Viewing all threads involving peterbone
My weekly blog post this week is about a new juggling practice system that I have been playing with. It seems to be working for me. Let me know what you think.
So, the 3 Fails start point is arbitrary? You could make it lower or higher to make things easier/harder for yourself? Interesting, I might give it a go.
The 3 is arbitrary. But I think three is a good number. If you can do something three times in a row, you don't need to practice it anymore that day. If you can do it 3 times in a row EVERY time, then maybe the trick is too easy and it is now "in the system".
Sounds interesting. So if I get a repeating sequence of fail, success, success I will always win the game up to any value, despite never getting more than 2 in a row? I guess that this makes it less frustrating that aiming to get a certain number of successes in a row?
That's right. Either way you ending up "winning" the game. Best case is you get three times in a row, then move onto something else. Worst case, you end up doing whatever it is 10 times. If every session you end up doing it 10 times, then there will be a point where you might be able to achieve 9 times in the system. And then 8 etc.
Somehow this reminds me of a two-clear points or Advantage/Deuce system. I guess it recreates a similar property.
I understand, that basically you need 3 more successes than fails within 10 attempts, which makes sense to me. It's a way of limiting yourself to 10 attempts going for over 50% success.
I see a dilemma when having a line like
fail -- fail -- fail -- success -- fail -- success -- success -- fail -- success -- success ( 5 : 8 ) or
fail -- fail -- fail -- fail -- fail -- success -- fail -- success -- success -- fail ( 3 : 10 )
.. you've then ``lost´´, but have worked yourself up to a better success rate, found into pattern better, and might say to yourself like: "let's make it 3 more attempts, as with the later attempts I came close" or so. The game then can come down to deciding whether to go on trying, or else to stop, just as would when limiting your practice time for that trick with say a ``buffer´´ of a few more attempts or minutes when things go well towards end of that stint (or to stop earlier when it's not that trick's day) - also, that is, depending on success rate and-or general form and confidence, then.
[ #practice #structuredPractice ]
Does that suggest you switch to a different ball for 12 and 13? What and why?
No, I just haven't tried 12 or 13 with them, or any other ball recently. I would probably want something a bit lighter for 12 or 13.
Out of interest, do you know what weight/type of ball Alex used for 14? Because the strength required with any normal ball is beyond my comprehension.
Bag lady Rag bags I assume. Around 72g. They're pretty heavy for such high numbers.
"They're pretty heavy for such high numbers."
Since (if your assumption is correct) Alex just flashed 14 of them, I think there's a pretty strong evidence-based case for saying "No, they're not". :-)
I've heard a similar argument in favour of pinkies, but they didn't seem to juggle themselves as advertised =(
Mr Barron has been doing that juggling thing again.
(14 ball flash)
It's probably rather unfair that I saw that and thought 'oh had he not done that yet?'
I had a similar reaction when I saw the video title... but when I saw the flash itself, I was surely more impressed than last time :)
I was shown a secret video recently of Alex getting as close as you can possibly get to doing it without actually doing it. But that was sync. I love the fact that he did it async.
I also really didn't expect this to be done as an asynch pattern, if a 14 ball flash was possible at all.
I know that sync numbers is very tough on the abdominals and Alex needed recovery time between sessions. Perhaps this is why he switched. His recent 12 ball record was also async.
Yeah, I know what you mean about the abs. It's also the reason I haven't kept trying 12 balls myself. But then I have trouble launching the first of six balls from my left hand when trying asynch, and I presumed that would be a limiting factor in 14 balls with seven from the left hand (or second hand).
Well done, Alex. Incredible.
If you're reading this: Chance of this being front page featured, if it were uploaded to JTV: 100% :-)
Can hardly tell myself, cos' nothing I juggle is really safe to not fail early before I get a good long lucky run in an attempt. (Guess, I'm doing at my limits too much, instead just "juggling" also easier stuff).
Going over endurance in order to then after that get a pettern safe enough for a short run to show, with 5b cascade, I feel pretty comfortable now (>1,000 catches), but doing the 5b reverse cascade lucky over 100 c a few times lately is still way from "solid, stable or safe", so I think, I need 250-300 catches (?) at least to feel like "I got that halfway down" with then still lots'a practise ahead to really "own", somewhat "master" it.
So, "solid" for me, at my current level, a lot means like being able to vary a pattern, bail out drifts, turns or lost timing and rhythm, and find back to comfortable fluent controlled pattern. (Yet that's still not "utterly controlled, mastered, rock solid", let alone "performable on big stage" as long as I get early fails a lot and longer runs luckily onlöy or after longer warmup anew on every single pattern).
So, (I'm aware it depends on the goals, on the difficulty of the pattern, on if to perform it for vid or onstage, but) how about your best patterns or tricks, .. are you okay with a few rounds (periods, cycles), with 50, 100 catches, or do you want them to last 300, 500 catches? When do you feel "safe" with them?
I should be able to:
Do it while talking to friends (and others, I suppose)
Do it whenever I want for however long I want
Rely on it completely when trying to do harder versions
^At least 95 % of the time. To me, if it feels good and has low variation, it's solid. Even inverted box I drop somewhat oftenish, and I'd consider it solid.
Solidly, with a club balance? If so, how do you know when you have that solid?
Obviously not otherwise it becomes recursive. Normally a qualify would be enough, or a bit more. Solid is such a vague word that I'm not sure I'd ever claim to have any trick solid to be honest.
"Solid for you" would like mean when you're satisfied with it far enough to stop practising it intensely for example.
.. or also when you feel it's ``ripe´´ to increase its difficulty and dare a harder version of it for example.
Hehe, I was imagining a progression of objects of decreasing length, ending with the silly end behaviour of no object at all.
I consider a trick solid when I can do it at least 9 times out of 10 in practice when combining it with another trick.
I will then introduce it into my show and if I am still dropping it too much I will revise my belief that it is solid until I can reproduce the same consistency in a show.
That - even though mine's different and much lower level - reminds me of wanting >10 rounds of a single extra throw in e.g. 5b practise, like #5-count backcross or reachover or 4b + one very small club, before I attempt on faster #n-count or add a club to 3b2c. Or >10 times "per run" (no matter how much cascade only in between). Same for e.g. 3b single behind back looking in about a #5-count.
Apparently freestyle dance/acrobatics in a freefall simulator competitions are a thing.
Never seen this before (wait for it...), I was blown away.
I'll get my coat
I wonder how expensive getting and running one of those is. If it is reasonable, I wonder if it might crop up in a circus at some point.
It looks like fun though!
They are only (ha!) a bunch of very powerful fans & a perspex enclosure. While very niche I can't imagine they would be expensive enough to put off Cirque Du Soleil. Limiting factor would then be power supply, I doubt you'd be able to plug it in at the mains.
Does it really offer anything substantially better than more traditional flying trapeze acts? Once the novelty has worn off probably not. Having the performer enclosed off from the audience & wearing a crash helmet takes away a lot of the performer's ability to engage with an audience too.
I should've also noted in my original post the performer is Maja kuczyńska who came third in the Wind Games 2017 held in Cataluna.
I wouldn't have thought it would need more than 63A 3 phase, which should be readily available in most theatrical venues (and indeed, most tented venues)
The novelty factor, rigging difficulties, enclosed performers etc have never stopped wall-of-death or ball-of-death acts from being popular.
Talking of intriguing props, I'll just drop this teaser from Greg Kennedy/Michael Karas here as it doesn't seem long enough to warrant a new thread on its own:
Those two do seem to have a habit of coming up with/developing toys I want to play with, but which I don't have the space to build...
That looks like it could be rather interesting to watch. I like the projector onto the moving bars.
There is way more to these things than just a big fan. They are wind tunnels laying in their side. They are WAY bigger than just the Perspex column you see here. That's the minority of the thing. They take up entire buildings.
Yep. A friend of mine got into parachutig and then flight tunnels (it's a very expensive hobby by the look of it). The airflow is on the order of 2 million cubic meters an hour (tunnel cross section is at least 10 square meters, air speed 200 kph or so) - it's not just one fan, it's stacked series of fans top and bottom, and some bloody enormous filtered intake vents elsewhere in the building.
I am now trying to imagine what 2 million cubic meters an hour would do to a tent...
I am now trying to imagine what 2 million cubic meters an hour would do to a tent...
If you were at BJC 2013 in Pickering you could've experienced it.
To be clear, here's a diagram. See how big the perspex tube is in this?
However, I don't want to quash the idea of this appearing in a Cirque du Soleil show in the future. If anyone will do it, it'll be them.
It's just that it won't be a single act, and it won't be a touring show, and it certainly won't be in a big top. It'll need to be like the O show in Vegas, which is entirely built around water and diving and other aquatic things. The show is built around that, and also the theatre.
I could see something similar with "air" show. All that stuff in the picture above? That would be around and behind the stage. The perspex tube could maybe be removable, or extend up and down. Air could also be diverted out of the tube, to blow things sideways or down or whatever.
How about the more portable outside versions? They look a lot smaller.
When the fan is below, the column of air is super lumpy with turbulence from the spinning blades. That's just about good enough to hold your body flat and stay up, but the fine control needed for dance moves isn't possible. The modern installations have the fans above, and suck the air up, which means it is a uniform column of air and has no turbulence.
Of course, the sucking fans need a sealed column of air, which is why there is the perspex tube for the flier. The air speed is the same from the top to the bottom, unlike the open design with the fan below, where the air speed drops off as the stream dissipates. It's just a massive blast, and you're balanced on top of it.
You really need the wall-to-wall air column for dance routines like in the previous video.
Neat. BBC article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-38890112
Why do people say "are a thing" when they could say "exist"?
If this was the 90's, and rec.juggling - I'd be making inappropriate jokes about Neil Stammer right now.
I can imagine artists using weights in order to not fly (so much). There'd then be ``groundies, slomo-jumpies and flyers (flyees)´´ to be choreographed to a showact. Lightweighties could be held by ropes or rubber-ribbons to be able to stand or dive upside down permanently without sinking back down, too. (( Maybe also bring your pet, cat or dog lol. ))
Live recording of the 38ème Festival Mondial du Cirque de Demain.
Haven't watched yet, saving this for later.
We watched it live on two Arte videostream on Saturday night. It certainly had a couple of moments. I'll let you guess my favourite acts once you've watched it.
i suggest to watch it on arte and support them instead of giving the clicks to a russian pirate
Watched it live through a VPN as well. Highlights for me were the beatbox guy, hand balancer, Swedish Chinese pole guys, Canadian luggage trolley lady, Diabolo. Viktor Kee was a judge.
The ball juggling routine was superb, the characterisation was brilliant, and he owned the audience!
I also really enjoyed the diabolo routine (although I just can't stand vertex or whatever it is called, it looks so inelegant!)
Something I liked about both performers is that they were not afraid to push things to the edge of their abilities, and it was the small failures that really made the acts.
I thought that the drops for the ball finale might have been planned. At least, the first one seemed to be.
I think it was a bit of both - I'm pretty sure this was on the edge of his abilities, but with the 'skit' around having someone come and pick them up being entirely rehearsed. I very much doubt his act is planned to have an exact number of drops. It's part of what keeps the performance fresh.
Yeah. Although he got a really strong crowd reaction after the first drop, which is why I thought that that one might be planned. And then maybe one more was expected.
Still good going!
Kerol, the beatboxing club juggler was not bad either.
I really enjoyed the seesaw + Chinese pole act as well, although I did not like the ending.
You can now als read my review of the festival at eJuggle:
Nice review! I would love to see the other show, do you know if it will be going online?
I watched it again on the weekend, and noticed that the Zhejiang Troupe's finale is even more mental than I thought: The base was actually in a handstand with the antipodist lying on his feet.
The other show was not recorded by Arte, so it will not go online as a full show. Probably some artists have recordings of their own, and might decide to release those online in the future.
Sadly I didn't snap a picture of that finale nor did I rewatch the video, but now that you remind me, yes that was the case. I really saw little of that act, much too distracted by the background dancers and trying to make a Dutch joke about it (die 8 dansers vormden de ACHTergrond ;) )
Ah well. Will keep an eye out.
The background dancers did seem superfluous.
I really enjoyed the whole show though.
Thanks for the enjoyable review, Daniel.
Regarding the Zhejiang troupe, you wrote:
I wonder whether you meant "unimaginably hard"?
"Unimaginatively hard" would mean something like "very difficult but not at all creative". (My apologies if that was your intended meaning)
Oopsy, that error slipped through! Thanks for the correction, this is the only way for me to improve my English :)
Juliane and I caught up with the Arte show yesterday, and we made very similar comments to your own about the acts, though I hadn't read your review at the time. Things like "I bet those dancers have something to do in a different act, but they are in the choreography throughout the main show, so here they are."
I'd seen ChihHan Chao (George) perform at the EJC, both on the Open Stage and in the Diabolo Battle (where he came second), so the act wasn't so special for me, especially with so many drops and mistakes. I understand why he got a gold medal though.
I have a choreographed drop at the end of a few of my acts, but Alejandro Escobedo needs to learn that if you don't get the trick after the "comedy picking-up the dropped props routine", then the next attempt has to happen FAST. As in, maybe slightly funny but most importantly No Hanging Around. By the second drop the audience already knows you are A. good at juggling, B. clever (for choreographing a drop, or having choreography to cover the drop), C. funny and D. entertaining. Extra choreography for each drop doesn't elevate B and only decreases A, meaning C and D have to ramp up to cover the deficiency. And it was such a pity after the rest of his routine was without major errors.
Haven't watched either video yet as I'm currently at work with no time or sound but I'm really excited about watching this again. I was sitting on the floor at the time completely mesmerised. Mostly curious to see how far my recollection of the session differs from reality after 17 ye... FFS 17 YEARS!
Also looking forward to what else comes out of your box of old tapes!
I have another 6 hours from the BJC2k I'm going to look through over my coming work trip. From what I saw when capturing the videos (which wasn't a lot) I can tell you that people fucking SUCKED at diabolo 17 years ago. It's cringeworthy.
If you're digging up old tapes, I think I've still got some of your digi8 tapes around here somewhere
I have nothing to play them back on, and no idea where they are from - but if you want we can probably work out a way to get them back to you?
Okay, sounds good. Jugglermail might be able to get them to me, or if there are only a few I'll pay for postage. What do the tapes say one them? I don't remember not having any.
I'll dig them out and look. I'm pretty sure they're from a BJC, If I had to guess it would be somewhen around 2008ish
I think I ended up with them because someone from byjoty that year wanted your footage of their act, but your camcorder had died so you couldn't play the tapes.
Once I've found them I'll drop you an email and we can work out how best to get them to you.
Probably 2005, as I think my camera was on the blink after that, and I switched over to using Pola's mini-DV camera instead.
I'm looking forward to watch the practise session soon. What does 2k stand for in BJC2k?
k is shorthand for thousand; so "y2k" was the "year 2000"; it's probably more typically used when referring to amounts of money, but around the turn of the millennium, it was quite common to refer to it as y2k [or 2k if, as with the BJC, you had other preceding acronyms].
Yes. I was going to mention some of the people watching, but thought I'd leave it up to the eagle eyed viewers to spot them and work out who they all are.
This is a question intended for anyone who was there and may know the answer...
Did Anthony juggle those same red renegade clubs in the BJC Gala Show or did he use clubs of a different colour?
Gatto donated an old set of 3x Renegade Clubs (which he had signed and which were light blue in colour) to the BJC raffle that year.
I was wondering if that set of clubs had been juggled in the Gala Show or if anyone knew if they were an older performance set.
The next question is: does anyone know where the light blue clubs were performed or what era of Gatto's career they came from?
Those clubs with the light blues decorations were in the convention "office" for the whole event (I juggled them) so they weren't used in the Public Show. I don't know if/when he used them on stage...
Great to see this, thanks. Having attended 4 BJCs in a row, I decided to miss this one. A decision I've never regretted in the slightest as I was just getting together with a wonderful girl and decided to invite her on holiday to Cornwall instead. We have been together for 17 years now.
Still, I've often wished I could have attended this as well and seen Gatto live. I still can't juggle even as well as he could at age 8 (the oldest video of him I could find http://juggling.tv/15335), and probably younger too. Is it really true he could juggle 5 balls at age 5?
I don't see any reason to doubt that he could do 5 balls at age 5. Here's Matan doing 6 at age 6.
If I remember correctly it was Albert Lucas who was rumoured to be able to do 3 at 3, 4 at 4, and 5 at 5.
I have a picture on my drive which originally had a description saying he was 4 years old. There he is juggling 4 balls and spinning one ring on his leg.. But I don't know if that description is true and can't remember where I got it from :(
I can't offer any definitive source saying Gatto could juggle 5 at 5, I'm afraid. This well known article does imply he probably could (and I take Peter's point, through the amazing 6 at 6 Matan, also) :
'It was Nick who first taught Anthony to juggle, in 1978, a few months before Anthony turned 5 years old.'... '"I noticed that after a few weeks, his progress was becoming more and more rapid,” Nick later said'....'So rapid that at times he didn’t even have to learn to do the higher number. Like when he went from three to four, he never had to practice four balls. He could do four balls. He never had to practice five balls. He could do five balls.'
Yeah, also taking in account Anthony said he was training since he was 3.
" But I feel lucky because I get to do something different from the one thing I grew up doing since I was 3 years old." http://www.floridatrend.com/article/19006/a-famous-jugglers-concrete-plans
He ran a workshop at that BJC, which I went to; the only things I can remember from it are:
1. learn headbounce, practise everything with headbounce, it'll make everything else more solid.
2. use superglue to stick your hands back together after the skin dries out and splits from juggling too much.
Feeling prompted by a christmas card from the Beaks to remember a few people. I know it won't be comprehensive, and I knew some of them a lot better than others, but here's to Aidan Burns, Nick Beak, Ben Beever, Mike Bridges, Gary Blake, and Vid Warren. The world was and is better because of them.
...and looking back over that list, can someone please wrap Luke Burrage in cotton wool for the next couple years?
Please feel free to add more names if there's anyone else you'd like us to think of. I would also like to briefly plug national bereavement week in early May, and espcially the Pushing Up Daisies programme in Todmorden, who are fantastic for talking about and facing death and bereavement.
Just there was a very strong preponderance of the letter B, and then you were the first non-dead juggler to come to mind with a suitable surname!
Alive, that is, not a zombie juggler.
Well, this is awkward...
Please don't die until a very great age and/or reaching all your personal goals!
Gone but not forgotten.
Why do you want to suffocate Luke though? Seems a bit harsh.
& the first thing I've made this year is a silk juggling simulator. Not sure if it will work on touch devices because I don't have one to test with but it might work.
I've always found silk juggling a bit naff but I find this strangely addictive & therapeutic.
I wonder if we can get this into JugglingLab?
Happy New Year from the annoying guy on an iPad!
Well, the buttons have different labels now, but I suspect that's not what you meant. Nothing happens in the box, still.
Well it works as expected with my touch events emulator. I don't think I'll be able to fix this until I get a genuine touch device to play with.
I suspect it's nothing to do with touch events, since nothing happens at all (no animation, and the counter at the bottom stays at 0:00).
Perhaps a Safari on iOS issue? I'm not sure of the best way to debug that.
Update: also fails to run on Safari on OSX. So it's a Safari problem. Might be easier to debug on desktop Safari!
The error console lists "SyntaxError: Can't create duplicate variable that shadows a global property: 'display'"
Perhaps rename the variable 'display' on line 108 to something else?
It now works on Safari on OSX, but not on the iPad (iOS 9).
It does work on Safari on my iPhone (iOS 10).
I've found how to debug on the iPad: activate developer mode (Settings->Safari->Advanced->Web Inspector); connect to a computer with a cable; on the desktop Safari->Develop->iPad->(page to be debugged).
This reveals: line 93 Unexpected identifier 'accuracy'.
And Google/Stack Overflow tells me that the 'let' keyword is only supported in Safari from iOS 10 onwards:
Many thanks for this. Switched the code to use the old
var keyword. Bit of a performance hit, but still usable I think.
Still nothing here (refreshed the cache and css thingy), but I'm on iOS 9.3.5, so I guess that's why.
The next error (on iOS 9) is: Line 202 Unexpected token '>'.
This is taking 'remote debugging' to a new level ;-)
Let me know if you get bored :-)
ah... the first bug should've given me a clue to this one. I think I've found a Mac old enough to test with but probably won't have time to sit down with this until the weekend.
Will definitely try to support Safari on iOS9 as I certainly don't consider 4 years to be particularly old! Although I assume iOS9 can run the latest Chrome/Opera/Vivaldi/Firefox etc. if need be.
I don't know if it's changed, but it used to be that any third party browser app on iOS had to use Apple's rendering engine. So even other browsers probably suffer from the same issues.
Incidentally, both my iPad and Void's are stuck on iOS 9 as support was dropped for those models this autumn.
But any iOS device bought in the last 4 years will run iOS 10.
So how obliged you feel towards supporting iOS 9 depends on whether your legacy support is better than Apple's :-)
Does anyone else fire one of the caught balls at far out of reach outbreakers to at least hit it before it drops and at least delay their drop.
Okay, I'll try again:
When you see that a ball will drop far away from you, does anyone else then at least throw a ball at it to at least hit it before it drops?
Sometimes with clubs if it's falling from high up onto a hard surface. I noticed from a previous thread that you often make wild saves to catch bad throws while practicing. I wouldn't recommend that for improvement. No point wasting the energy or risking injury. It also doesn't force you to focus on good throws as much.
wild saves .. it's become less over the years lol. I have `modes´ of doing ranging from lax & no saving at all over keep-it-up mode unto go-for-it unleashed mode (rather when learning new tricks or to save a very long run) and I'm aware of not utterly exhausting myself and not risking too much.
View older threads
Subscribe to this forum via RSS
1 article per branch
1 article per post
Green Eggs reports