Viewing all threads involving peterbone
practise versus ``talent´´
(no matter which level you're on - just started or world champion ..)
How much do you think that all your skills are (to which part) a result of practise or hard ``work´´, perseverance, or else
(to which part) did they ``come to you´´ by a natural preference for juggling (or object manipulation or artistry oror) or by a natural predisposition or a love for juggling making learning easier (than e.g. for the average juggler, or e.g. than learning another skill or art of motion or sportive activity)?
A few aspects helping to answer:
Even Gatto said sth like, there's no such thing talent on his level or for him - it was all hard hard work.
Think of what you can't do even though you think you should.
Was your decision or how you got to juggling totally intrinsic (=absolutely "yours" and the only thing to do, ``necessary´´ in a way) or could it just aswell have been something else, another hobby or activity.
Do you see yourself improving and learning much faster than others (that's the point, not learning easy stuff fast only).
Do others admire the speed you improve or learn (while you yourself might not have noticed).
And a question that I'm interested in:
Do you think or have you experienced a hidden talent waking up after already having juggled for a good while? Do you think that's possible to ``wake up the natural inside you´´?
I myself am somewhere between 2 and 3, but sill blundering a real lot when not yet warmed up or when not concentrating, also failing over long phases, makes me say "2", even though I hope for it to become easier, maybe the natural skill inside waking up, some day when I've reached my goals and then not having to so much do at the limit anymore. I don't think I'd have gotten where I am without the inner decision to dedicate to the 7b cascade, which is maybe rather a preference than ``natural talent´´, who knows.
You're asking multiple questions at once, which makes it hard to answer correctly...
I think I have some but little natural talent in learning object manipulation skills. However I am extremely predisposed to love juggling which makes it incredibly easy to spend countless hours on practice. So effectively my natural affection for juggling makes me a good juggler?
Yes, [>>"multiple wording"<<], wanted to include a wide range of viewpoints for "talent\\not talent".
Okay, that makes it a bit difficult ("little natural talent, but love for juggling making practise easy"),
but, as the question is scaled along "talent vs. practise", I'd say, your description says, that your love for juggling sort of enables or helps you to make up for little natural talent. But you don't sound, like new skills ``come to you´´ or that your natural afffection for juggling makes learning (notably) easier than for the average juggler or than another activity - at least not in a way that would spare you to still having to practise a whole lot. That would be a clear "2", I'd say.
So, @ all, if in doubt, feel free to read the options as roughly ..
1. 0-5% talent - 95-100% practise (hard work only)
2. 5-25% talent - 75-95% practise
3. 25-45% talent - 55-75% practise
4. 45-55% talent - 45-55% practise (equal)
5. 55-75% talent - 25-45% practise
6. 75-95% talent - 5-25% practise
7. 95-100% talent - 0-5% practise (pure talent, just do it and it will naturally succeed in ridiculously short time)
I put myself down as a number 2. I think I'm very similar to Daniel, I got good at juggling because when I first started I enjoyed it so much I did nothing but practice. Perhaps because of my enjoyment I didn't realise it was 'hard work'.
Agreed. The choices are made a bit complex by the 'love of juggling' part, which I think makes the vote lose focus on the nature vs nurture argument. I think that any natural aptitude is very small, but I voted 2 for the same reason as you.
Interesting Gatto's comment that he thinks it was all hard work. Where does that quote come from? On his own forum years ago he said that he believes he has some kind of natural advantage and sees things "in slow motion". Although I don't believe that at all I do think that believing it helped him a lot.
I always thought that seeing things in slow motion is acquired. When you first start attempting 5 balls it feels frantic and crazy fast and impossible. After a while (perhaps a few years or more), it can seem slow and simple. Gravity obviously hasn't changed but your perception has.
Sometime after I was pretty solid with 5 balls, I remember when it really clicked even more and became truly effortless. I fondly remember that as my juggling nirvana.
That 'love of juggling' wording is due to me trying to exclude, that ``talent´´ (which anyway is hard to seize as notion) need be determined by some genetic predisposition, let alone by a distinct ``juggling gene´´. And I tried to allow, that a wunderkind could feel as a natural without a need to have genetic evidence, without the need to have been ``born as juggler´´, just with love of juggling, then. Also, I wanted to avoid any discussion about whether ``(genetic) talent´´ even exists or not.
That Gatto statement is nothing like a citation with a source; I had it in mind, read it somewhere - it might be a mere rumour or misinterpretation (alas, I have no idea, where I got that from).
I'd put me somewhere between 5-6. When I can dredge up enough time to practice daily, I feel my progress goes by leaps and bounds, and it seems like I could be /very/ good if I were to try to make a career of juggling (or prioritize it higher).
There are certainly people who pick things up faster than me, but that population seems to be somewhere between 10-25 % of jugglers I know. There's probably some selection bias in there.
I'm a 2. I find it very difficult to understand juggling patterns and I've always learned everything slower than most. My love of juggling has helped me keep up the practicing.
This poll has now ended. The results are:
Bath juggling club - a review.
My first juggling club was the Bath club, at the Window Arts Centre. I went there from about 1994 till I moved to Bristol in the late 1990s. It survived for many years, but folded quite a while ago.
Now Henry Lawrence and Charlie Dancey have started up a new juggling club on a Thursday night. It's been running a couple of weeks now. I guess you'd call it a 'soft launch', in that they have gently publicised it by word of mouth to a few local jugglers, but don't seem to have listed it anywhere yet or set up a website.
I was busy the first two weeks packing for and attending Broxford, but I went along last week to check it out.
The venue is Pipley Barn, in Lansdown (at the top of the hill on the northern outskirts of Bath). This barn has been recently renovated by Henry, and I think he's intending it as a multi-use space: camping barn, cafe, music studio, and event space.
It has been beautifully renovated, although there's still a bit to be finished, so the main space had a few piles of unassembled kitchen cabinets and shower cubicles in the corner!
There were five of us there last Thursday, which was nice and friendly: me, Henry, Charlie, Robin & Linda. The club is advertised as suitable for juggling, board games, playing music, and consuming tea and snacks.
There is a main event space, which is the main barn space with a pitched roof and wooden roof trusses. If you stand under the peak I think you'd probably be able to juggle five clubs. I had no problem juggling three clubs anywhere. For passing I think you'd need to stand across the hall so you missed the trusses. With the current piles of building supplies that would probably limit you to four people passing at a time, but once those are cleared there may be room for more club passers.
As well as the main space there is a large kitchen, then the corridor leading to the toilets opens out into a small lounge area with sofas which would be great for socialising or playing music. Down the corridor are what will I believe be an accommodation area and a recording studio once work is finished.
The main space also has tables and chairs stacked up (I think it will eventually be a cafe during the day), so room to sit and chat with a cuppa.
The club has a lovely chilled vibe (as you'd expect from a space that Henry has put together). I'll definitely be back :-)
The barn is hard to find if you haven't been there before. It's nestled amongst fields, woodland and the golf course in Lansdown, next to the Cotswold Way footpath. Here's a link to it on Google Maps: https://goo.gl/maps/mUyxrETFHg92 It includes photos of the barn (pre-renovation).
To get there, drive north out of Bath on Lansdown Road. Go past the Golf Club and Racecourse. You then turn left on a private drive (towards Brockham End) - the turning is before you get to the Sir Bevil Grenville monument or the turning to the Avon Fire Service centre.
Go along the drive (noting the "No entry, private drive" sign!). After you come out of the woodland it opens out on to the golf course, with a tiny wooden signpost showing "Pipley Barn" to the left and "Brockham End" straight on. Turn left here onto a rough gravel track. It is very easy to miss, particularly in the dark. If the road dips down you have gone too far and are heading down to Brockham End.
After turning left onto the gravel track continue as it turns to the right. Then Pipley Barn is on your left. Henry puts out an easel with a juggling sign on it, but it's easy to miss in the dark. I've suggested he put a light on it to make it more obvious. There are absolutely no street lights up there so it is pitch black!
There is parking for about half a dozen cars in the barn courtyard, and probably a few more on the side of the track outside.
Highly recommended for a chilled juggling and social experience! Plus you get to reminisce about the good old days of juggling with Charlie Dancey ;-)
Here's the official details from Henry:
We are restarting the Bath Juggling Workshop.
Where: The Institute of Excellence, Pipley Barn, Brockham End, Lansdown, Bath, BA19BZ
The barn is near the 7th tee on the Lansdown golf course, and near point (1) on the map
When: Every Thursday evening starting 7 September 2017 from 7 pm.
What: Juggling hall with lots of spare props.
Board games (Chess, poker dice, BN1, Khet 2.0, Settlers of Catan, backgammon)
Table football / airball / mini-snooker
Do it yourself BBQ (weather permitting)
Leaf teas, ground coffee, cakes and biscuits.
Cost . Free first time, then £5 (waged) or £2.50 (children and concessions)
Hope you can come.
Henry Lawrence and Charlie Dancey
I went to the Bath club again last night. Very quiet this week - just me and Henry!
Still, we had a good passing session (just 4 count while Henry gets his eye back in). It also inspired Henry to turn out his juggling bag until he found his magician's thumb tip, which is useful for protecting his injured thumb from being bashed by unruly clubs. So hopefully we can now get Henry doing more passing again :-)
We also had a nice little session playing guitars in the corner. (Last week I picked Henry's brain for advice on buying a second-hand guitar. I bought one at the weekend, and wanted to see if I'd done ok. Henry thought I'd got a very nice guitar at a very good price, so that's a result. I'd also always been very impressed with Henry's guitar, and in a side-by-side comparison my one stands up as being in the same league as his, which makes me happy. Mine is from the some stable as Henry's (a Yamaha FG700S, compared to his 40-odd year old FG140).
The barn has had a bit of a tidy up since last week, with much of the building materials and clutter tidied away. Still a bit more to do, so Henry is holding off on a publicity blitz until it's all cleared away.
Of particular interest is a wood burning stove waiting to be installed (sometime next week I think Henry said?) That will be very nice in the winter warming the hall, and giving a nice focal point. Will it be the only juggling club with a wood burner?
Our passing allowed us to evaluate how well the hall works as a juggling space. As expected, passing lengthways down the hall wasn't so good because of the roof trusses. It worked, but doubles would be impossible, and singles were only a few inches away from the beams, so at risk if the pattern wasn't perfect.
Passing across the hall worked absolutely fine though, plenty of height. There is a pendant lamp hanging down in the middle of the hall (as well as all the halogen spotlights). We didn't ever hit it, but Henry is wondering about a pulley system to pull it out of the way during the juggling workshop.
As is customary with juggling club reports, the important stuff:
Tea: no loose-leaf tea this week, but the tea-bags were posh individually wrapped ones, in a china teapot with gold motif, served with milk in a matching china jug. 9/10
Biscuits: milk chocolate digestives, followed by shortbread fingers. 7/10 (would be higher but Altern8's posh biscuits have spoiled me!)
It would be nice to see a few more people at the club, it really is a very sweet space with a lovely vibe. Using a space owned by a juggler feels so much more at home than a church hall!
I'll come at some point. I was considering it this week, but Thursday crept up on me too quickly.
It has a habit of doing that. I think they should delay it by a day. In fact most days creep up on me. Maybe we should delay every day by a day?
Can I ask how the wood burning stove is protected from juggling props? I have one at home and we already broke the glass once with a stray club. Some kind of screen is needed without looking too ugly.
Currently just a sheet over the top (it's not installed yet).
Annoyingly the place where Henry intends to install it is the middle of the wall on the longest side of the hall, which is also the best place for passing due to the roof trusses!
It's opposite some floor-to-ceiling glass doors, which Henry intends to cover with a screen when the juggling workshop is on. I'm guessing he'll also need to invest in a wire mesh fire guard too to put around the burner!
After just two people last week, it was good to see word had spread, and we had eight people this week :-)
Henry, Charlie and Robin were there running things. I came along with my mum (not a juggler, but she was visiting, and was happy to come and listen to Charlie's stories of the good old days). And Jade, Lindsay, and Scott were doing some fine acrobalance when I arrived.
The wood burner has been installed, and despite the rather mild weather, was fired up. Very nice. I passed on the suggestions about protecting the glass door in some way :-)
Tea was back to loose-leaf again this week, but the china teapot could do with being bigger with that number of people! Snacks included popcorn and some sandwiches instead of biscuits.
I did some old-school passing with Scott (fast four count with lots of tricks). Scott, bless him, gave me some spiel about how he was about to throw a double-spin pass at me that would arrive at an unexpected time, and not to panic. I gently pointed out that I'd been passing for 23 years, and he could throw whatever he liked at me and I'd be fine ;-)
Charlie then joined in and we did 4-count/2-count feeding with run-arounds.
Eventually I managed to persuade them to do some proper lefty/righty stuff, so I did a simple pass-pass-self feed while they attempted 3-count. That felt so much better :-)
At some point Henry started playing guitar in the lounge, and people gradually migrated, picking up instruments on the way, to finish up with a nice little live music session. Jade on viola, Lindsay on guitar, Henry on washtub bass, and Scott singing. I think there may have been some harmonica too? I'd love to get my guitar playing up to a level where I could join in.
Sadly we had to leave then as my mum had an early start the following morning.
Great vibe as always. I'll be back next week.
Here is a playlist of the records broken or set in the World Record Challenge at the Guelph Juggling Fest 2017.
3 ball lazies: 2 minutes and 7 seconds by Matan Presberg
3 ball shoulder throws: 204 catches by Jorden Moir
3 ring backcrosses: 183 catches by Matan Presberg
3 club flats: 10 minutes and 42 seconds by Nick Thomas
4 ball lazies: 54 catches by Matan Presberg
4 ball box: 3 minutes 57 seconds by Matan Presberg
7 balls isolated: 1 minute and 43 seconds by Matan Presberg
7 ball 867: 188 catches by Matan Presberg
7 ball claw: 7 catches by Nick Thomas
9 ball reverse: 16 catches by Matan Presberg
3 ball: 1 hand & 1 foot: 56 catches by Jorden Moir
4 balls: 2 hands & 1 foot: 142 catches by Jorden Moir
4 ring speed: 232 catches in 1 minute by Nick Thomas
6 ball speed: 312 catches in 1 minute by Matan Presberg
3 ring slow: 32 catches in 1 minute by Sydney MacDonald
4 ring slow: 76 catches in 1 minute by Sydney MacDonald
4 ball slow: 63 catches in 1 minute by Nick Thomas
+ Number of records set or broken at a single festival: 17?
That is an impressive set of records, congrats to all those involved.
18 last year at Guelph fest! I guess we're going down hill (I blame myself...I didn't set/break any this year. Too much running the fest, not enough juggling).
There was a world record challenge at IJA 2013, too. It looks like a subset of the broken records is available here:
I don't know the total number of records broken there.
I've still got one video left to upload (Sydney MacDonald with 16 min of 4b full reverse fountain), so it should end up as 18 records for WRC at Guelph Fest 2017.
As to previous World Record Challenges...
The first WRC was in 2010 at WJF 5. Prizes were only for surpassing existing duo numbers passing records.
In 2011 there were WRCs at WJF 6 and the IJA festival. The records expanded to solo numbers juggling records in addition to two-person numbers passing (i.e. the records tracked on the Juggling World Records Wikipedia page at that time). The prize for "missing records" was also introduced to encourage jugglers to attempt a flash or better of passing 17 rings or solo force bouncing 11 balls, the only two records considered missing at the time!
WRC 2013 was at the IJA fest in Bowling Green, OH. The records expanded to everything tracked by Juggle Wiki. Missing records were greatly expanded with minimums set for each, based on discussions I had with Alex Lubker. About 28 records were set or broken by a wide range of jugglers, with Thomas Dietz breaking the most.
Then came the WRCs at Guelph Mini-Fest 2016 and Guelph Fest 2017.
Tomorrow another WRC begins at JuggleMIT 2017, so stay tuned...
What you're saying is 28 records in one fest is the one to beat. I'll have to start training for the next time the WRC comes to a fest I'm attending!
Actually, I'll train especially for if you come to the next Guelph fest. It needs more people/publicity! (and I really thank you for helping with that)
I haven't watched the entire video, but I think Gatto does 7 for about 10 minutes without moving his feet here:
I'm not sure that counts as isolation for some reason. I watched Ofek Snir do 7 balls without moving his feet for over 12 minutes at the EJC last year.
The most convincing argument I heard was that the inability to move has a psychological on people. I've found this to be true in my experience.
Such a nice idea to set these records at the convention! I've been thinking about setting a few records lately, but I can't get the motivation to actually film them or practice tricks which I could run over a minute... In a convention/group setting I'd feel less awkward to try and less pushy to post, yet we'd still stretch juggling as we know it!
I might try and introduce this at some convention here in the EU in the future :)
And congrats on the results too!
Useless fecking loser needs TWO hands to catch the last one! What a pathetic waster, he's going nowhere fast.
Queer .. I saw nothing, only a still picture of the solar system with a tiny lightblue brahman hovering a handwidth above ground on Jupiter. Guess, my subconscience did that to protect me.
I flashed 8 balls today. I was bored, had to wait 15 minutes, there were some cheap beanbags lying around... I don't even juggle beanbags, ugh! Worst of all, I did it after only 5 minutes of trying so then I had to kill another 10 minutes somehow..
Where are my cool points?
The Smithsonian Insitution's Sidedoor podcast just came out with an episode all about the life and legacy of Paul Cinquevalli! Well worth a listen if for no reason other than to listen to the dulcet tones of Erik Aberg's voice.
Check it out!
Found a download link for this episode in their RSS feed Sidedoor: ep. 7 | the man who defied gravity (mp3 36.3mb)
Thanks for the heads up Thom, just added this to my startling large collection of things to listen to!
Finally managed to get around to listening to this today white I was getting in my pelargoniums and taking cuttings. It was quite a good listen, even if it did give the listener the impression that nothing Cinquevalli did was gimmicked when some of it certainly was.
Surprised at Erik implying that the tricks were not gimmicked as he has stated here that he believes that at least some of the tricks were gimmicked. Here's the thread where we discussed this previously and an article I linked to that mentions how he might have done the billiard balance trick.
This interview was over way sooner than I thought. I have not listened to it, so I do not know what parts they used, but we hardly even scratched the surface of Cinquevalli. They asked questions that were rather silly (for an example, what a member of the audience would wear), and kept interrupting me before I could come to any point. Hopefully, there will be a chance of discussing him properly in the future. In terms of Cinquevalli and gimmicked props, the point is that he claimed not to use them, and specifically pointed that out, as a difference to magic. What the actual reality was, can of course be discussed. The distinction between juggling and magic is clear after Cinquevalli, but not before.
Thanks. I totally understand how they could have quoted you out of context. It seems like Cinquevalli was working to make the distinction between juggling and magic, but then breaking his own rules. I totally understand that his main goal was one of entertainment and making a living though.
Balancing and juggling (and juggling and balancing)
I wrote up a little tutorial on learning to juggle with a balance (or... is it learning to balance with a juggle?..!)
Thought some of you might get a kick out of it! Curious to hear if my experiences are parallel with any of your own.
That was an excellent read, thank you. Please show it to /r/juggling as well if you haven't already.
I found myself both agreeing and disagreeing with so much of it. But that's a reflection of my understanding of the trick, which has changed considerably over time. I used to think that it should be regarded as a single trick rather than a combination of two, but I eventually realised that it's better if you let the balance come first. I'm still not sure it isn't actually a single trick, but nowadays I very much agree with the importance of focusing on the balance.
But since I learned the trick before I learned to focus completely on the balance it seems evident that one can divide one's attention somewhat, and still succeed. It's hard to remember but I think back then I tried not to look at any one thing at all, just see the whole picture.
Thanks, Cedric! Just posted it over on Reddit. (Feel free to give an upvote! ha!)
I'm still not sure it's a single trick, either, haha. I think that three with a balance is certainly "canon" enough that can stand on its own as a trick, but find that learning different tricks while maintaining the balance makes that perspective lacking... (would you agree?)
Your comment about dividing attention definitely corresponds with my experience with headbounce... if you focus on any one thing too much, it all falls apart. You've got to see the whole thing all at once!
Just got around to reading it, and I think that you've covered everything I either picked up from other people or intuitively tried in the "conscious incompetence" phase.
I like the way you've written it up and illustrated it though - and I think you actually managed to describe why I've never found the forehead balance as comfortable as everyone seems to have told me it is - it's because I have to flip my perception.
You might even have inspired me to have another crack at getting it solid.
Awesome! I'm really excited that there wasn't much new info in there for you, actually... Doing my best to be comprehensive with these posts, and if I've covered everything that's occurred to you, I must be doing something right!
Good stuff. When learning the Bungay trick, I remembered Haggis McLeod's exhortation from his Club Juggling instructional video: DON'T DROP THE BALANCE. (Which pretty much summarises your article in a sentence.) It's really hard to keep doing that when you're first trying to add some throws under the balance, but it pays dividends in the end.
I never did work hard enough on just a club balance with a cascade. Maybe I should try again....
I think I made a VHS rip of it and still have it on my PC somewhere, but I didn't put it online because oddballs were selling it on DVD at the time.
It makes for wonderful "omg the hair! The clothes! The sheer bloody 1990s of it all"
Good stuff, Thom. A few thoughts:
I think I remember hearing that Gatto recommended the forehead balance since it gives the audience a better view of your face. That insight is presumably from Nick, actually. So, forehead might be better for performer-types.
The Reading Test is my favorite drill before you put it all together. Work on it a lot after your balance is solid and before you work on adding the juggling. Try to get your head back as far as you can, even looking up somewhat behind straight up so you rely on minimal peripheral vision of the clubs.
Placing into a Balance - the trick here is to catch the club you're going to put into a balance up high and as close to the balance point as possible so there's not a lot of movement (and time) to get it into the balance. Watch people doing constant balances on one side and you'll see very high catches and minimal movement to actually put the clubs into the balance/roll).
One thing you didn't mention is clubs vs balls. Learning with 3 clubs is much easier than with 3 balls since you will see the clubs easier with your peripheral vision than balls which are generally thrown lower (throwing them high enough for suitable juggling with a balance is an unnatural slow rhythm). 4 balls is similarish height to 3 clubs so a reasonable start for those who prefer sphericals. I think it was "The Complete Juggler" that suggested that even numbers might actually be easier for juggling with a balance.
I'm guessing that even numbers would only be easier for the nose or chin balance since the club would obscure the crossing point of the cascade.
Funny that you say up high when referring to what I would call the bottom of the handle. Perhaps your mental model of a club is the other way round to mine. The disadvantage of catching near the knob for placing into a balance is that it's harder to get it to the right angle, but you're right that it can be quicker and easier to position it accurately.
By "up high" I meant with your arm raised up high, right near your forehead. Another thing about this is that the throw should be one and a quarter spin so instead of catching the club perpendicular to your body line like normal, you catching it more vertically, oriented and ready for quick placement on your face.
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
Perseverance pays off.
I found this film of a skater repeatedly failing to pull off a tough trick while talking about his journey very easy to relate to.
I had seen this video before and I enjoyed it, I watched it again and I still enjoyed it. I think it is a good motivational story and I admire the guy’s determination.
But.., does anyone else wonder if that trick could have been broken down into more manageable steps (excuse the pun…) and practised better so that he could hit the trick in a shorter timeframe or with greater consistaency?
I know nothing about skateboarding and the relative difficulties of tricks but are there similar / easier variations which he could have learnt to train up for ‘the big trick’?
By his own admission he is ‘Not a consistent skateboarder, doesn’t land stuff every try at all. I fall most of the time.’
Could all that energy and determination been better directed at improving his consistency to better enable him to tackle that very hard trick?
It seems to me he threw himself at this trick, nearly every day, for two full years. Had about 100 attempts each time he tried it, 2000 attempts, and in all those attempts he nearly got the trick about 20 times.
He bled and hurt himself and had 2x trips to hospital, cracked ribs, he smacks his head on the tarmac (you can die from that!), not to mention the emotional upset he went through during the ordeal.
At the end of it, when he nails the trick, he is pleased. But he is more happy that he doesn’t have to try it any more than that he got the trick itself. It was an ordeal which is now over which is why he was happy.
I think that attitude of single bloodymindedness and determination is useful in the juggling world if there is a trick that you really want to get. But, I would argue that it is better to channel that energy through a targeted practise structure to build your consistency in order to nail that hard trick, rather than repeatedly hurling yourself at the trick in one go. I am personally motivated by the small gains you make along the way, little steps, than slogging your guts out for two years solid for that one moment when you get the trick. I think it builds a more consistent juggler.
Obviously different approaches work for different people.
This isn’t to say that during a practise session I do not try tricks that are above my technical level, I do, you should always test your limits. But I would never spend 2 years throwing myself up against a wall unless there were some hand holds in place to help me get over it.
This subject interested me enough to write a post about it, I would be interested to hear other people’s views and experiences of this.
Right from the beginning he is always close to getting it. Aside from a couple of attempts where he bails out of the run up, every jump in the video he makes the distance, the board goes through the correct rotation, most of the time both feet land back on the board. There is no obvious (to me) progression of improvement. He's just not landing the trick. This of course assumes that all attempts were similar to those shown in the video. I'm inclined to believe this is the case, but am probably allowing myself to be swayed by the sincerity of his narration.
Speaking as a non-skateboarder I'm probably talking out of my arse (this has never stopped me before, & is not going to stop me now) but I don't think it could be broken down. The height & distance of the jump, the surface of the run up & landing zone etc. are all going to be unique to those set of steps. So to do the trick there he has to practice it there. The landing of the jump depends on the flight, the flight depends on the take-off & the take-off depends on the run up so all of those things need to be practiced together. So the only other item that could logically be isolated from the trick is the rotation of the board, which given that from the start of the video he is managing to do he already has worked on that skill presumably elsewhere.
Putting on some pads would have kept him in better shape & allowed him more attempts.
Sounds more like a mental block, not believing in it enough or fear of injury preventing him from landing it.
I don’t believe that this guy has any fear of injury. He appears to be fully committed to each attempt. Orin’s point about the pads is a good one though!
I do see what you mean about the correct board rotation and his landing on the board each time and also the need to practise the trick on those particular steps.
Are there simpler jumps that he could have performed off of those same steps in order to get that same landing sensation? As you say, it appears that the landing is the major problem.
I am not a skateboarder either, I am curious that if he practised the trick in a different (smarter..?) way he could have achieved better results, sooner.
9 ball preparation
I'm looking to direct my juggling into numbers for the next while, specifically working on 7b in a way that will make a somewhat sustained 9b more feasible in the future. I've been enjoying 5 and 7 ups (no 360s) and praciticing 7b at what I expect 9b height will be. Finding these really fun.
My siteswap abilities are a fair bit below my base-pattern abilities, so I'm working through some remedial siteswaps with 5 (771, 75751, and the very non-remedial 933).
What are some other things to work on? Unless it is absolutely necessary, I'd like to avoid 8b and 6b (except in cascade patterns).
Personally I think just try and work on lots of tricks back to pattern with 7, as they are both more fun and more productive than slaving away at 9. Try the 5 and 7 ups with 360s, and try getting a few rounds of 966, 867 and b6666 back to pattern. I also like working on (8x,6)*. On top of that, although I can get 100 catches of 7 most attempts I think it needs to be a lot more solid to be working on 9. Why not try 8? It's a lot easier than 9 and helps with the speed and height.
Thanks for the response. I've worked a little on 966 and (8x,6)* and will continue doing so. I don't like 360s (aesthetically, conceptually, and physically - they're normally asymmetric and hurt my knees when I practice them too much)
Do you think that b6666 and 867 are really useful for 9? Perhaps as a general "it'll make you spend more time on 7b siteswaps", but they seem to be pretty unrelated to a 9b cascade. Which leads me to...
I don't do base patterns of even numbers. I don't like the feel of the scooping motion, and collision avoidance in fountain patterns is a skill of mine that lags behind (and I am fine with it doing so). I've certainly /tried/ 6 and 8b, and worked on 6 enough at least to know that I don't like it.
Current 7b status for me is breaking 100 catches about once/practice.
Well b6666 certainly will be as it will help your ability to have enough control over 7 to get out high throws. If you can do it, 978 would be worth working on if you dont want to do fountains. Other than that I just think getting 7 both rock solid and correctable is the best way forward, and I do that by trying to get increasingly hard tricks back to pattern, preferably with a nice run afterwards to show control. What balls are you using for it?
The problem with things like b6666 is that I expect the bottleneck in skill will be the several consecutive 6s no colliding. I'd be spending a lot of time/effort dealing with an aspect of the pattern that I don't expect would help me with my goal.
I'm using Drop Props (100 g) for 7, and will probably do that for 9. If I'm feeling lame, I might use my underfilled 85 g Drop Props.
Fair enough, maybe just practice doing 7, throwing 1 very high and collecting 6, then going back to 7 straight away. What I'm wondering is whether your goal is just to get some runs of 9, or whether you want a general improvment in numbers skill? Because I only really work on base patterns so they're solid enough to get some tricks in them, because I get bored just running patterns.
Right now, my goal is to build toward runs of 9. I tend to switch focii and dig pretty deep for longish periods of time (e.g. from Feb-July, I only juggled 3b) and 9 is my medium-term goal at the moment.
Ooops, I forgot to say thanks for the idea of doing a collect to a restart. Thanks!
I personally don't think that any 7 ball siteswaps would be much help for 9 balls. I mean look at Gatto's 9 balls. 9 balls is all about throwing with a very consistent height and accuracy, which siteswaps won't help you with. You're already working on 7 balls high, which is one of the best exercises for 9. Get is as accurate as you can. I'd also recommend working on 7 low to get used to the speed. I'd also suggest to do these exercises with a range of different balls from small to large and light to somewhat heavy. Large balls with 7 will give you the pattern shape and arm position needed for 9. Other than that, just go for 9 with many short sessions.
Maybe these articles will help as well. The first I wrote mainly for flashing high numbers but a lot of the points may be helpful for running 9 as well.
When high 7 is working with good form, it gives me such a great feeling! 7 low is a bit frustrating right now, but frustrating in similar ways to 9b attempts, so seems like awfully good practice.
Very interesting advice about doing 7 with different types of balls. I'll be sure to do that, especially during club meetings when there are tons of different balls to go around.
Those articles are so nostalgic! Worth re-reading after such a long time, thanks.
What do you consider sustained?
I took a look at the jugglingedge.com records database to see how good 9 ball jugglers are at 7 ball juggling. Link to graph showing relative difficulty of 9b and 7b.
Typically 7 ball jugglers are better 9 ball jugglers. Most jugglers who can sustain 9 balls longer than 20 catches can run 7 for more than two hundred.
I probably wouldn't practice 9b unless I thought I could break 20 catches of it at some point. So yes, I'm looking for >20 catch runs.
That's a cool comparison in your graph. I have no doubt that I'll run 7b for 200 catches before getting 20 catches (or maybe even a qualify) of 9b.
Nice plot. I can spot myself. The problem is though that a lot of 9 ball jugglers may not be interested in long runs of 7. It would be a bit like Usain Bolt running a marathon. Also some endurance jugglers may not be able to get decent runs of 9. That's why the data doesn't follow the linear regression very well at the higher catch counts.
I understand the idea of the comparison between Usain Bolt's best races (100 m, 200 m, maybe 400 m) and marathons against 9b and 7b seems hugely exaggerated. I expect it would be more like comparing 9b versus 3b (or 4b). Distance running and sprints are hugely different. It's not the case that sprinters are just "uninterested" in running distance: elite sprinters couldn't run distance at an elite level, nor could elite distance runners sprint at an elite level.
Yeah, I said a bit different. I think it would be more like comparing 9 balls to 5 balls. I know that it's not just a case of being uninterested in the other discipline. It's also about what people have trained for. 7 and 9 are still different enough that people could have specialised in one and not be anywhere near as good at the other.
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