Forum

Search posts

Viewing all threads involving 7b_wizard

View older threads

Nikita -

Hey guys!

I just recently joined the forum and I have few questions about record logging.
Hope you can help me :)

So the thing I'm confused with, is order of throws in siteswap notation.

Lets say I want to record 56 throws of 12345 (we all know this trick, and there is no questions that it is called 12345)
So I record 56 3b 12345.
BUT!
My actual throws started with 3. Like 3451234512... So why do I record 12345 instead of 34512 then ?
12345 and 34512 considered different tricks by site engine, but they actually are the same one.
And how would I record this trick with additional 6 throw ? Is it 1234560 or 0123456 ?
Do we have any rules of resolving situations like this ?

Also, do you count 2 and 0 as a catch ?
And is there a way to tag people in posts ?

lukeburrage - - Parent

The convention among jugglers is to typically write down or say a siteswap starting with the highest value. Sure, you might get into the pattern with different throws, or start the loop at a different place, but for clear and easy communication, it's nice if everyone sticks to the same order for the same pattern.

This means 97531 is always easy to recognise, rather than each time the reader having to decode that 31975 and 19753 and 75319 are all the same pattern.

In your case, you are wrong that there is no question that your pattern is called 12345, as you yourself then explain. The convention is to call it 51234.

As for counting catches, with running a siteswap pattern it's often easier to count the cycles of the pattern. For example, here is a video of the b97531 record. Catches aren't mentioned, but "151 rounds" is:

https://youtu.be/c84xxpX67HA

Daniel Simu - - Parent

I've never heard of this convention. 51234 sounds strange. Why not start a siteswap at its easiest point of entry? If it is a ground state siteswap, it's always obvious. 45123 makes much more sense to me than 51234. Obviously it's going to be 97531 and not 19753
Besides, how do you solve for siteswaps with recurring high numbers? 777171 could be written in 4 correct ways then?

I'm not an expert on states, but the excited state pattern 891 doesn't start with the highest number either. I believe that the easiest entry is 778, wheras the easiest entry for 918 is 7788?



"and there is no questions that it is called 12345" I think siteswap wise it should be called 45123, but 12345 is the obvious style choice. Which indeed makes counting tricky. You could link 45123 to the 12345 trick in the record section, claim that your version is the correct one and ask the current record holders for clarification of their counting method.
For myself I would also count cycles, not catches, but I understand that in the record section that doesn't work... I'm sure someone who uses the record section actively can comment on this?

peterbone - - Parent

The convention is actually to write the siteswap in numerical order. So 777171 would be the only correct way to write it. I assume that the reason is that it was convenient for early siteswap generators to write them in that format without having to work out the states. Writing them with highest values first is most likely to result in a low state start, unless you work out the states.

lukeburrage - - Parent

Well, Peter already answered this. It's the highest numerical value if converted into a single number. 777171 starts with 777 which is higher than 771, 717, 171 or 717.

As for this: "I'm not an expert on states, but the excited state pattern 891 doesn't start with the highest number either. I believe that the easiest entry is 778, wheras the easiest entry for 918 is 7788?"

Let's write those down.

Into 891 is 778? So that's 778891891891...

Into 918 is 7788? So that's 778891891891...

Yeah, you've just come up with the same thing!

Daniel Simu - - Parent

Of course they're both the same thing! But that still doesn't tell you whether you should write 891 or 918, right? And my generator & jugglewiki do call it 891, not 918...

Orinoco - - Parent

I've never heard of that convention either. I've only ever heard 12345 called 12345. Searching for 12345 vs the other permutations on rec.juggling & the Edge (both the forum & the records section), 12345 is by far the most prevalent.

If two siteswap records are entered into the Edge records system that are a rotation of each other & provided you have built up enough 'experience' by entering records you will have the option to merge those two tricks together. Once merged you can enter the trick whichever way you like but they will be listed & compared together.

At present no-one has entered a permutation of 12345 to link to.

Maria - - Parent

I have heard of that convention, and I would certainly write any 4-handed siteswaps that way (I believe that most of the passers do that).

When logging my juggling practice, however, I usually write ground-state siteswaps in the order I do them, so 51234 would be written as 45123, since that way I can say that I did 4 rounds and back to cascade or something like that. (While if I wrote it as 12345 or 51234, the same number of actual throws and catches would only contain 3 rounds and the first and last throws would count as transition throws...).

I don't log siteswap records so it doesn't matter in that case, but if I did, I'd feel that doing for example ...3333345123451234512333333.... would be 15 catches of 45123, but only 13 catches of 12345. (If I do active 2s, otherwise I would not count them.)

Someone might also have noticed that I sometimes log both 55050 and 50505 in the same practice session... Or 552 and 525. In that case, it's just different starts and has little to do with how to write siteswaps and more to do with me wanting to see in my log entry that I actually did two different starts, but being too lazy to use a lot of words. (55050 would be starting with one club in one hand and two in the other, and throwing from the hand with one club first. 50505 would be starting with 3 in the same hand.)

7b_wizard - - Parent

Same here .. heard of that convention and use it for logging records, but in a given context write them as then makes more sense.

The Void - - Parent

I've heard of that convention and yet also commonly heard patterns referred to in ascending order, eg 12345. (Also the convention for writing multiplex throws also follows the "highest possible number" convention. eg [543], not [345]. I learned that from Sean Gandini.)

lukeburrage - - Parent

In the single case of the pattern 12345, yes, that order is the most common by far. It feels like the natural way of saying it. However, it's in a class of patterns where throw values increase by one until it drops to the first number again, and in most other cases, the higher number is said first. Examples:

423 not 234
534 not 345
645 not 456

It's only because it feels natural to say the number 1 first that people do so! And it *is* so satisfying to say it that way! In conversation, I've no problem with saying 12345. I think it's more important to have clear communication between two people than to follow strict rules.

But in the case of making a list or database entry, I think it's best to stick with the convention. And if there's any confusion, explain the convention, not make exceptions for something that just happens to scratch a weird cognitive itch.

The Void - - Parent

Yup!

Kelhoon - - Parent

What if others (like me) find it easier to start it with the 3 ? i.e. 34512

There are many patterns that people don't start the same way, so the easy way for you isn't necessarily the easy way for others, hence the need for the convention as discussed by Peter and Luke to help everyone recognise a given siteswap from all it's possible cycles.

lukeburrage - - Parent

Yes, this is the whole point. When ordering lists, the person reading it should know where to look, and also not think they are missing anything, and also not worrying that two things in different places are duplicates. This is why bookshops and libraries have settled on (within sections) ordering books by the author's second name, and then the first name, and then by book title/series title and number. If you went into a bookshop, and some books were ordered by the title, and some by the author name, and some by the colour of the spine, everyone would be super annoyed.

In the case of siteswaps in a list, or in a database like the records section, the obvious thing to do is order them by A: object number and then by B: numerical value.

This is important because, just looking at the siteswap out of context, it's impossible for most people to know the state of the pattern, or how they would transition into it from the cascade or fountain, or any number of other things.

And it's really important not to have 777171, 771717, 717177, 171777, 717771 an 177717 ALL listed in different places, or else the list would be unmanageable! You'd also have to have 441, 414 and 144 listed. And every other iteration of every other pattern, just in case another juggler liked starting on a different beat or had a different transition into the patter,

If someone is confused, it's much better to explain the convention to that person (eg. "in the book shop we order by author surname") than it is to accommodate their preference at the expense of making the system more complicated and confusing for everyone else.

Orinoco - - Parent

With regards to counting numbers. Don't count 0s, & only count 2s if they are active (thrown); if you are just holding the prop don't count it as a catch.

There currently isn't a way to tag people in a post, I don't think traffic is really high enough to warrant the feature? If you just type someone's name in all capitals I'm sure they'll get the message.

Nikita - - Parent

Thank you, Orinoco.

Not counting 0 makes and passive 2's makes sense. I just realized than I counted number of cycles and multiplied it by number of digits in siteswap. But it turned out to be wrong.

Taging people look nice. As I see it. Just Highlighted name makes it clear to random reader that message has direct recipient. It also would allow to send emails to tagged people if they want it, for example. I don't think everyone read forum from end to end. But it is minor.

I'm much more interested in resolving my siteswap issue.
You mentioned an option to merge two tricks together. I have not found info about it anywhere, could you please comment on it ?
If there is a possibility to merge tricks and make two different entries behave like one trick would really solve it.
But also may be i't is possible to pre process siteswaps programmatically to make all versions of one trick recorded with same string. (like if you enter 315 it is still shows up as 531)
I'm not sure if it is a right way.

peterbone - - Parent

Go to any trick in the records section and look at the bottom of the page for "Is this trick the same as another? Link them together". However, based on what Orin said earlier it may not be available unless you've added a lot of records.

Orinoco - - Parent

...& that link will appear if you've logged more than 10 records. This is just an arbitrary threshold so that linking is only handled by people who are at least a little familiar with the records system. I couldn't remember what the threshold was when I posted earlier so just had to look up the code!

Nikita - - Parent

Okay, that explains why I have not found it :)

Nikita -

Hi everyone!

Glad to join your community, hope to find and share some value on juggling edge.

Now you have one more juggler from Russia here along with Ilia Poliakov.

Daniel Simu - - Parent

Welcome! I'm always happy to hear this forum expands beyond UK borders :)

7b_wizard - - Parent

Hi & welcome!

find and share some value .. care to specify (or do you mean "in general") ?

[ Ilya Poliakov .. yeah, I saw his admirably huge repertoire and records, and sometimes he smalltalks :o] ]

Nikita - - Parent

I mean in general :)
Value of knowledge and motivation, you know.

Orinoco -

I've been doing a lot of BJC research recently. Risky in Pink were a trio of club jugglers/table divers from NoFit State Circus who performed at the BJC in 1991. You can see a bit of their act in this old video which amused me greatly.

https://youtu.be/42DhOvXE5XI

Daniel Simu - - Parent

Nice!

Cedric Lackpot - - Parent

Saw that routine live at NFS HQ in Splott :)

Did you know it was choreographed/devised/consulted on by Johnny Hutch?

charlieh - - Parent

Ah there's a name to conjure with - an acrobat of the old school who was apparently spotted by a passing troupe doing a handstand on a chimney where he was working as a builder...could still do backflips at the age of 70 I believe.

7b_wizard - - Parent

Great acts. Very very lively, enjoyable & entertaining.

IsaacDraper -

Hello all, my five ball cascade is starting to get fairly good and I wanna start some tricks. Where should I start? I'm thinking easy peasy rather than upside down, back to front reverse Rubenstein. Thanks!

James Hennigan - - Parent

The easiest 5 ball tricks are multiplex tricks: https://youtu.be/cOpAVoLO-e0

The halfshower is probably the easiest non-multiplex trick (learn to do it with 4 if you haven't already).

The easiest siteswaps with 5 are (6x,4)*, 744 & 645 (again I recommend working on 4b siteswaps first).

I would also strongly encourage you to work on 3 balls in one hand at this point. It's essential for many 5 ball tricks, and if you choose to learn 6 it's nice if you can already do half of the pattern.

Daniel Simu - - Parent

Other tricks to consider:
Walking around, turning around, sitting down & standing up, balancing on one leg, twisting your upper body, etc.

Stephen Meschke - - Parent

Congratulations on solidifying a five ball cascade! The 5b. cascade was my first juggling goal, and the pattern that really got me hooked on juggling.

Where you go from here depends on your skill level as well as your goals for juggling. I encourage you to log some of your practice sessions (in the logs section of the jugglingedge.com) so that more advanced jugglers can recommend tricks and juggling patterns that are relevant to your skill level.

If you are only interested in performance, learning 5 ball siteswaps is not the most efficient use of your time.

My goal is to juggle 7 balls for one minute, and I don't really care about performance juggling. If you are like me, you should train 3, 4, and 5 ball siteswaps. 5 ball siteswaps are considerably more difficult than the 5 ball cascade, so it's best to master some 3 and 4 ball siteswaps first.

Now is a good time to get a set of juggling clubs.

7b_wizard - - Parent

As a mix of normal\reverse throws (normal--normal--reverse--..a.s.o.), I liked "fast tennis" [animation on JWikia http://juggle.wikia.com/wiki/Tennis lower right]

ways of gripping, catching
You might wanna do a, one or some claws?
A low throw - but still a 5, just caught penguin, thrown right back in unchanged tact and 5-pattern.

multiplex
355[22]5[53]55555 - chose a 5-ball to track for throwing that 3 to land near where and when that 5 will presumably land. Then, after the hold, stack-split them right back into pattern; you can use the thumb to split them well. Just make sure, the other hand is ready to go on throwing its normal 5 right after that lower stacked ball comes in sooner, lower.
25[53]5555 - with a hold you wait for another 5 to come in and throw them right back to pattern with the same stacked throw.
7555505[53]55555 - one high 7, then you throw a 5 onto both meeting where and when they land. The stack now goes right into filling the gap back to full 5-pattern.
355[75]5055555 - a 5 and 3 meet (creating a gap where they're thrown, two beats later), thrown as high stack right back into filling all gaps to full pattern again.

s'swap
55558552 - I found straight up outside 8-s easier - away from any possible collisons.

7b_wizard - - Parent

[ff (last one, °8552°)] .. just do 855 from running cascade, stop one beat, and aim the next normal 5-throw ``over´´ the incoming 8 back to ground-pattern.

7b_wizard - - Parent

I also like how different the answers here are without overlapping!?

7b_wizard - - Parent

Just one two more remarks on extra throws or sequences from 5b-cascade ..

.. by doing an extra throw, you split the pattern into that extra throw and a rest of the normal ground pattern (consisting of 4 balls going on doing regular Fives, or - in case of multiplex - 3 balls doing regular Fives).

.. if you have a weakhand that sort of always follows while stronghand sort of leads, any extra throw will entail a following reaction of the next hand (like also ``wanting´´ to do or in fact doing higher, or also lower, or also wanting to pause on a hold, ororor, or simply gets puzzled on "Erhh.. why what how now?" at a given moment).

.. also, when doing higher throws, an 8, a 6, a 7, you have like more balls in the air than usually when doing 5b cascade where one ball has its dwelltime, one next lowest ball is spotted to catch and sort of ``done with focus on it´´, which makes it mostly three balls in the air to cope with.   With a high throw, there's then (suddenly) four balls in the air high up to be coped with.

So, one main hurdle in leaving the constant cascade to do extra throws or sequences, is to dead-stable keep the rest of the pattern in stable shape!   Rely on well aimed throws fitting back into pattern even when you seem to lose control for a few milliseconds and just let things happen instead of hesitating!

IsaacDraper - - Parent

Thanks for the replies guys. I'll get started right away! My 3b and 4b siteswaps are limited but I'm learning more. Exciting stuff!

7b_wizard -

How much do you  a c c e p t   h e l p,  hints or helpful feedback for improving? (no matter wherefrom, video tutorial, or person to person, shown or told or written, ororor)

  1. I am stubborn and want to make my own way all on my own even biting myself through plateaus. (thus doing purely my own way, maybe leading to my genuine 100% own style)
  2. I usually want to find my own way through and reject any help, but I thankfully take help when really badly stuck for a long time.
    .. or ..
    Practical feedback rather irritates or puzzles me, brings me out, so I'd generally prefer doing without.
    [ both options = can take, or want little help ]
  3. I am happy for help when I asked for or when the hint is good and applies.
  4. I am happy for any help I can get - I'll try everything out and filter what applies for me.
  5. Without constant help, always a teacher there to guide me, or a good resource (book, eBook, video tutorial series, ..) I would not a whit get anyhwere ahead.
  6. [ other .. no one helps .. \ .. help is always bad .. \ .. I'm immune against improving, no matter how good the help is .. \ .. There's nothing to improve - my 3b cascade is perfectly fluent. :o} ]

This is a competition thread which ran from 13th May 2017 to 22nd May 2017. View results.

Maria - - Parent

I voted 4, I'll try most things suggested by better jugglers, but I don't keep working on it if it's too boring (for example, I have not learned 4c fountain on singles, even though I have been told it could help improve my 4c fountain on doubles). I don't really come up with many ideas by myself, either. I mean, I can come up with a new combination of throws, but I don't really invent anything completely new.

As a club passer who usually passes with someone better than me, option 5 would not have been wrong either.

Maria - - Parent

...and I have not learned 5 ball cascade, even though I'm trying to learn 5 clubs.

Mike Moore - - Parent

I'm somewhere in the 3.5 camp. If I can be particular about the phrasing "when the hint is good and applies" to be "[...] as interpreted by some all-knowing being," then I'm comfortable with it. Sometimes I don't realize the hint is good until a while after it was given.

7b_wizard - - Parent

Hmhm, I see; maybe we can meet on "if a hint gets you thinking or rumors around in your mind not knowing what rhyme to make of it", then it can still either puzzle and irritate you beyond threshold, or else, you can be ``happy´´ on there being a new way waiting to be discovered some given time later. Or even else, it's stored somewhere in the unconscious until it pops up again at a given moment or remains there forever until the ``hard disk´´ (=memory) is cleaned and overwritten. ( Which still leaves the decision "happy or not about such an unclear hint" to you :o] ) .. but, yeah, if an all-knowing being knows before, read as: "If a hint will apply, later (and I will be happy about it, later)."

.. or just read "3." and "4." as:

3. Happy for help "under condition". (not "any and all the help you can get" unrestrictedly)
4. "Give it all over to me, I'll sort it out." = Any and all the help there might be is welcome. (without any restriction)

Basically the scale goes from 1. "no input whatsoever" over 2. "little help accepted", 3. ``Some´´ or ``a good deal´´ or "under condition" help accepted, 4. All, every, any help (more than) welcome, upto 5. "only with help, can't do without".

7b_wizard - - Parent

btw i'm not sure what to vote myself .. been through like all of the options 1. to 4. before, i think, and now it seems to "depend" on which pattern, which ajuggling (few ball stuff, e.g. Kraken, or else numbers techniques). Even 6., "I don't get info on what exactly is going in the brain and focus and where attention lays in distinct milliseconds." is partly true.

Guess I'll land on 3. or 4. too, as there's yet so much to discover (clubs, 5b s'swaps, selfthrows and fountains, more body range e.g. bbb, for me), .. why not spare time and effort by getting all and any help I can get to get where I want sooner.

Marvin - - Parent

This poll has now ended. The results are:

  1.   I am stubborn and want to make my own way all on my own even biting myself through plateaus. (thus doing purely my own way, maybe leading to my genuine 100% own style) (0 votes)
  2.   I usually want to find my own way through and reject any help, but I thankfully take help when really badly stuck for a long time.
    .. or ..
    Practical feedback rather irritates or puzzles me, brings me out, so I'd generally prefer doing without.
    [ both options = can take, or want little help ] (1 vote)
  3.   I am happy for help when I asked for or when the hint is good and applies. (4 votes)
  4.   I am happy for any help I can get - I'll try everything out and filter what applies for me. (4 votes)
  5.   Without constant help, always a teacher there to guide me, or a good resource (book, eBook, video tutorial series, ..) I would not a whit get anyhwere ahead. (0 votes)
  6.   [ other .. no one helps .. \ .. help is always bad .. \ .. I'm immune against improving, no matter how good the help is .. \ .. There's nothing to improve - my 3b cascade is perfectly fluent. :o} ] (0 votes)

Orinoco -

Lovely juggling & splashing around in a river with Neta Oren:

https://youtu.be/d77D2JroXQs

Looks like it's about 5 years old but I missed it first time round. I think this is a great example of using your surroundings in performance.

7b_wizard - - Parent

Won.der.ful.! .. Life's for free, it seems!?

ChrisD - - Parent

Thanks - original and rather fun. I hadn't seen this either, though I think Luke may have parodied it as part of his rather good 'videos in the style of the top 40 juggers'. I like her style. A quick search also produced this one, which is nice too: https://youtu.be/rxnxpY8VeTs

7b_wizard - - Parent

Impressing!   different. experimental. archaic. sound.

Jason Fitzjohn -

Hi all,
My name is Jason and i have just signed up to the Edge.
I have been spinning nunchaku, double nunchaku, bo staff, fire staff and have just started double staff.
I am really interested in meeting and talking to others who use contact staff. Am i in the right place or is this just balls. Excuse the pun!

Orinoco - - Parent

Hi Jason, & welcome. Have you checked the clubs & events sections to see if there is anything near wherever you are yet?

7b_wizard - - Parent

Hi, Jason.

Interesting. Never got a pair of nunchucks in my hands. Would wanna throw and toss-juggle them rather than contact-handle them.

pumpkineater23 - - Parent

I read that "freestyle is a discipline of competition held by the World Nunchaku Association".

Has Nunchaku changed/moved forward (technically) since internet video?

bad1dobby -

Still got it...

https://youtu.be/y28jsNUhi58

Orinoco - - Parent

Hahaha! Beautiful!

The Void - - Parent

Is that you, Dobby?

bad1dobby - - Parent

No, he looks a bit like me, but I have neither the skills nor the wardrobe.

The Void - - Parent

:-)

7b_wizard - - Parent

Cool!   Impeccable footwork, too.

Little Paul - - Parent

I like the bloke standing in the garden seeming thinking "FFS bill, not this again. Can't you just get on with the job?"

7b_wizard -

How much of you, your time, being sportive, self-chosen active, (no matter if overall a lot or just a little), goes into juggling?

  1. 85-100%. I merely voluntarily move, unless I'm juggling.
  2. 60-85%. Juggling's not only, but overall n° 1 activity. (little other sports)
  3. 50-60%. Juggling has some priority or somewhat more time spent on among all other activities taken together.
  4. 40-50%. Juggling has rather less priority or less time spent on among all other activities taken together.
  5. 15-40%. Juggling is just one among any other activity(ies), or not so important, or even less important, or I clearly spend notably less time on juggling.
  6. 0-15%. Among any amount of sportive activities, juggling takes in the smallest part.
  7. [other]

Not counting ``necessary´´ activities like work, travelling, footwalks or so, only leisure.
I'll leave it upto you, if biking to the baker or having to do like school sports, or fitness prescribed by your doctor, pumpin' up stairs instead takin' the elevator or so is ``necessary´´, unavoidable (would then not count) or ``self-chosen´´ or ``leisure´´ (then would count as ``self-chosen sportive activity´´).
Hope, it's somewhat logically consistent - it's not about "how much" you juggle, and also not about "how sportive" or "how active" you are, but  w h i c h   p a r t  juggling takes  a m o n g  any of your other sportive activities taken together.   Thx 4 voting! :o)

This is a competition thread which ran from 3rd May 2017 to 14th May 2017. View results.

Maria - - Parent

I'd guess about 80%. A normal week has 7-8 hours juggling, and 1-2 hours other "sport activities" (going to a gym, a BodyBalance class, a long walk or something like that). I didn't count walking to and from work, though I could choose to go by bus or car instead but it's just 15-20 minutes walk.

During summer a normal week has less juggling (no scheduled practice), but then there are juggling conventions, where I don't do any sports but juggling.

I used to go for walks to relax or just get some physical activity, but most of those volontary walks have been replaced by juggling during the last years.

Orinoco - - Parent

But it's an ART!

/me runs

7b_wizard - - Parent

Haha, okay, "How much of your arty activities or any activity at all goes into juggling?".

Mike Moore - - Parent

Orin, if you don't answer this question, I'll be very disappointed!

Orinoco - - Parent

Can't answer. Still running.

Mike Moore - - Parent

+1

(Still chuckling)

Orinoco - - Parent

Hard one to judge. My two other main hobbies, (dancing & roller hockey) are much higher in intensity so they feel like they make up a much higher percentage of my active time than they probably do.

I also want to count hand balancing as juggling but that shouldn't be the case.

Austin - - Parent

Funny you should say that, as I have been playing tennis for 10 years but I still find juggling a far, far more intensive activity.

Orinoco - - Parent

Interesting.

With juggling the better I get the less effort is required. With the other two the better I get the more energy I can put in without catastrophic failure.

With dancing being in control allows me to be more exuberant & exciting which is more fun for me & more fun for most of my partners. With hockey being in control allows me to be faster which is an obvious performance advantage. The same could be true of my juggling, but when I juggle I just want to be in control, aside from playing combat I feel there is no incentive to apply unnecessary energy to my juggling.

7b_wizard - - Parent

The same could be true of my juggling, but when I juggle I just want to be in control, aside from playing combat I feel there is no incentive to apply unnecessary energy to my juggling. Humh, is that,, you're ``done with improving´´ and you're happy with what you have under control. Or else, is that exactly your way to best improve fromout controlled ajuggling, even without ``pushing´´ any?

Austin - - Parent

That makes sense, but for me the better I get the longer runs I do and the harder and more energy intensive tricks I do. I've never been one for getting easier tricks totally solid really. I don't think I'll ever reach a point where I feel good enough, because I'll never be the best so it's just a matter of being as good as I can be.

7b_wizard - - Parent

Yeah, please feel free to vote by "time invested" OR by "intensity" (or effort or zeal or dediction) put into the juggling part in compare to all other activity.

The poll should find out, what I think is interesting, if juggling is among if any or among all other your most prominent ado or activity or physical exercise or moving artistically or getting one's bottom up from the couch at all. Its priority, its importance, its significance among ``being in motion in one's free time´´.

7b_wizard - - Parent

I like to count any kind of balance - unless most focus goes into strength and balancing is the least challenging, a negligible part of the act - .. count it as very much a juggling exercise. After all, a well juggled higher pattern is always also well balanced in your airspace and relative to one's body axes.

7b_wizard - - Parent

I myself used to wander, and upto the day bike like daily (thinking of quitting that, even I think it's very healthy), sometimes for leisure swim a bit, give a nice frisbee or so, and for a while jog 5 km or run 800 m almost daily (many years ago). Now, apart from just a few minutes doing some gym, stretching, bending, or from time to time maybe doing pushups or pull ups or situps for general form and flexibility, I try to not waiste any energy that I can save for juggling. = clearly "1".

Scott Seltzer - - Parent

Aside from 2 annual juggling conventions and 1 music festival that I go to for the juggling booth, I spend approximately 0 hours/week juggling. Oh, I may get 10 juggling shows/year these days, but that's insignificant (though I do break a good sweat). I spend about 10 hours/week doing sports (tennis, running, biking). I spend around 10 hours/week with online juggling adventures.

Little Paul - - Parent

What he said (but with less time playing sport during the week and a lot more walking - minimum of 10Km a day)

I should pull my finger out and start running again, or get back down the gym. My middle age is spreading

Mike Moore - - Parent

A big reason that I do other exercise in my life is that I find it so substantially improves my juggling. When I'm practicing hard, it's about a 50-50 split between juggling and other sporty activities. When I'm being lazy, juggling makes up ~70 % of my sporty activities (despite other activities and juggling both decreasing in time).

Marvin - - Parent

This poll has now ended. The results are:

  1.   85-100%. I merely voluntarily move, unless I'm juggling. (4 votes)
  2.   60-85%. Juggling's not only, but overall n° 1 activity. (little other sports) (6 votes)
  3.   50-60%. Juggling has some priority or somewhat more time spent on among all other activities taken together. (5 votes)
  4.   40-50%. Juggling has rather less priority or less time spent on among all other activities taken together. (0 votes)
  5.   15-40%. Juggling is just one among any other activity(ies), or not so important, or even less important, or I clearly spend notably less time on juggling. (1 vote)
  6.   0-15%. Among any amount of sportive activities, juggling takes in the smallest part. (0 votes)
  7.   [other] (0 votes)

7b_wizard - - Parent

I'm not surprised .. it does say "juggling" on top and in the url after all ;o]

IsaacDraper -

I've been trying out a new practice round tonight and I'd be interested to see what people think.

I'm working on my five ball cascade and can manage a fairly consistent 20 catches. Tonight I tried this:

If I got 20 successful catches I'd move up to 25. If, after 3 attempts I'd failed to do 25 catches I'd go back to 20. Assuming I got 20 again I'd go back up to 25, then 30, 35 etc. Every time I failed three times I'd move down a number before moving back up.

It seems to work for me; I've gone from not being able to break 40 to breaking 55 a few times and fairly consistently beating 40.

What do you all think?

Do you understand my ramblings?

Mike Moore - - Parent

I understand, and I like these kinds of games. Another kind of thing I'll do when working on consistency is:
n rounds
n+1 rounds
n+2 rounds
n+3 rounds
etc.

Until I drop. Do about 5-10 sets of this and I'm done.

7b_wizard - - Parent

When I get a lot of early fails because my launches or patterns are bad, or I'm not doing fresh, or or or anything, I'd go back to "going to early collect" (before a ball drops), no matter how far I got in a run. I'd usually try that without a lot of effort, and often on speedier lower pattern, until I get better patterns, better flow. I'd also (try and) find out why and what exactly went wrong, or what, which way I might do differently trying to get it better. Then I'd go for as long as can again.

Your method .. well, if you get longer runs and better patterns and feel - isn't that great.

View older threads

Subscribe to this forum via RSS
1 article per branch
1 article per post

Green Eggs reports