
Yeah, you've just come up with the same thing!
Of course they're both the same thing! But that still doesn't tell you whether you should write 891 or 918, right? And my generator & jugglewiki do call it 891, not 918...
I've never heard of that convention either. I've only ever heard 12345 called 12345. Searching for 12345 vs the other permutations on rec.juggling & the Edge (both the forum & the records section), 12345 is by far the most prevalent.
If two siteswap records are entered into the Edge records system that are a rotation of each other & provided you have built up enough 'experience' by entering records you will have the option to merge those two tricks together. Once merged you can enter the trick whichever way you like but they will be listed & compared together.
At present no-one has entered a permutation of 12345 to link to.
I have heard of that convention, and I would certainly write any 4-handed siteswaps that way (I believe that most of the passers do that).
When logging my juggling practice, however, I usually write ground-state siteswaps in the order I do them, so 51234 would be written as 45123, since that way I can say that I did 4 rounds and back to cascade or something like that. (While if I wrote it as 12345 or 51234, the same number of actual throws and catches would only contain 3 rounds and the first and last throws would count as transition throws...).
I don't log siteswap records so it doesn't matter in that case, but if I did, I'd feel that doing for example ...3333345123451234512333333.... would be 15 catches of 45123, but only 13 catches of 12345. (If I do active 2s, otherwise I would not count them.)
Someone might also have noticed that I sometimes log both 55050 and 50505 in the same practice session... Or 552 and 525. In that case, it's just different starts and has little to do with how to write siteswaps and more to do with me wanting to see in my log entry that I actually did two different starts, but being too lazy to use a lot of words. (55050 would be starting with one club in one hand and two in the other, and throwing from the hand with one club first. 50505 would be starting with 3 in the same hand.)
Same here .. heard of that convention and use it for logging records, but in a given context write them as then makes more sense.
I've heard of that convention and yet also commonly heard patterns referred to in ascending order, eg 12345. (Also the convention for writing multiplex throws also follows the "highest possible number" convention. eg , not . I learned that from Sean Gandini.)
In the single case of the pattern 12345, yes, that order is the most common by far. It feels like the natural way of saying it. However, it's in a class of patterns where throw values increase by one until it drops to the first number again, and in most other cases, the higher number is said first. Examples:
423 not 234
534 not 345
645 not 456
It's only because it feels natural to say the number 1 first that people do so! And it *is* so satisfying to say it that way! In conversation, I've no problem with saying 12345. I think it's more important to have clear communication between two people than to follow strict rules.
But in the case of making a list or database entry, I think it's best to stick with the convention. And if there's any confusion, explain the convention, not make exceptions for something that just happens to scratch a weird cognitive itch.
What if others (like me) find it easier to start it with the 3 ? i.e. 34512
There are many patterns that people don't start the same way, so the easy way for you isn't necessarily the easy way for others, hence the need for the convention as discussed by Peter and Luke to help everyone recognise a given siteswap from all it's possible cycles.
Yes, this is the whole point. When ordering lists, the person reading it should know where to look, and also not think they are missing anything, and also not worrying that two things in different places are duplicates. This is why bookshops and libraries have settled on (within sections) ordering books by the author's second name, and then the first name, and then by book title/series title and number. If you went into a bookshop, and some books were ordered by the title, and some by the author name, and some by the colour of the spine, everyone would be super annoyed.
In the case of siteswaps in a list, or in a database like the records section, the obvious thing to do is order them by A: object number and then by B: numerical value.
This is important because, just looking at the siteswap out of context, it's impossible for most people to know the state of the pattern, or how they would transition into it from the cascade or fountain, or any number of other things.
And it's really important not to have 777171, 771717, 717177, 171777, 717771 an 177717 ALL listed in different places, or else the list would be unmanageable! You'd also have to have 441, 414 and 144 listed. And every other iteration of every other pattern, just in case another juggler liked starting on a different beat or had a different transition into the patter,
If someone is confused, it's much better to explain the convention to that person (eg. "in the book shop we order by author surname") than it is to accommodate their preference at the expense of making the system more complicated and confusing for everyone else.
With regards to counting numbers. Don't count 0s, & only count 2s if they are active (thrown); if you are just holding the prop don't count it as a catch.
There currently isn't a way to tag people in a post, I don't think traffic is really high enough to warrant the feature? If you just type someone's name in all capitals I'm sure they'll get the message.
Thank you, Orinoco.
Not counting 0 makes and passive 2's makes sense. I just realized than I counted number of cycles and multiplied it by number of digits in siteswap. But it turned out to be wrong.
Taging people look nice. As I see it. Just Highlighted name makes it clear to random reader that message has direct recipient. It also would allow to send emails to tagged people if they want it, for example. I don't think everyone read forum from end to end. But it is minor.
I'm much more interested in resolving my siteswap issue.
You mentioned an option to merge two tricks together. I have not found info about it anywhere, could you please comment on it ?
If there is a possibility to merge tricks and make two different entries behave like one trick would really solve it.
But also may be i't is possible to pre process siteswaps programmatically to make all versions of one trick recorded with same string. (like if you enter 315 it is still shows up as 531)
I'm not sure if it is a right way.
Go to any trick in the records section and look at the bottom of the page for "Is this trick the same as another? Link them together". However, based on what Orin said earlier it may not be available unless you've added a lot of records.
...& that link will appear if you've logged more than 10 records. This is just an arbitrary threshold so that linking is only handled by people who are at least a little familiar with the records system. I couldn't remember what the threshold was when I posted earlier so just had to look up the code!
Is a four ball cascade possible?
If you can answer this in under 20 minutes, you probably aren't thinking about it hard enough.
I enjoyed that! For me a cascade will always be a 2 handed pattern, but I accept your 3 handed variant is the closest match to a 4 ball cascade.
I have put in another 20 minutes of thought though & I've come up with a small nitpick which has led me to something that I'm struggling to visualise.
From your video the rules for a cascade are:
1. There is only one orbit to the pattern
2. All throws are made to an even rhythm
3. Each ball is thrown to the same height
4. No placements, holds, stalls, multiplexes, double bounces etc.
5. Each ball is thrown to the 'other' hand
My issue is with the phrasing of the last rule (which was one of the first rules covered in the video), which for me is not adequate. If left as is then a cascade must be juggled with exactly 2 hands, discounting your 3 handed pattern.
In a 3 hand pattern there are two 'other' hands, if the hands are labelled 1, 2 & 3 you could juggle a 'cascade' with the throwing sequence 12131213...
So to achieve true anal retentive accuracy rule 5 needs to be replaced with 2 rules:
5a. An N ball cascade must be juggled with N-1 hands
5b. An N ball cascade must be juggled with a number of hands (H) where N > H and (N % H) = 1
6. The hands must throw in a circular sequence eg 123...H123...H
If we use 5a then this limits us to non-numbers juggling, a cascade will always be a single 2-ball exchange flowing around a circle of hands like a wave.
Obviously the 5 ball cascade exists though which discounts rule 5a. 5b is the best replacement I've been able to come up with, but I'm having a very hard time visualising if it is correct. If N <= H then we are just holding N balls, if N % H = 0 then we have a fountain like pattern, if N % H > 1 then I'm not sure what we get.
Does anyone else remember a flash based siteswap simulator that appeared online ~10 years ago which could animate patterns for any number of hands that featured little one-eyed, one-handed aliens or am I just making that up?
I don't like to consider these things "rules" or make a hard and fast list. They are features or elements of a cascade. The canonical three ball cascade can fulfill all of them, no problem. However, it's possible to miss one and the pattern still be a three ball cascade. For example, the cascade between one hand and the back of the other hand. Both manipulators are unique, but everything else is cascade enough that nobody would be able to say it isn't a cascade.
So bringing this over to four balls, it comes down to which element of the three ball cascade you are most comfortable with changing. I like the idea of not having to stick with bilateral symmetry and allowing rotational symmetry. Others are fine with hands crossing and props changing side in the pattern, but not changing hands.
I want to avoid defining "cascade" so strictly because in the end you aren't giving a word meaning, you are just describing what comes out of a set of rules. The word is just a shorthand for the rules. But then it isn't helpful for communication unless the person you are talking to already knows and agrees with that set of rules!
5. each ball is thrown to some other hand i.e. not the hand that threw it
or something better worded, but in that vein
there's no mention about orbits crossing though, is that a signature element of the cascade ?
a 55550 could meet the "rules" originally posted (unless that was covered by the "etc" in #4)
just thinking out loud ....
if the balls were bouncy enough, 2 hands and one knee (or foot or head or floor ...) gives you 3 "hands"
By defining the floor as a hand, it would allow something that looks like (but isn't) a 5b3. I think that would be just as valid as defining an elbow/whatnot as a hand, and it still excludes the 5bb3b example.
Slightly related: 5bb3b was a great idea, I quite liked how convincing that looked.
3. Each ball is thrown to the same height should be replaced with 3b: Each ball spends an equal amount of time in the air and is thrown to the same height. Otherwise, you can reach early for catching and warp non-cascade looking patterns into Cascades. Even if 4. Included equal dwell time, it wouldn't prevent moving some balls during that time more or less than others.
Why not be rigid with the Cascade definition and change the rules of geometry instead? There are surely infinite variations in which Cascades are possible for even and odd numbers?
JTV is 10 today! (In human years, that's about 78.)
It's our 10th birthday! #JTVis10 Comp! https://t.co/6bmoYaGfVj #juggling #juggle #jugglers #juggle pic.twitter.com/yszyWl67eY
— Juggling.tv (@jugglingtv) April 9, 2017
Congratulations! Thanks for supporting juggling videos for all these years :D
Happy birthday JTV!
A big thank you to Howie, Void, David & Max for providing a wonderful service & everyone who feeds the beast videos.
Thanks for the positivities, dudes.
Oh look, Max has gone on a Featurefest today... http://juggling.tv
PS: LP, hope you got the email.
I did get the mail (both of them!) I just haven't had any time to do anything about it...
Thank you for the bump, I'd certainly not be adverse to it happening every few months!
Thanks. Not too long before we'll have been going for longer than IJDb lasted. ;)
Aware that the site needs updates, btw. We're working on it, honest!
Congratulations! bit late.. but hey, it's another bump. Thanks for the awesome vids!
Ahhh! October's good. I've almost got a few videos ready that I've been working on in parallel...probably to celebrate the November bump.
Less than 3 months to go. It's time to stop meaning to get around to it, and start getting around to it!
There are great prizes to be won! All the info at...
Ok, I'll take that as a goal to finish my video project... thanks!
By the way, has this challenge improved the amount of videos or the quality of videos uploaded to jTV?
Also I am curious: What do you envision will the role and goals of jTV be in the next 10 years, in a world where video sharing is easier than ever?
I went to see ventriloquist Nina Conti perform her 'In your face' show in Tunbridge Wells last night. It's mostly improv with Nina plucking victims from the audience fitting them with her signature masks & creating a character from their body language combined with the new face. Nina was astoundingly sharp, so quick & very funny.
She's in Bristol on Tuesday the 11th, you are going right LP? Several other tour dates left to see her.
As much as I adore vent acts, I'm not a huge fan of Nina Conti. I'm not sure what it is about her I don't get on with, she's certainly a competent vent and people seem to like her - she's just not my cup of tea and I can't articulate why :/
I wish I could!
Hmm, colour me surprised.
I've read some comments that her mask routine is a rip off of Paul Zerdin, but Ronn Lucas did it before Paul Zerdin & David Strassman has said it is a 'centuries old routine' when he has performed it.
I've also read some people who don't like the way she laughs at her subjects' (& therefore her own) jokes but to me that is her greatest strength. She engages with her puppets more than other vents which makes her conversations more believable to me.
I'm with LP, not keen. I can articulate some of my reasons - I don't find her very competent, certainly not compared to others at her level of fame - Zerdin, Lucas, Strassman, Jeff Dunham. Conti is practically at the 'gottle of geer' level with her plosives, and her voices are not well differentiated - even from her own.
She may well be fast and funny, but the poor technique kills it for me.
Full disclosure: I'm not a vent myself, but I'm a keen appreciator of the artform, with rather a lot of them on video (surprise surprise).
I think you're probably hitting the same notes as me, but you've actually managed to pin it down.
I think she's "competent" rather than "excellent" and you're right about her plosives and differentiation. There isn't the separation of character you get with "Ronn Lucas + Scorch", or "Ray Alan + Lord Charles" etc.
She is far more improvisational than most vents though, and that does lend a spontaneity to her act which is possibly a bit easier to take than a more scripted act would be. Her improv is undoubtedly funny, but when she does hit scripted material it doesn't feel as confidently written as some of the greats.
It does annoy me when people claim she invented the mask thing, they were an off-the-shelf prop you could buy long before she started using them and the idea truly is ancient. I do like it though, as the conceit of getting an audience member to say something inappropriate to their stature is a good one.
It's a conceit that's behind what's probably my favourite sponge balls routine - Wayne Dobson
View older threads
Subscribe to this forum via RSS
1 article per branch
1 article per post
Green Eggs reports