Viewing all threads involving Monte
Hard way learning reverse cascade
While learning reverse I still put each next toss higher and higher and after 3-4 throws everything falls apart. Today I tried the 1st ball throw much higher and at the same side which made no sense in throwing second ball higher than the first ))) somehow fooled myself. Got 20 catches. What do you, guys, think about this approach ?
The key to learning reverse cascade is to think about throwing into the middle, rather than to the other hand. Think about the point between the hands, and aim each throw to drop into that space. Escalating higher and higher throws usually come because you are throwing to the other hand, and you need to throw 'over' the incoming throw. Good luck!
Just to clarify, the balls shouldn't actually be dropping down on the centre line, because that would require too much hand movement for the catch. You want them to drop about midway between the centre line and the hand's rest position. However, it's useful to think in terms of dropping them into the 'gap' rather than into the hand. Hope this helps.
Thanks a lot for this idea (throwing into the center) It really helps to understand the dynamics
You know, it's nice to hear all this enthusiasm for juggling. Takes me back to when I was excited about new tricks. I might even drive into Norwich for Matt's workshop tomorrow night,if it's still going.
Thanks, from a cynical old has been.
"Cynical old" )))) I guess I am older than anyone here (67). But still very motivated to learn new skills. In year 2016 made "International Chess Master" online blitz FIDE, last year learned Italian to B2 level according european standards, started learning juggling December 2017 )))
Bungay Balls Up 2018. It's on again! Feel free to add yourselves as attendees at https://www.jugglingedge.com/event.php?EventID=4641 .
View the flier in all its glory at
#BungayBallsUp https://t.co/X0LinPt0ei Flier now with yellow text & drop-shadow! Pick 1 up at #BathUpchuck on Saturday. #juggling #upchuck pic.twitter.com/JkwFwhJVBg
— Bungay Balls Up (@BungayBallsUp) February 14, 2018
(Oh, damn, forgot that twit pics don't embed here, click the "pic.twitter" link.)
Check the website for directions, etc. http://bungayballsup.com
All the usual fun of the fair, juggling space aplenty, games a go-go, cafe on site, a possible return of the trebuchet, and Charlie's volunteered to run a Taskmaster at some point. All of this and more.
If any FightNighters want there to be one again on the last Sunday this year, then volunteer to run it! I don't fancy it this year, myself, so someone else can run it. (It's quite easy to run, really.)
See you all at the world's longest juggling convention!
Trebuchet will return. The old frame will be extended and a new stronger beam will be made.
This may even be the year when we don't manage to break it.
Did ''may'' need to be in bold capitals to convey it's meaning accurately for you? (:
I was talking about your second sentence. ( <--- This may or may not be true. I'll tell you in May.) :-)
Montegriffo's frying circus returns for BJC 2018. First time since Pickering convention. See you all there.
As I no longer own a caravan, this is the first BJC in about nine years where I'll be back in a small tent, and so will be completely reliant on the catering.
This is excellent news, and you have made my day :-)
What ever happened to ... ?
So, I found myself thinking about Jouni Temonen, a fabulous juggler from Finland who I met maybe a dozen or so years ago, and he's one of those really great jugglers who seems to have dropped completely off the radar. And I started wondering whether it's because he's doing better, more professional things, or perhaps he's got a proper job/life/baby or whatever and doesn't really inhabit the juggling world so much any more.
And then that got me thinking about Joost Dessing, and wondering what on earth he's up to now. And the more you think about it, the more gifted talents you will remember that seem to have disappeared off the scene for one reason or another.
So who do you recall, who was infuriatingly talented but has since moved on with their lives?
Maybe Michael Falkov. One of the best 3b jugglers ever (IMO, top 3, arguably the very top), but is super off-grid. Not sure if he's juggled in the last ~2 years.
Reuben Cohn-Gordon, Arron Gregg & Anthony Gatto (obviously!) are the names who immediately spring to my mind.
Similarly, is it my imagination or is the 'lifetime' of a juggler getting shorter? For example I feel that the more recent BYJotY competitors have not remained as visible in the scene as the earlier competitors (Norbi, Tiff, Tom Derrick, Arron Sparks, Jon Udry, Matt Pang etc.). Has the increased average skill level & easier access to the 'next big thing' made staying in the community's consciousness harder? Has the top level of juggling reached the point where physical limits are being hit & injury is forcing people out sooner?
Oof, I definitely miss Reuben Cohn-Gordon. I had a brief chat with him May 2014 when I was getting into squeeze catches. At that point he implied that he was still juggling some. Maybe there's hope.
It's an interesting point about youngins not staying on the scene as long these days. I got curious about IJA juniors winners...and I wish I knew if more of them still juggled. Below are some of the winners and whether or not they still juggle (to my knowledge)
Komei Aoki - Yes
Takashi Kikyo - Yes
Tony Pezzo - YES
Billy Watson - ?
Nate Martin - ?
Teruki Okamoto - I think so
Ben Hestness - ?
David Ferman - ?
Jack Levy - ?
Noah Malone - Yes
David Ferman - ?
Lauge Benjaminsen - Yes
David Ferman - ?
Jack Denger - ? (stopped making videos)
Patrick Fraser - Pretty much stopped
Kellin Quinn - YES
Jack Denger - ?
Ashley Ellis - ?
Ashley Ellis - ?
It seems to me that the number of people entering BYJOTY has reduced and that the average skill level is also less. Whether this is because the people attending BJC are getting older (and hence less youngsters are around to compete) or the general skill level is higher and so the good youngsters don't stand out so much or some other reason I couldn't say. Still at least a few of the recent winners are still very much on the scene and in the community consciousness. It was only about 4 years ago that Arthur Hyam won.
As well as other things in life getting in the way, one thing I've noticed based mainly on myself and is that as you get older you tend to seek praise from others less. This is why we make juggling videos of ourselves. As I get older I'm juggling just as much but making far fewer videos. People therefore think I've stopped juggling. I was recently asked to film a section for a video about people who've stopped juggling!
What Joost is up to is very easy to find [he is based in Queen's in Belfast]. His research seems to have veered towards football rather than juggling (probably related to sources of funding).
Hi everyone I'm new here!
But I'm not a brand new juggler. I've been juggling for maybe 3 years, but I can only do 3 balls right now and I'm limited in my tricks as well. Mills mess is a trick I like the look of and plan to try out sooooonish. I also enjoy doing tightrope when I get a chance bit I don't own one due to them being super expensive, and my short term goal in terms of that is to learn to slack line instead for now. That probably won't happen until winter is over though...
I'm better at poi though! I can do 7-beat forwards, 5-beat backwards, 4-beat anti-fountain albeit a little awkwardly (as opposed to 2x2 anti-fountain) and I guess some other stuff but those are my show off-y numbers. I'm hoping to learn some cool contact stuff so that less of my tricks are 'different ways of making circles', since I love to show off, and sometimes circles aren't the coolest shapes around. It was my birthday yesterday and I was supposed to post this then, but apparently if you party, time passes so it's no longer my birthday :( either way, I'm probably going to get some fire poi for my birthday from my family!
A trick I'm currently trying to do with poi involves reaching an arm behind your back to spin the poi in front of you again. It's going very well so far except the part where I hit myself in the face. *shrug* I mostly wish I knew what the trick was called. It is split time, and each hand goes from reaching in front of the body to make a circle at the back to reaching behind the body to make a circle at the front and they alternate.
I'm also interested in practicing staff more! I'm very inspired by a guy called Austin that does some incredible contact staff at my juggling club fever. Maybe he's not the best in the world, but he makes it look effortless and cool and I wish I could make it look as good as him!
Also I believe I'm going to get a puppy hammer which seems super fun (don't worry, I won't be hurting any small animals hahaha) and also looks pretty hard! So when I get those I'll probably come here with All of my questions!
I'm here for some somewhat serious issues too, which right now is pretty much fire safety. I belong to the committee of #fever and we've been allowed to do fire as a society for years. Recently a member of committee changed some rules, and now according to him, we have to rewrite the whole rules and risk assessment. It's very tempting to just use the old one again, but I don't know how acceptable that is. Hopefully by the end of this all though, we'll have a fantastic risk assessment and set of rules for our events. I'll probably make a thread dedicated to this in the future, but if you could send me your own risk assessment from which I can [gain inspiration] that would be incredible and deeply appreciated.
Finally, I live in the UK and I've been to camvention this year and two years ago, and that's my only conventions so far. I'm planning on going to BJC though! Please do tempt me into going to more conventions though :>
By the way, unrelated to juggling, it feels so nice to be on a forum again. It feels like home!
I believe this is all I want to say! Hello everyone, thank you for reading my long intro post, and thank you for having me!
Hahaha, I had to look that up. I wish :> It's apparently also known as an oxbow. It's a very long piece of rope that wraps around your arms, and you can use it as poi, and if you unwrap it you can use it like a super long meteor or like contact staff. I saw one at my last convention and tried it out, it was pretty hard.
Excellent. But those are clearly kitten axes.
(I don't have to draw a graph, do I?)
''the hammer of the Gods
will drive our ships to new lands''
The ginger cat has a hammer in one hand and an axe in the other.
Actually, they are both weilding the same weapons. But, on closer inspection, I may have to concede. Damn, hammered.
Meanwhile, back on topic...
"Please do tempt me into going to more conventions though :>"
Welcome to The Edge. And "Come to Bungay!", where you can hear me and Monte banter in person. Or (just perhaps more temptingly) you can juggle 24 hours, play games, fly kites, consume coffee; cake; chilli, chill, visit local sites/seaside, in whatever proportion suits you. Longest juggling convention in the world! http://bungayballsup.com
Back off topic. The vid is historically incorrect. Everyone knows Viking kittens didn't wear horned helmets.
I saw this on Facebook, it looks very nice especially 10 days, I even thought BJC looked very long. I think I'll see how BJC goes, and decide then!
It's nice to meet you by the way and I look forward to the banter!
You should come to CATCH convention next summer, its gonna be awesome..if I do say so myself!
Think of it like the BJC... but in July! Its a big celebration of Circus being 250 years old! *gasp*
And it will have lots of fun activities and workshops to try ^_^
welcome to jugglingedge!
What's the longest toss-juggling endurance you ever did?
(no matter which pattern, which prop)
I hope to find - if many of us vote - how popular or common enduring even is (and for how long).
About 25 years ago I worked for a juggling stall that had a competition which was to juggle 3 x 1.5 Kg Splats as long as possible. I think the winner was about 45 minutes. Shortly after that I tried to match that time with 3 x 1 Kg Absolutes. I matched it but killed my wrists doing it and suffered from tendonitis for quite a while. I'm not sure that endurance is necessarily the way to go but it made for an interesting competition.
What are Splats and Absolutes? I know Absolute rings but they are definitely not 1kg :p
Sounds very painful, can kinda relate, though what you did must have been worse. I did 3 beanbags with wrist weights for 1 hour once, beanbags were just 200g each and weights were 1.5kg each. Still very exhausting.
I did my longest endurance when I had only juggled for two years. It was 20 minutes of 3 clubs cascade. I'm not planning on doing any longer endurance of any pattern.
°oupps° .. a logical inconsistency in the poll again:
..ever did? versus
1. ..don't really now..
( 1. I don't really endure anything ) as "1. I never really endured anything."!
That is how I understood it.
I was thinking, though... If you want to find out how popular endurance is, it might also be interesting to know if people are planning/hoping to achieve longer runs in the future, and how long. I have no desire to spend a lot of time trying to get as long runs as possible any more, but I would like to be able to do patterns for, like, 5 minutes or something. But I guess that wouldn't really count as endurance, it would more be about getting the pattern really solid.
I'm not planning to do anything longer than my 3b 12 minutes. Yes, especially for important basic patterns, 5 minutes is pretty much okay for me too. Yet, with 5 min x 60 sec x ~5~6 throws/sec = ~1,500 throws, that I got near to once only with 5 balls, I still don't feel like really having ``mastered´´ the pattern, it's far from ``like walking´´. So either I'll have to get more runs over 1,000 or indeed do many more throws and minutes. But it's sooo time intensive while learning tricks and other patterns instead is much more rewarding (and hard and challenging enough and worthwhile too).
I have not been close to 5 minutes with any other pattern than 3 objects cascade yet. Could probably do it with a basic passing pattern with the right partner (6 clubs 4-count, 2-count or 3-count). Solo patterns... maybe 423 could work.
I'm definitely not even close with 4 objects, my personal record being just a little bit over 200 catches. But that might actually be a bit of an endurance thing, I do get tired when juggling 4 clubs. Arms starting to get tired before 100 catches, and my pulse is definitely high, too.
Yeah, it's more fun to learn new tricks and patterns than spending lots of time on the ones that already kind of works.
This poll has now ended. The results are:
Ey Marvin, I know I could easily add up the numbers myself, but would you consider posting the total amount of votes next time as well? (22 this time)
If you're interested, you could even go as far as showing the percentage of voters that voted for a particular option. (36% voted for nr6)
Yes, I can include the total number of votes cast. Totting up a few tiny integers for you is an excellent use of my mental capacity. Do you find percentages useful when the total votes is considerably under 100?
And no, I have never been interested in any of these polls.
Here I am, brain the size of a planet. Count they tell me. Call that job satisfaction,'cause I don't.
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?
Real or fake?
I'm currently using this pic as my avatar on a history/politics forum, is it real or fake? Looks real and bloody dangerous to me.Anyone seen it before?
It's an act I've seen described many times, although how real the photo is im not sure (it rather depends on the date of the photo) and I don't see any reason to think people didn't juggle rifles in real life.
Mocking up photos of jugglers by suspending props on strings was common practice in the earlier days of photography, when film was slow and capturing motion was difficult (i.e. If the exposure time was longer than 1/100th sec etc)
So - possible staged photo of a real act
If real I bet that sword gets in the way.
Got to be a really heavy, poorly balanced and dangerous object to juggle especially with bayonets fixed. Also I bet someone shouted ''can you do 4?''
Makes sense, keep the sharp pointy bits away from you. I was imagining them spinning around. Duh
I disagreed immediately. I mean, why would such a smart fellow choose to film in portrait?
— The Void (@TheVoidTLMB) July 14, 2017
I agreed with the preamble, but it got problematic when the actual definition started. But is such a long definition useful?
I followed a little of the Facebook discussion about how this definition had been whittled down to mere pages (or was it reams?). I'll have a look at that if it appears but I don't consider a 15 minute video to be information, especially one which didn't seem to yield a point when I skimmed through it
Barnesy, here you go:
Juggling is a genre of activities related to the default form. The default form is the three ball cascade.
How far does the border have to be from the 3b cascade before it becomes 'not juggling'?
It's not about distance. It is an on or off switch. Is there a relevant relation or not? Is there another genre that has a stronger connection to the subject than 3 ball cascade, or other established forms of juggling?
One thing to always remember, is that we are dealing with communication and the meaning of a word here. For an example, if I walk into a pizza place with another juggler and the pizza chef is throwing the dough around, I could easily start talking to my juggling friend about the pizza tricks as juggling, and he would know immediately what I was saying. If the person I was talking to was a non-juggler, it might be harder, since it is not as certain that he would see a connection to other already established forms of juggling.
Perhaps dance is the default form? I think there's an 'outside' and 'inside' of what juggling is. The inside is - feeling a motion.. a dance. The feeling is the same as dancing, you're using an object/s (balls, poi, pizza etc) to feel the dance instead of your body. Skateboarding is using your body and an object to feel it. The playing of a musical instrument isn't related because of the lack of motion.. you're feeling rhythms & melodies.. but not motion. Does that make any sense? Not sure myself.
Juggling is a genre of activities related to the default form. The default form is the three ball cascade.
"Juggling a three ball cascade" is already juggling - can it then serve for defining juggling? (Howto define "juggling" in "juggling a three ball cascade"? .. to me, that's circular, tautologic, self-redundant reasoning)
Far TL; Can't be bothered to W - but:
Is a definition even useful?
Definitions usually only serve so you can point at things which don't fit the definition and exclude them. Something I haven't been interested in doing with "juggling" for a while
I like the idea of exploring the boundaries of a concept, as it lets you find areas that haven't been explored yet. However, defining what the word juggling means is a different exercise of defining what "juggling is", or can be. Completing the first step is probably useful before beginning the second step.
However, if I'm to watch a long video, it has to be more interesting than that in the first minute for me to continue on with it.
Luke, if you want to claim that the word juggling represents something different than "what juggling is" you will have to explain that difference. The word juggling is only a representative for a concept. I does not matter if you try to leave the area of language and the meaning of words, when you still use language and words. Using words in communication confines you to their meanings, unless you explain how they would differ.
We use the word juggling, and we mean something when we do. Therefore, I did not make a definition. Its already there, I have no say in the matter. I can only describe what the word means already.
Q: Is a definition even useful?
A: Yes, because when we understand deeper what it is that we are doing, we can reach further, and be more effective. We can communicate better. Removing confusion is both pleasant and aesthetical.
"Definitions usually only serve so you can point at things which don't fit the definition and exclude them."
For sure you can come up with more uses to understanding language and the meaning of words, than that one.
Not only exclude what is not juggling, but also for example seize the ``essence´´ of juggling, or e.g. define its outlines, yes, as what it's not, as opposed to where juggling stops to be juggling. Like, " Is it right, is it well communicated, to call a throw (that dough across the snack-bar) juggling or is it very artistic skilled throwing, but not really juggling? " .. What do I expect of myself when saying that I am a "juggler", being able to throw dough like him for me wouldn't be enough. I'd like to know what ``exactly´´ juggling is and what ``exactly´´ it requires. I don't feel like a juggler yet with enduring 5 balls for minutes, but not managing a 5b s'swap. I would drop even a 3b cascade when talking to someone at the same time. My 3b tricks go a few rounds to collapse (doing at the limit, tho). I'd say, for example, being able to do a lot of 3b tricks, stable(!!) and transitioning between them makes you a "juggler". Also challenging 2b tricks. But is throwing one ball up and clapping your hands or eating an apple with the other hand really what we understand by "juggling"?
Void, I was rushed and time was limited. The purpose of the video is to reveal the general thoughts. I am not great at explaining, and I am afraid those who wants to understand might have to get involved in the discussion. What is unclear? please tell me, and I will do my best to explain. Not only has the definition of juggling been an area of much disagreement, it also seems as the approach to it differs greatly, from person to person.
For those who find this video too long to be palatable, start here:
And here is a summary of the definition, which may or may not make sense unless you watch the whole thing.
"Juggling is a genre of activities which are related to the default form. The default form of juggling is the 3 ball cascade."
Topic of discussion: is the default form really the 3 ball cascade?
I am now tempted to watch the whole thing because that is not something I'd expect from Erik. There must be a lot more to it than that.
I always use the definition: "Doing what doesn't need to be done in the most difficult way possible."
I've tried to find the source of this definition a few times. Earliest reference I can find is from Jerry Carson in 2001, which is almost certainly where I picked it up from originally. However, Jerry's message suggests it comes from further back.
Wouldn't that definition include many other activities such as skateboarding, rock climbing and base jumping?
If someone is interested to read more about the definition of juggling, there is some discussion about it in this thread:
That link didn't work for me but http://objectepisodes.com/t/the-definition-of-juggling/18/2 does.
The Kingston Jugglers have, "Doing the unnecessary the hard way" on their t-shirts and they've been around a while. Greg Phillips would probably know when they started using it.
Slightly different wording from 1993: http://dev.juggle.org/history/archives/jugmags/45-3/45-3,p28.htm 2nd paragraph.
Longtime friends David Cain and Jay Gilligan won the Fargo Intermediate and Juniors Championships
David, are you younger than I think, or is that sentence missing a 'respectively'!
Why is it important to define juggling? Is it just so you can deny it includes poi?
You can decide for yourself if it is important or not. The word juggling already means something, otherwise we would not use it. "Convention" and "juggling convention" would mean the same thing, and they do not. If I tell you I am going to a juggling convention, you will get a different idea about what I am about to do, than if I said I am going to a convention. I, or anyone else did not make up what the word juggling means, but we can try to articulate its meaning by looking at how the word has been used.
My version (depending on the context - like "among jugglers", but not apt for Wikipedia) would be sth like:
" Juggling is the rhythmic displacement* of objects in a way that allows to do sth else during that displacement ongoing. This is achieved by aiming the object, thus controlling where it will land, with no need to track it. The skill of juggling lies in using that time for doing more displacements of the same kind or sth completely different in a rhythm. This in turn ("using that time") is achieved by synchronizing the body's movements with the pattern (or: "trajectories") juggled (and vice versa, by adapting, tuning, synchronizing the pattern to fit optimal body motion). "
The borders to other kinds of object manipulation transition smoothly. Object manipulations, that are not juggling, include e.g. cutting a slice of bread or sausage or drinking a cup of .. erhh .. revitalizing hot beverage, or moving your whole household to another town with two or more cars than you have helps (then called "logistics").
* displacement - also e.g. rolling
______________ ________________ _____________ _____________ _______________
Thoughts that brought me there:
Maybe it makes sense to include the juggler in a definition of juggling. I mean, the props don't juggle by themselves - it looks so mechanical, so high-tec, when a robot juggles, while, in turn when a human juggles like a robot, it's an artsy illusion, sth haunting, mesmerizing, a different feel, an uncommon onsight. So the (human, or be it then a robot) juggler is a necessary part of the whole setup of "juggling". Juggling is then the juggler moving right in rhythm with the props and the pattern, as a whole. It would distinguish "juggling" from "juggling pattern" or from "juggling (default) form" or alike, as a result of juggling, but not the whole of "someone juggling". Can juggling exist without being actually done by someone? Else "(the) juggling" and "doing juggling" would be two different things, which in reality, practically, they are not.
Or else - let then juggling be the result of what jugglers do, just like there's dance even when no one is actually dancing it -, a definition should then still include how and why this result is achieved. We'd then get: "Juggling is a juggler juggling the three ball cascade."
Or at least include some physical stuff: "one object in the air" .. what does that mean? - It's timing, time gained by throw height (or roll distance), time to do sth else before catching it again, it's rhythm, tact, (music?), and the juggler needs to account for all that by moving in ways allowing for it to happen: posture, technique, pattern an' all.
A whole lot has been said about this in the thread on Objectepisodes.com
Feel free to join.
Thanks, I mean, no thanks. Prefer to stay here. Why spread the online juggling community onto lots'a different places - it's a lot more clicking and logging in, but, main thing is, content gets partly reduntant, partly exclusive or not to find anymore, also later. Same discussions - like this one - will be unnecessarily parted onto different threads, and by nature have less participants. The whole thing gets ``decentralized´´.
But you are participating in this discussion in the decentralized location. The centralized location is on OE.
I understand the generality of your argument, but I think it can only be used against:
a) New, undeveloped forums that
b) Are redundant with current forums
a) is arguable with OE,
b) is different in that it is (descriptively) for serious discussion about juggling, with a few of the current best thinkers on juggling.
I replied to Scott Seltzer, who linked to youTube.
I think, I have good arguments:
That "default form" stuff and that "Juggling is juggling the 3b cascade" thing is self-referring, so not a definition.
My version proposed above does several things:
It includes contact juggling, poi swinging, patterns rolled on a billiard table (by using the "displacement" instead "tossing or rolling or moving or handling").
It includes the juggler, as what I argued for above to me is part of poised juggling. Juggling without a juggler doing it is maybe a "juggling pattern".
It includes the rhythm, so that a single throw or a gimmick or a standalone flourish or an ass catch on its own are not juggling.
Aspects, that the "best thinkers of the juggling scene" upto now haven't yet accounted for. So I must be completely wrong. Juggling is a highly complex form of movement (of a person actor) and with objects. Calling it an "activity related to a basic pattern", the latter an algorithm, that stickman can do, is way beyond what doing juggling actually is. Every activity in the universe is maybe "related to a default form", in the end, that's then like positing: "Juggling exists." is the definition of juggling.
Thanks for your thoughts.
"I replied to Scott Seltzer, who linked to youTube."
I was referring to your comment in response to erik's offer to join OE.
"That "default form" stuff and that "Juggling is juggling the 3b cascade" thing is self-referring, so not a definition."
I found this a bit of a frustrating straw man argument. Why use "juggling" twice in its own definition, then call it self-referring? Erik posted his tl;dr definition above, which reads: Juggling is a genre of activities related to the default form. The default form is the three ball cascade.
His definition does not use the word "juggling" at all, and is not at all self-referential. It is an example of an ostensive definition, which is a valid and common type of definition.
I'll discuss your definition in a separate comment, because I feel that these are separate ideas.
["offer to join OE"] Yes, I understood that. And I was referring to you stating, OE were the centralized place ( when speaking in such terms - it's become a long thread there, and it's become a long thread here, rather independently from one another, exept for Erik Aberg linking there, late this thread. So inviting me to join there ((and having to register an' stuff an' all)), I took as actually a redirection ).
["3b cascade ``unjuggled´´"] Then, I think, in juggling defined as an activity, maybe there is no ``default form´´ "3b cascade", without it needing actually juggled. You can make it an algorithm, you can make it an abstract concept, you can make it a standalone pattern independent of juggling (using quarks or cars or stickman, or people walking zig-zag in cascade pattern or mere points and vectors in a coordinate system), but when using it as an activity to define juggling, using it to precise the activity of juggling, then surely as the juggled cascade. So, in that "default form"-statement, I read the word and notion of "juggling" (the 3b cas) included, even if it's not explicitly written, and I think, that is also what Aberg meant - the activity of juggling a 3b cascade (it in fact reads to me as that word juggling were omitted or expected to be thought included). Else, some major abstraction level would have escaped me ..
["ostensive definition"] I'll have to look that up. So far, I can only say: The ``default form´´ of a horse are neither a "hoof", nor a "mammal" which would be a general category and a property defining it (the classical way), while I can't see how "A horse is a gender of living things related to the default form 'standard-horse' like that one over there [points to one]." can be an useful definition.
Going through the suggested definition bit by bit...
" Juggling is the rhythmic displacement*
I don't see juggling as necessarily rhythmic, at least not in the sense of any definition of rhythmic I could find (e.g. a strong, regular, repeated pattern of movement or sound.). I could juggle briefly in a completely unrepeated style that would clearly still be juggling.
[...]of objects in a way that allows to do sth else during that displacement ongoing.[...]
I'm not convinced this is necessary, but it is an often-seen attribute of typical juggling.
[...]This is achieved by aiming the object, thus controlling where it will land, with no need to track it.[...]
What about freestyling, where sometimes the juggler doesn't really aim? What about the passing game "garbage", where you throw horrible throws to your partner, absolutely necessitating them to track the object?
[...]The skill of juggling lies in using that time for doing more displacements of the same kind or sth completely different in a rhythm.[...]
Same argument against rhythm. And without rhythm being included in the definition, the definition is by far overly inclusive.
[...]This in turn ("using that time") is achieved by synchronizing the body's movements with the pattern (or: "trajectories") juggled (and vice versa, by adapting, tuning, synchronizing the pattern to fit optimal body motion). "[...]
Juggling is very easy to do, and in fact always done, without "optimal body motion". This part of the definition also uses "synchronizing" loosely. Taken literally, it doesn't make much sense, and taken loosely, it doesn't state things precisely enough for a definition.
(general) I feel that your suggested definition describes a lot of juggling, but not all of it. I also feel like it uses far too many parameters, some of which seem to be intended more literally than others. Some of the parameters are categorically different than others:
rhythm being necessary is very different than demanding optimal body motion.
I'm glad, you had to dig deep and find unusual, rare counter-examples, in order to query, attempt to refute, to discuss the the proposed definition.
>I could juggle briefly in a completely unrepeated style that would clearly still be juggling.
Cool! But I think this might then be either "learning to juggle", or else pretty hard and then rather one of the many exotic, experimental forms of juggling, if really done with no rhythmic feeling, also without half or quarter tacts (e.g. shapeshifting which is still a rhythm). But, yeah, one could go through slightly or completely different heights in order to achieve that - would look pretty "Frankenstein", or "casual", though. [//And that's where our new discipline "casual juggling" (without any rhythm whatsoever) is born.//]
Maybe your word "repeatedly" could be of use for a definition (e.g. in order to distinguish from single throws, gimmicks, that could then be "elements of juggling").
>And without rhythm being included in the definition, the definition is by far overly inclusive.
Hm .. rhythm is indeed, if not crucial (as you put it), a major constituing aspect I see in the ado of juggling that I find needs to be included in a good definition. (But maybe it's not the best word). By "rhythm" I don't mean a tact, a beat, a cadence, but also e.g. galopped tacts, also speeding up or down shortly (in relation to a given beat), or also a funky, maybe broken rhythm (but I think, that was also your wide understanding of the word).
Maybe abstract it to sth like "recurring along spacetime" or so (which sounds queer and awkward).
I do still think that usually juggling goes with a rhythm (in that broadest sense).
[// I don't want ``my´´ definition to be "overly inclusive" °gnarghh°//]
>Juggling is very easy to do, and in fact always done, without "optimal body motion".
I don't see that. I see that alternately throwing a weight (also that of the arm itself!?) left--right--a.s.o. requires countermovement and keeping th balance - the whole body is involved to provide for the right positioning of hands and arms when throwing and catching (in the rhythm dictated by the pattern). Doing (or tuning) this awarely and as optimal as possible is crucial for juggling well, fluent, with no superflu tensions. A question of posture, anatomy, action patterns, the system: "juggler juggling".
[>"synchronizing"] When building a juggling robot, you will have to synchronize throws (height, direction, timing) and where the robot's hand or bowl or what it's got, shall catch. Same for our human hands - where the hands are needs be synched with where the props fall. And what goes for a single throw and catch will take place all the time when juggling a pattern, else you drop.
[>general] Yes, juggling has a lot of aspects that want to be included in a definition. And rating a definition's valuability or aptness or usefulness in deep will lead to having to in turn defining the words used in it.
One more thing .. a definition of an activity, of object manipulation, as broad as juggling, can by nature not be completely clear, not complete, not as binding as in e.g. natural sciences, but can still be ``better´´ than in e.g. social sciences or in humanities. It transitioning fluently at its borders doesn't mean it can't be defined as what it's usually. Any exotic derivations are then exactly that, not "juggling" in it's common sense, but "experimental" or "exotic forms", or "unclear to draw a line there". It needs be done pragmatically a bit, I guess.
I mean, it would be cool to have a widely agreed upon definition, instead of year by year when that topic rises up again, resigning on the many exception there are counteracting every attempt to define juggling while we all know what it is.
I disagree that my counterexamples were rare, particularly the not having "optimal body position". Consider a beginner, walking around in an uncontrolled fashion, has optimal body position. Certainly juggling, certainly not optimal body position!
Really though, I don't think "optimal body position" is important to your definition, and I feel it would be stronger without it.
I certainly understand the differences between levels of acceptable precision between natural sciences and social sciences (I did a BSc and MSc in natural sciences, and am doing a PhD in social science). I believe that a definition should encapsulate the uncertainty of the act. I think this is a great strength of Erik's definition. With his definition, it can account for context and culture, both of which can affect whether something is juggling. If Erik's definition is a Gaussian centred around a 3b cascade, I think yours is a similar curve, but with the tails cut off.
 - Arguable, probably?
Okay, I think, we've both thrown our arguments into the webspace now, and there's partly rather controversial opinions or viewpoints, some bit of agreement; but we both put foreward some aspects to maybe be accounted for in future attempts on defining "juggling". [ #definitions ]
View older threads
Subscribe to this forum via RSS
1 article per branch
1 article per post
Green Eggs reports