Threads tagged #n

Search posts
Forum index

Viewing all threads tagged #n.

 

Sergei -

What is normal progress for beginner juggler?
How long it takes to reach and what it means "stable cascade"? What about other tricks?

Guili - - Parent

well... i guess it deppends on many factors...
mainly, the time and effort one puts on it, right?
another factor is your body and mind, i mean, it is clear to me that each one of us can be good at some things, not so much at others. for example your body and mind could be more capable for juggling than rock-climbing.
the point is to find something you like doing, and just keep doing it until you get it.
the time it takes you, only you can tell. there is no "normal" people, we're all different.
also the context, are you juggling alone? is somebody teaching you?
for example it took me a few years (teaching myself, not doing it everyday, or even everyweek) to master 4 balls, but my wife got it in like a month with my help... i don't think that means she's better that me... each one of us is walking his path.
so i guess my advice is allways compare yourself to yourself, never to others.
enjoy the progress, don't get anxious to get to the goal.
it's a brave thing you're doing. starting with this world at 67 y.o., so my respects to you!

ah, and i guess 60 catches could qualify as stable, right?
but it's endless... i mean, after getting the 60, you will want to make 100, and so on...

Sergei - - Parent

My record is 80 catches, but next time balls falls after 10-12 throws (((

Orinoco - - Parent

Never worry about how long it takes to learn a pattern. Just enjoy the process!

Little Paul - - Parent

Juggling is a journey, not a destination. Nothing wrong with enjoying the scenery!

7b_wizard - - Parent

"Stable", I'd say, for a pattern is when the pattern is well-timed (right handmovements in time, comfortable tact) and well-spaced (comfortable equal spaces between all balls, good geometry), well-aligned (no great spread, balls follow one another well, follow their flightlines well).
You can get a "stable cascade" sometimes, but still not always, still doing tensed and with arms rowing a lot (e.g. when doing a nice, but too big huge pattern), and still getting drops and fails also a lot. So, getting a "stable pattern" isn't yet the best you can get.
"Stable juggling", I'd say, means you get stable patterns a lot and have less to no drops; I guess, it also then means more control.

Other words (and notions) to describe how well a pattern (itself) runs or how the ado of juggling it goes (judging also posture, hand- and bodymovement), are "kept up [for #n rounds or catches]", "fluent", "flowy", "floaty", "snapped-in", "running", "rolling", (whatever these might distinctly mean) .. maybe "poised" (but that sounds point-of-view, like "nice" or "superb" or so), .. then, rather unprecise, I find, expressions like "getting it down" or "owning" a pattern; maybe these can mean, you can show the pattern anytime a few rounds, or else it could mean, you can do it in your sleep.

Higher levels, I'd say, would be when it is not a challenge anymore to do without drops, when hands seem to ``do all by themselves´´, when you're getting better at correcting outbreakers back to pattern (easily) with fast precise correction throws, or even when you can bail out a completely rotten pattern back to stable. When you can move, sit down, bend, turn, jogg with the pattern, do it on bycicle. When it's well in rhythm, when the whole ado (You + balls + your handmovement + the whole pattern + your brainwork + your automatisms + your mindset) feels like One.

I like (to go for) control over the pattern, full control.

How long it takes to learn depends on how much you stay aware that there's always more to still learn that you know nothing about yet, thus not getting stuck on a level where you think you got it, but don't get any better and don't understand why.
Always reckon for the unknown.

Other tricks give a compare to how juggling is more than getting the cascade down - they define the cascade and its skills as what it is among what else there also is.

7b_wizard -

What is "rock solid", for you when practising, wanting a trick or pattern rock solid (not when rating someone else's juggling) ?
#lingo #jargon

7b_wizard - - Parent

Can hardly tell myself, cos' nothing I juggle is really safe to not fail early before I get a good long lucky run in an attempt. (Guess, I'm doing at my limits too much, instead just "juggling" also easier stuff).
  Going over endurance in order to then after that get a pettern safe enough for a short run to show, with 5b cascade, I feel pretty comfortable now (>1,000 catches), but doing the 5b reverse cascade lucky over 100 c a few times lately is still way from "solid, stable or safe", so I think, I need 250-300 catches (?) at least to feel like "I got that halfway down" with then still lots'a practise ahead to really "own", somewhat "master" it.
  So, "solid" for me, at my current level, a lot means like being able to vary a pattern, bail out drifts, turns or lost timing and rhythm, and find back to comfortable fluent controlled pattern. (Yet that's still not "utterly controlled, mastered, rock solid", let alone "performable on big stage" as long as I get early fails a lot and longer runs luckily onlöy or after longer warmup anew on every single pattern).

  So, (I'm aware it depends on the goals, on the difficulty of the pattern, on if to perform it for vid or onstage, but) how about your best patterns or tricks, .. are you okay with a few rounds (periods, cycles), with 50, 100 catches, or do you want them to last 300, 500 catches? When do you feel "safe" with them?

7b_wizard - - Parent

"until it becomes ``boring´´" is another criteria just came to my mind.

Mike Moore - - Parent

I should be able to:
Do it while talking to friends (and others, I suppose)
Do it whenever I want for however long I want
Rely on it completely when trying to do harder versions

^At least 95 % of the time. To me, if it feels good and has low variation, it's solid. Even inverted box I drop somewhat oftenish, and I'd consider it solid.

peterbone - - Parent

With a club balance.

The Void - - Parent

Peter wins this thread.

Mike Moore - - Parent

Solidly, with a club balance? If so, how do you know when you have that solid?

peterbone - - Parent

Obviously not otherwise it becomes recursive. Normally a qualify would be enough, or a bit more. Solid is such a vague word that I'm not sure I'd ever claim to have any trick solid to be honest.

7b_wizard - - Parent

"Solid for you" would like mean when you're satisfied with it far enough to stop practising it intensely for example.

7b_wizard - - Parent

.. or also when you feel it's ``ripe´´ to increase its difficulty and dare a harder version of it for example.

Mike Moore - - Parent

Hehe, I was imagining a progression of objects of decreasing length, ending with the silly end behaviour of no object at all.

7b_wizard - - Parent

:-o nirvanic.

Llama_Bill - - Parent

When he can add another club balance obviously.

It's Him - - Parent

I consider a trick solid when I can do it at least 9 times out of 10 in practice when combining it with another trick.

I will then introduce it into my show and if I am still dropping it too much I will revise my belief that it is solid until I can reproduce the same consistency in a show.

Nigel

7b_wizard - - Parent

That - even though mine's different and much lower level - reminds me of wanting >10 rounds of a single extra throw in e.g. 5b practise, like #5-count backcross or reachover or 4b + one very small club, before I attempt on faster #n-count or add a club to 3b2c. Or >10 times "per run" (no matter how much cascade only in between). Same for e.g. 3b single behind back looking in about a #5-count.

pumpkineater23 - - Parent

Agreed - ripeness. When I can do it well enough to blob it into my other stuff.

Ludvig Landgren -

Hey guys, Happy New Year! :D

So since I'm a bit of a beginner when it comes to siteswaps, I have a question about multiplexes ([33]):

- How do you count catches with multiplex (that is: throwing two balls with each throw)? Would you count one catch per two balls, since it's >one< throw, or would you count each as two, seeing as you're actually catching >two< balls more or less at the same time?
By this I mean: does each throw result in one or two catches? :/
If you were going to add a record on the Edge for example.

And also: if any of you have any tips about triplexes ([333]), how do you guys start a cascade? I've found it next to impossible to hold six balls in one hand, and I'm using regular-sized (ca 63cm) beanbags. Is there a trick to it that I don't know about yet?

I hope my questions make sense; I've found it's rather hard to explain...

The Void - - Parent

How about starting with 5 & 4 balls in each hand, and starting with ([33],3x)? (I'm not sure if "3x" is correct, but I mean a 3 to the same hand.)

7b_wizard - - Parent

Hi & happy new year, to you too! .. Don't have that issue, as I don't do stacked ones, so I count "balls caught".   Even for stacks, I'd think, even though you were counting and recording "balls caught", the pattern would imply they're thrown in pairs. I'd comment "#n pairs thrown" or "duplexes thrown" and-or "#n balls caught" anyway, though, I guess.

Ludvig Landgren - - Parent

Alright, thanks for the reply!
I guess I just like throwing them Koblikov-style (i.e. stacked) so maybe I could count "stacks" and have the siteswap pattern explain the rest? A stack of [33] being two balls/catches and [333] being three...
I'll work on it :)

Daniel Simu - - Parent

for ([333]), if you're using beanbags, I guess you could pinch the corners of 3 balls together and hold them with your teeth. Load them into your hand after the first throw!

Daniel Simu - - Parent

Or balance 3 balls on the back of your hand after turning it palm down with 3 other balls in the hand.

I'm sure there are many creative ways to solve this problem. Kickup, put the balls on a table, do a 3 ball cascade while holding the other 6 like how people start 9 with russians, and then do a 543 into squeeze catch.. Saggy small beanbags would probably help.

Ludvig Landgren - - Parent

Thank you for the ideas, I'll be sure to try different ways :)
I know it'll probably be way easier with smaller beanbags, but I just like the size I already use.
I'm gonna have to look up "squeeze catches" though.

Thanks again!

Daniel Simu - - Parent

Its the opposite of a multiplex, catching multiple objects in the same hand at the same time!

Daniel Simu - - Parent

It's*

(@orinoco how about an option to edit a post within 1 minute of posting?)

Ludvig Landgren - - Parent

Ohh! You've given me something new to try out!
Thanks :D

Daniel Simu - - Parent

for some inspiration:
https://youtu.be/Qx9Mr_J05CE

Ludvig Landgren - - Parent

Wow, I've never seen that one before!
I guess the rumours are true: Luke is indeed awesome.

7b_wizard -

The very moment before launching into your most challenging ground-state, a challenging basic pattern that you haven't fully gotten down, and want to get it running, qualified or endured, what do you think, what do you intend, what do you try, what do you focus on?

Do you have a motto that you try to put into reality? Do you have a launching routine? Do you focus on a distinct #n.-th throw for the launch to succeed? Do you have a melody for your launch? Do you visualize the right height? Do you think of or visualize the crossing point? Do you prepare for your hands to do constant throwing in the right angle and-or scoop with the right amount of thrust from next moment on? Or do you relax and try to think nothing at all? Or do you do differently each time e.g. finetuning all the time?

Do you (also) think, those few milliseconds right before starting are crucial in a way? How do you get the start well?

#technique #mentalTechnique #mentec #launch #milliseconds

Lou Duncan - - Parent

This might seem odd, and I'll try to put it in as few words as possible, but I try to empty my head and mirror the mental state I am in when showing someone a trick I find easy like 3b Mills.It sounds a bit arrogant, but I just try to treat it mentally like I've already done it a hundred times before. Seems to help me :)

Mike Moore - - Parent

When I practice, there's normally something I'm looking from in each of my attempts. Something like, "Avoid breaking plane with the second throw" or the like.

When going for performance, I normally focus on breathing and my starting hand/wrist position and visualizing the pattern I want to form.

7b_wizard -

#7b   What was your biggest hurdle to overcome to master the 7 ball cascade to say 200-300 catches ( or 141 :o) ), to get that click where it seems easy and can be endured over say 53 catches ( :o] or over a few periods, four, five, more rounds, but not really felt mastered ) ? Where (#n catches) or what (technique \ skill \ preliminaries \ step back or ahead) was your `sound-barrier´ to overcome ? Did you have a `breakthrough´ ?

7b_wizard - - Parent

Also @ those not on that higher level yet : What are the problems \ hurdles \ major flaws \ stuck where or with what, you're coping with actually ?

7b_wizard - - Parent

Ha ha, Ethan! .. is that your answer ( https://www.jugglingedge.com/records.php?UserID=904&PropNumber=7&PropType=b&Trick=cas ) .. like "I have no such problems!" ? lol

Ethan - - Parent

Ha HA! yup, don't want to look weak;) I sometimes forget to post my PBs........I wish I had a manager or something that was in-charge of posting my PBs on this site...........wait a minuet........Hey orin....I have a job for you;)

Ethan - - Parent

So, when I first started juggling 7 balls, I was juggling in my living room. The ceiling height was very very low, which meant that my 7 ball cascade was about as low as some people's 5 ball cascade! I finally discovered that height was key and I started to juggle in my garage, or in this very thin and tall room in my house.....Having height helped tremendously!!!!

I have these "breakthroughs" all the time. I woke up one morning and I was able to do 4 and 5 ball mills mess. A few days ago I woke up and I was able to do flats with 4 and 3 clubs. It's very weird. It's like I don't see or have progress, I'm just able to DO the trick....

7b_wizard - - Parent

Hey, that "woke up and did ``..´´ " sounds, like you dream those patterns and have them when you wake up .. if so, that's sooo cool! .. ( I haven't (yet?) gotten that far as to dream juggling ) .. That IS the "Rastelli-Kremo-Gatto-spirit" haunted you, you lucky enlightened little br§$%&%mlmpfh .. erhh .. "genius"(?) !! ;o]p

7b_wizard - - Parent

well .. that's not wholly true .. I actually did dream, I was juggling, before, but I couldn't say which pattern (mus' have been cascade) or how many balls (mus' have been 7), but can't remember and my focus was not on juggling, but on site, nature and ongoings around among people, jugglers and non-jugglers, at leisure parks by rivers or seas .. so afaik never any distinct trick or pattern ..

7b_wizard - - Parent

I also analyzed the records-log for 7b casc and it's normal, that round numbers like `attract´ more personal bests, than less any `hold-on-numbers of catches in between .. found somewhat outstanding: .. 30 .. 50 .. 100 .. 200 .. 500 catches with less catches difference or more PRs near. I'd be very interested to hear any individual `stories´, how, or doing what, you got over these towards next or higher.

Brook Roberts - - Parent

I find I have often dropped just before milestones that are targets because I am counting.
There is also the factor that sometimes I like to get a target clean, e.g. I decided to aim for 100 catches of 7b cascade, so I did a clean finish when I got there. I've inputted the record as 100 - it was actually a few throws more (so probably I got somewhere from 102-105).
Of course, the first time I tried I did exactly 100 throws, and messed up the collect :(

Stephen Meschke - - Parent

I consider anything over 100 catches to be a good run, as long as there isn't too much foot movement. 120+ is better, 140+ is great, and 180-ish is my PR.

The biggest hurdle to overcome is to break the large and complex task into manageable pieces. Take the physical aspect out of 7b cascade by making some gains in the weight room. Take the psychological aspect out by hitting long isolated runs with 6 balls. If you take your time and learn 7b the right way, by working up from 3, 4, 5, and 6 ball siteswaps, it will be an incredibly rewarding experience.

For about a year, I could get 100+ catches, but it looked really bad. I was taking too many steps forward. As I got more speed and control, I was able to start working with foot isolation, and now, I usually only take small steps, usually backward.

The only real breakthrough that I had was the realization that I should be looking at the crossing point of the pattern, not the apexes. It took a while to make that adjustment, but it was worth it in the end.

DavidCain - - Parent

I've never had the breakthrough. I've been juggling 7 balls for 29 years and my best run is still 70 catches. On the other hand, I'm 45 years old and can still qualify 6 clubs. Doesn't seem to make much sense to me.
David Cain

peterbone - - Parent

I agree. Most learning in juggling is subconscious. Very occasionally you may make a conscious decision to change something that helps, but normally you make gradual natural improvements that you're not aware of.

7b_wizard - - Parent

Looks like you had that one exceptional run and couldn't confirm it or get on the level, where you got it, later again ..
Could make sense in a similar way how backcrosses, Alberts, Treblas are club-tricks, thus easier .. so 6c, handling clubs, giving them spin and get them up with lever, (also self-throws, that - when mastered well - aren't as much liable to collide as crossing throws in 7b cascade) might simply suit you better than blunt leverless balls ..

ejwysz -

I'm doing some research on trick difficulty, and if you have time...


Rank the difficulty of "juggling" this many balls from (1 - infinity):

3 -
4 -
5 -
6 -
7 -
8 -
9 -
10 -
11 -
12 -
13 -
14 -

Thanks in advance if you decided to do this. :]

The Void - - Parent

3 - 3
4 - 4
5 - 5
6 - 6
7 - 7
8 - 8
9 - 9
10 - 10
11 - 11
12 - 12
13 - 13
14 - 14

ejwysz - - Parent

I see what you did there...

Care to really do it?

The Void - - Parent

No you don't, because I did really do it.
7 is harder than 6, which is harder than 5.....
My scale is logical and consistent. Which I don't think a scale that grades from 1-infinty can be.
Your question is poorly phrased, or imprecise.
What exactly is it that you want to know? Why do you start at 3 and stop at 14? Who is funding your research? Are you doing a double blind trial? Can you tell a hawk from a handsaw, and if so, under which meteorological conditions?

ejwysz - - Parent

I very specifically phrased my question to be vague, as to get what I feel are the most "pure" results.

I want to know exactly what I asked, and I started at 3 because that is arguably the most basic 2-handed juggle, and stopped at 14 because it is lying right on the limits of current juggling ability.

You're hilarious, by the way.

7b_wizard - - Parent

yeh, okey ..
2 - lowest difficulty, 2b-shower Ss: 31, = 1 or 0 or 0.5 . ( Maybe rate wimpy (2x,2x), or Ss: 330 even easier, = 0.25 or 0.3, 'cos hands don't do mainly same movement? )
3 - 1 or basic 3 - one more ball than you have hands, but mainly only one ball in the air.
4 - 18 (?) .. see 5 balls. Then ( 4 "ball"-factors + 1 "moreball"-factor + 1 "no_crossing_point"-factor [see below] ), make 6 times three-period = 18 difficulty: Every run of 4 balls after flash would be worth 18 catches of 2 balls.  A cascade having o n e crossing point to focus on, whereas the fountains need t w o points or imagined poles or verticals to aim at or along them, in my little experience with these, makes the fountains slightly more difficult, than the cascade, i think ..
5 - 21 - for #n+2 more balls, each ball juggled ( + a 'bonus' of the two more balls added? ) is worth a whole period juggled with the lower number of balls :   one period of Fives cascade after the flash, 5555555555.. thus would be worth 5 "ball"-factors + the two more balls multiplied with period runs of #n-2   = ( 5 "ball"-factors + 2 "moreballs"-factor) * 3 period = 21 catches ) of a three cascade, 333333..
6 - 32 (?) - =(6+1+1)*4
7 - 45 - =(7+2)*5
8 - 60 (?) - =(8+1+1)*6
9 - 77 - =(9+2)*7
a.s.o. .. so, e v e r y 9b period run (999999999) after the flash would be worth 77 catches of 7b. Every period run of 7b (7777777) would be worth 45 catches of 5b, 28 catches (21 catches after flash) of 7b would already be worth 135 catches of 5b, made up like that. All the while 135 catches of 5b (130 after flash) would be worth 26 periods * 21 difficulty = 546 catches of 3 balls.
.. as the limits and hurdles to overcome at very high throws, like there are air-resistance, weight of ball, surface + drag-coefficient, muscle force & unlike higher skills needed, the difficulty should increase by another modifying factor, so maybe gravity formula should then be used as modifying factor on top .. on the other hand the more balls make up e.g. only two/ninth of 9b for going up to 11b, so the difference from going to 5b from 3b is bigger (two/thirds balls more) than going from 9b to 11b (only two/ninths balls more) .. O.o

.. all assuming, one can choose to juggle the pattern that suits them easiest

7b_wizard - - Parent

and something else occurred to me judging flashes, qualifies and period runs .. no matter if starting your cascade as a ladder or doing the right height from the start with more balls' weight in the starting hands, only the third period will be thoroughly juggled in endurance mode, and even that only provided you do a fourth period run, not going into collect after third period:
- first period, flash - ladder or more balls' weight and [22..] in starting hands in any case.
- second period, qualify - you are correcting the different beat of the ladder throws or you're handling the balls at one balls' weight only for the first time.
- third period - only now are you coping with originally juggled props at their right height in the right beat (& at one props' weight only).
- fourth period - if not juggled on, but a collect, the preceding third period wasn't juggled thoroughly q.e.d. :o)

deleted - - Parent

post deleted

Little Paul - - Parent

What units are you using? Teaspoons per fortnight?

deleted - - Parent

post deleted

mrawa - - Parent

So a wiffle ball? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiffle_ball

ejwysz - - Parent

Awesome! Thanks for your useful input.

7b_wizard - - Parent

yw! .. but I just see, I calculated that wrong .. for 4 balls I did #n+1 (that is 3b+1) compared to 3b-casc, where it should be compared to 2b+2.   Then - comparing 6b to 4b and 8b to 6b - it would be 2 "moreballs" (not just one) .. the line would then read   2b - 0.5   3b - 3   4b - 14 (4 "ball"-factors + 2 "moreballs" + 1 "no_crossing"-factor) * 2 = 14 .   5b - 21   6b - 36 (6+2+1)*4   7b - 45   8b - 66 (8+2+1)*6   9b - 77   .. for the wimpy - which to me seems easier than the fountains - I'd take off again that "no-crossing-factor", then 6b = 32 difficulty, 8b = 60 again. .. But I'm still highly unsatisfied with completely ignoring e.g. needed skills / techniques andor e.g. gravity (=unlike faster speed of high balls landing) and aswell pretty arbitrary rating of "balls" and "moreballs" for mere sake of getting a number as result. But I do understand the wish to calculate difficulties.

mrawa - - Parent

This is all completely dependant on the person. I really hope that if you are doing research on this you're collecting data about each person e.g.

1. What is their dominant hand (left, right, ambidextrous)
2. How long have they been juggling
3. What is the maximum number of balls they can juggle (as their feedback is only really valid up to what they can currently do)
4. Do they do any other activity that promotes hand-eye co-ordination (another sport, artist/architect, engineer)
5. Age (I'm sure there'd be a correlation between this and max balls, those young ones can be depressingly good).
6. Eyesight (odd one, but I have found it increasingly difficult to juggler without my glasses)

Any good research should have a sufficient about of meta data for each subject. It helps to put into perspective the data they provide you otherwise none of the data can be weighed against a common set of attributes.

Oh, and lastly, always use a scale when measuring anything. 1 - infinite will really skew any results and no one will have a common basis on how to compare what is difficult. Instead you can either give them a a scale (1-20), or in this case ordering them by difficulty (most people would go 3,4,5,6,7 etc, however I don't). Always remember when designing surveys how you're going to actually interpret the data and never design it based on a preconceived notion as to what you think the results will yeild.

As for myself (left-handed, 8 years, 7(ish), engineer/artist, <30, awkward)

2 - 1
3 - 2
4 - 3
5 - 4
6 - 6
7 - 5

Bonus, siteswap throws:
1 - 5 (zip)
2 - 0
3 - 3
4 - 4
5 - 5
6 - 6
7 - 8

Lastly, I'm not sure (as a juggler) I would call juggling X number of balls in a cascade a trick. A trick* is something that should differ from the norm. As an example I often juggle shuffles (not slams), which confuse the hell out of jugglers trying to learn them.

*a cunning or skillful act or scheme intended to deceive or outwit someone.

Orinoco - - Parent

6. Eyesight (odd one, but I have found it increasingly difficult to juggler without my glasses)

It shouldn't be odd, because glasses are supposed to correct vision impairments to a rough standard. However, despite being unable to focus clearly as high as my 7 ball pattern I can't juggle with my glasses because I get distracted by the extra balls that appear (as the balls move past the scope of your lenses you seen one image inside the lense & one outside).

Little Paul - - Parent

One thing I've had to get used to with the golf club trick is that the balance happens above my glasses and all the important stuff is out of focus.

I tried it a few months back while wearing contacts and I couldn't do it because it was all weird

emilyw - - Parent

I tried it a few months back while wearing contacts and I couldn't do it because it was all weird

Now, has that ever stopped you before??

ejwysz - - Parent

You are absolutely right about getting some metadata for this survey. In the beginning I only was trying to get a rough consensus in the juggling community of the "difficulty" of juggling x number of balls, but I think I will add more to that now.

1. Is an interesting one, have you noticed a right handed vs. left handed difference in ability to juggle symmetrical base patterns?
3. I absolutely agree. I do want to accept estimates for the higher numbers, though, because otherwise data on 10+ objects would be pretty bare. I'm also interested in people's outlook on the difficulty of numbers that haven't been done yet, like 14, and why some people say 15 will never be done.
4. This one I feel would be really hard to quantify. Hm
5. This often depresses me, and makes me wonder how much "good juggling time" I have left


I really considered putting a limit on the scale, but then I started running into problems. For example, if 9 balls is 100,000 times harder than 3 balls, a scale of 1-10 or even 1-100 would be silly. I settled on an infinite scale for a few reasons, but I may have made a mistake there. Do you have any suggestions?

And yes, I even knew of my mistake of using the word "trick" when I typed it. Anyway, awesome stuff. I'm going to start up this survey again on here when I get everything nailed down.

mrawa - - Parent

1. Quick bit of context. In sport left-handers have the advantage, not because being left-handed means you're better at hand-eye co-rdination, but because you're the minority. This means that left-handers get used to and often play against right-handers, often enough their weaken (e.g. backhand in tennis or squash) can end up being better than their forehand (certainly is in my case).

However, there is a link between left-handers and being ambidextrous (a small link, and I can't remember the study), which would help learning tricks symmetrically.

For me, being left-handed made learning tricks easier purely because I was able to mirror whomever I was learning from. Meaning that I would learn with my dominant hand whilst a teacher (or video) would show me a trick from a right-handed point of view. Since there are more right-handers then left-handers I've found it quite...handy.


3. Hmm, the issue with this is that you'll need to be able to look at your results in two views, 1. being ratings based purely on what people can do (this'll be more accurate). 2. ratings based on people guessing difficultly on what they can't do. There a danger that by combining 1 and 2 the results will be skewed or at worst made void.


4. This doesn't actually have to be quantifiable. You could end up with some interesting data. For example determining the average balls juggled by engineers vs artists, or event the range in difficult that each group might perceive. (I'd guess that science based background would provide more consistent ball difficulties than non-sciecne ((on average))).

5. Time worrying is time you could be juggling! Don't worry about what could have been, concentrate on what you can make happen! (I'm sure that's from a fortune cookie or something).



Scales are very difficult when they're not measurable. Especially since it's people are easy to influence their answers. If you have time I would suggest interviewing some people with this approach:
- First ask them to rate the 3-9 cascade
- Then discuss their results, ask them how much harder going from 3-4 was and how it compared going from 4-5.
- (Do this for at least 10 or so minutes)
- Then ask them to rate the 3-9 cascade again.

What you'll find is that the results will change (obviously since they won't have remembered them), but also because you'd have just engaged with them to actively think about how difficult each X was compared to X-1.

The other option is to rate them based on the difficulty of the previous X. Going from 4-5 was twice as hard as going from 3-4, etc.

It's great that you're taking the time to do this!

7b_wizard - - Parent

Another approach: One might want to find out, how difficult it would be to program a robot to juggle well. Thus having to account for all physics of juggling and finding to some facts about difficulty and eliminating any subjective felt rating of different jugglers (with different approaches ot juggling and different experiences). So, maybe make it a topic in robotics-forum. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juggling_robot .. but I fear, these robots seeming to have stiff wrists and not entirely copying human anatomics, it is another mechanical Frankenstein-juggling they do .. still though, maybe the programmers know something about difficulties of ball numbers and patterns.

emilyw - - Parent

that's robot-ist, I expect the robots are all looking at our juggling and discussing how sloppy it is and how we don't correctly copy robot anatomy.

A robot passing partner would be useful. Especially one that could call out my end of the pattern without confusing itself.

7b_wizard - - Parent

yeh lol :o) .. we're all so bad robots ..
(here's a promising contender for the future https://www.youtube.com/v/mXrzKDs8WnI .. found with "juggling robot -factory")

7b_wizard - - Parent

I'm not sure if this one's real .. there's confusing words like "animatronic" and "suitable animations that indicate failure" .. it (he?) does pass though ..

7b_wizard - - Parent

oops Linky: https://www.youtube.com/v/83eGcht7IiI

emilyw - - Parent

That's already a pretty good training aid for learning 3 balls, how long before it has an act and shows up at conventions?

I'd be happier if it had a Hello Kitty face or something instead of this disturbing impression of a creepy old man with no teeth.

7b_wizard - - Parent

Ooouh, right! .. din' even look at its face .. but one lacking a nose, I wouldn't either :o]p
It i s real btw (looked up "animatronics" on Wikipedia, a form of mechatronics)

Little Paul - - Parent

They'd need the rights to hello kitty to do that, and Disney disnae do they?

pumpkineater23 - - Parent

Looks a bit like Bruce Forsyth.

emilyw - - Parent

I think he still has teeth ☺

loganstafman - - Parent

Nobody complains that planes don't flap their wings.

mrawa - - Parent

That's because we have a plane that flaps it's wings! Oh Canada...

https://www.youtube.com/v/DmzEKRSlA2k

Mïark - - Parent

20 seconds sounds more like slowly falling or controlled descent than flying, but I guess it is almost twice as long as the Wright Brothers first powered flight (though only 2/3 the duration of the record for a paper aeroplane).

7b_wizard - - Parent

Tat plain dont even has props!! :-o

ejwysz - - Parent

I've also looked into this in detail. You can find a more thorough history here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juggling_robot but to summarize: For a long time, 2 balls in one "hand" in columns was the only pattern a robot could do. Then they made some bounce juggling robots because bounce juggling is easy(yeah, I said it), then a 3 ball cascading humanoid robot, and the now pinnacle of juggling in robots seems to lie here:

https://www.youtube.com/v/9asDO_1A27U

with a 5 ball cascading robot.

It makes me really feel really proud knowing that I can juggle far better than any machine ever made. I just watched a documentary about Garry Kasparov's infamous chess loss to the supercomputer Deep Blue in 1997, and I'm glad technology hasn't surpassed humanity in "my field" yet.

ejwysz - - Parent

I feel like I can learn something from that robot's 5, though. I mean, I wish that when I dropped 1 ball out of the 5 ball cascade, the rest just continued in a perfect, unaffected 55550 like that. Until I KICKED IT UP... Wow.

7b_wizard - - Parent

Here's also a video survey of 'em all by David Cain on IJA: http://ezine.juggle.org/2015/02/07/juggling-robots-and-machines-a-video-survey/
.. concerning diffculty, one would expect a r o b o t to juggle any pattern and many whatever props (just like any virtual 2d or 3d software we got by now) as there's only physics of throw involved, .. but actually they all do but one andor easy patterns or simply "play catch" .. so it can't be that easy to construct & program a "Deep Varicolor" juggling bot ..

I also reckon that for e.g. JugglingLab, the °difficulty° of a 5 and an f (15 props) cascade is fairly same rated in "number_of_lines_of_code" or "events" andor "catch-paths", but a 645 or already only a simple 4-fountain needs more like double amount of "lines of code" andor "paths & events" .. so the real difficulty of 'human' juggling seems to lie in coordination, perception, anatomy, motorics, brain, adaptation and many more .. revealing another sort of complexity as mere physics & mathematics of the throw (trajectory, ballistics, a.s.o.) require.

7b_wizard - - Parent

(° "code, paths, events" .. in the JL menue: "View" --> "jml-editor"-frame)

emilyw - - Parent

Can't be long.

Combine it with Google's robot donkey and we'll have a robot that can joggle better than you too.

ejwysz - - Parent

Good. Maybe if that happens no human will ever joggle again.

7b_wizard - - Parent

Kasparov's defeat and the prevailing of chess-programs didn't and doesn't keep anyone from playing chess and using puters as tool for analysis and study .. it would be shocking at first, to see a humanoid do 'your' pattern perfect with double as much balls in triple speed and break all human records with the easy of e.g. JugglingLab, but we'd soon get used to them and find them an enrichment and like the idea to  b u y  yourself a passing & feeding partner [citing emilyw] and use them for study, practice and analysis or as luxurious metronome ..

7b_wizard -

#logthread

7b_wizard - - Parent

#logthread @ Mike Moore .. 6 c 5b-blind .. Wow! .. especially that juggled one, wow! .. Nirvana's just one step ahead for you now.

Mike Moore - - Parent

It's amazing what having a deadline can do! I've been able to flash 5b blind for a while, and have decided it's time to work up to a qualify.

7b_wizard - - Parent

#logthred @ JackJuggles .. Congrats on your nice breakthrough with 5 yesterday! .. "great session" .. "felt like average" .. "broke sound-barrier 50 catches" .. "lovely goal achieved" .. sound really nice & worthwhile envying a lot :o) [ <-- that's with round nose btw (not 'scream')]

7b_wizard - - Parent

@ Stephen - [ logentry, fitness plan

Impressingly elaborated and thought through. I have some ad hoc feedback and critique to offer:

- Meals, nutrition are to a degree individually different.

- How do you make sure, what makes you conclude that the "Strength"-part, the workout goes right into your juggling skills?
    Scooping well for example is one major aspect in getting your patterns smooth and stable, so I believe
    those small and big muscles that twist ulna and radius (of the forearm) around one another
    are important for juggling smoothly and stable (and without exhausting yourself in them becoming
    tensed). My credo for those is, that using somewhat heavier balls would train these best.
    Also, for enduring, it seems crucial to me, to have sudden ``explosive´´ bail-out-skills out of plan, for
    unstable moments in a running juggle, when correcting and recovering back into stable pattern. You then
    have to do a few throws from awkward ball positions in space.
    Also, for finetuning, for walking that thin line of a snapped-in pattern, having big and strong muscles
    doesn't seem to be the main thing to me.
    So, why is juggling cardio and makes extra cardio unnecessary, while strength needs extra training -
    doesn't juggling naturally just the same provide for muscle-strength exactly where it's needed, .. without
    extra training?
    [ I'm aware this is highly disputable, as many seem to approach juggling by strength. ]

- Do I get you right, that you think, stretching at the end of a stint is the right time for it; or is your list not chronologic?

- I, B.: intersection of skill and fitness is greatest possible ability. Also agility?

- I like the idea of jumping + juggling. Cool.

Stephen Meschke - - Parent

Just to be clear, I am making a video tutorial for the 2016 IJA video tutorial contest. The log entry is an outline for that video.

Nutrition is a big part of life. I only want to emphasize how important nutrition is for optimal training, and briefly go over a couple common mistakes like:
1. Eating sugar for energy during a long training session (better to eat complex carbs 2+ hours before)
2. If you plan a big training session, plan a recovery meal.

Strength does make juggling easier. Having a strong lower body is really helpful for 7b cascade, both during launches and recovering from a bad throw.

Juggling isn't strength training. Strength training occurs at high resistance with low repetition.

The list is not ordered. I do think that jugglers should warm up with dynamic movements, and do static stretches after training.

7b_wizard - - Parent

#logthread - @ Guili (struggling with 7b flashes) - starting to see a pattern

I have another idea: A big problem at that stage you're at right now, can be (dunno, if applies for you):

- throwing the last two-three throws very high -

.. this takes a lot of effort and long stretched beats .. --> you get in debt of time and you'll be late on catching ( or rethrowing ) the early balls.
I got over that timing issue by thinking of the next (re)throws, by thinking, there were more throws to do, and by not putting all my energy into "finishing" the flash with (way too) ``high enough´´ throws, but doing also those on good normal height and sparing energy for going on in hopefully a rhythm.
(( _ But this happens only when one launches on somewhat different heights, like, starting a bit lower, or when trying to gain time with higher last throws. Not, when one tries to launch all balls on a same height and in a stable beat (then having to cope with different weights and thrusts in full hands emptying ball by ball). _ So I don't know if it applies for you. _ ))

Other hints for flashing are:

- throwing a bit more from the middle, -

.. ``away´´ up from a vertical center line, will reduce the chance for balls \trajectories interfering --> you need less time for aiming or checking just thrown trajectories before throwing the next ball. ( just "up, slightly away from the middle", and nothing will happen up there that needs any special attention except always aiming this current now throw well )

Or being aware of a) spacing between the balls, b) timing of hand's movement, catch- and throw-moments, c) the alignment of the trajectories like all on a pearl chain.
Also overall geometry of the pattern \of your throws respectively, like is it wide enough, is it well in the front plane, is it symmetric as should.
.. being aware of all of such major \crucial properties of a pattern, then explicitly working on getting rid of any of those when bad.

Hope, this wasn' too much in one go. cheers and be the goddesses of flashing with you :oD

Guili - - Parent

Hi there 7b_wizard! Hope, this wasn' too much in one go haha, it was! but thanks for that!
i think i'm having EVERY problem you've described..haha!
you know, just out of instinct these days I was trying to make the pattern wider, like you said. It makes it easier for the balls to get away from your grasp, but it's truth you avoid them crashing into each other.
also, like you said, i'm having problems with the last throws. it's like i get nervous because the first throws are allready coming back, right? so you wanna make it quick and every ball flyes in a different direction...
so, how long did it take you to master it?
anyway.. i'm really stubborn, so i will not stop. some day you'll se my "i did it!" post too ;)
thanks for all the advice!

7b_wizard - - Parent

Yah, great! .. also be aware, that any problem, any bad property of pattern \posture \ado, that you detect while trying 7b, you can train just that issue with 5b more effectively, like, as preparation or when warming up anyway.

7b_wizard - - Parent

.. or amidst practise, as soon as you notice. ( It's fun and feelgood and makes you confident and motivates to get a 5b cascade variation down well - watch Daniel's most recent video!!! http://juggling.tv/16767 )

Daniel Simu - - Parent

Thanks for sharing this, I'm glad it's relevant already :)

Guili - - Parent

great video daniel! lot of control!
gonna try those moves ;)

Guili - - Parent

yeah, i've been working with 3,4 & 5 balls FOR the 7b, and i can see it's usefull.
today i tried throwing the balls "more from the center" like you told me, and it really made it easier! lot less crashes...
got a 7-catches round! :-D
really motivated for tomorrow!

7b_wizard - - Parent

@ Daniel - hey, 1b 02, 25 c - awesome! .. must have been hard for you as a juggler to not give in to the urge, a reflex to throw, flourish or active it. I couldn't do it without at least five mins of meditating before an' I'd still be biting my teeth °r'r'r'aaaangnrghhH°. Thanks for this very helpful coming-down exercise!

Daniel Simu - - Parent

I understand your sarcasm, it's not a hard trick usually.. But I would like to get some recognition for it as a speedjuggler, because I did those 25 cycles (I don't count the 0 as a catch) in just under 3 seconds!

7b_wizard - - Parent

Wow! [honestly] That. is. sooo. fast! .. I bet it's below the speed resolution of the human eye.

7b_wizard - - Parent

[ hooking in there: https://www.jugglingedge.com/log.php?LogDate=2018-05-07&UserID=885 .. "absolute beginner passing" ]

Maria - I usually start with passing the first ball

Oh, yeah! .. Makes a lot of sense and solves many problems: a first pass is done, to start with; the rhythm then can orient on the incoming pass; the next pass can be prepared by - as you say - in an #n-beat or by countdown; the next pass can be a ``copy´´ of the first done one.

start with 5-ball 1-count, so they don't have to catch their own throws.

°Ouffh° .. wait, .. "5 ball" so far makes sense to me, another level down ( I might even have to start with 1 ball passing haha ), One has got 3 balls and one's got only 2 balls, which sounds a lot easier so far. Now, "1-count" and "not catch own throws", .. sounds like feeder with 2 balls at hands feeds a shower to feedee, I read after thinking it through a lot lol. Okay, got it.
Guess, for non-passers and beginners, first doing a few test-passes to where partner's hand exactly is in space, on different heights too, would be a good idea.

So, in what I said, ..

I'm a flop at passing - too many dimensions too many it seems to me. means, ..
a) __ I have to watch the pupil's \partner's cascade and rhythm, kind'a leaving my own juggle ``in the lurch´´ or doing it automized and peripherally viewed only, but the different rhythms and spread focus bring me out.
b) __ It's also like like I'm ``superveying´´ two cascades, 2 * 3 balls, which one of I'm not doing myself, so I lose conrol over it all.
c) __ Then, my throw has to fit into where and when, at which beat, the partner will get their gap ( I'm currently having that issue in 5b-°753°, trying to fill the gap thrown by the 7 with a well timed 3 ona right low height .. even without a partner lol ).

.. I reckon, I have to find ways to strictly stick to my own juggling, throwing passes, catching passes, being well done (well aimed and ~timed), then indeed rely on all I do will fit (or not) into partner's juggle. First focus on my own stuff, to strat with, later, much then maybe have an eye on partner's timing then too.

However, that's two very helpful hints sparing me all that "watch and find into partner's rhythm" before even having passed any ball, and, yeah, obviously breaking it down to less balls when it's a mess.

Thanks!! :o)

7b_wizard - - Parent

( * edit: "later, much then maybe" = "later, much later then maybe" )

.. and also I fancy simply doing single takeouts, grasping a ball out of and fitting a throw back into running pattern, would be an absolute beginners' first exercise to passing, to doing together on running pattern.

Maria - - Parent

Pretty much, yeah. Just decide for example that "every fourth throw is a pass", start with the first pass, do 3 throws in a regular cascade, pass again, do 3 "self" throws, repeat. You are both passing at the same time, no need to think about when the partner will get a "gap", since they are passing too the gap will be there. You do need to keep the same rhythm, though. (Well, at least for beginner patterns...)

Shower? No, nothing "shower"-like in the 5-object 1-count.

To clarify, this is pretty much the way I teach an absolute beginner to pass: http://passingpedagogy.com
"Exercise 3" is the 5-object 1-count, though illustrated with clubs in the animation. Try to keep it slow, I'd do higher throws than the animation suggests. I would also say that you want to react a bit earlier than the stick figures, think of a cascade, make the next throw when the previous one is at its highest point. With balls you'd like to stand a bit closer together.

It's way easier to juggle 5, 6 or 7 objects with 4 hands than with 2! ;) 5-ball 1-count might even be easier than a 3-ball cascade (it was for my colleague when she learned last year, but of course, she had an experienced passer to practise with).

Watching your partners rhythm is usually a good thing. The 5-object 1-count kind of eliminates the need for that, since you are not throwing at the same time but just responding to your partner's passes. The goal should be to get an even rhythm in the juggling, but it is not necessary for that pattern to work. Just like in 3b cascade, there is only one more object than hands, so if the throws have different heights and different dwell times, it will still work.
For patterns with 6 objects or more on the other hand... Definitely a good thing to watch your partner's rhythm. In the beginning you can let the more experienced passer adjust their rhythm to the one that the less experienced juggler keeps.

Good luck, I hope you get more opportunities to improve your passing!

7b_wizard - - Parent

Pretty much .. .. .. beginner patterns...)

Sounds sooo trivial and easy when you describe it (( but aren't you forgetting, that the statistical chance for a random throw to land where it should is near 0, let alone on top of that in the right moment :o/ .. but, yeah, no - I was jus' jokin' --> that's why we're "jugglers" after all )).
I really like being (or going for being) synched right from the first throw being a pass.

Exercise 3 .. Ah, I see. Looks easy enough that I should get that. [bookmarked it]

Thanks for coaching! :o)

[ #passing #5obj1count #5objNCount #coachingZone ]

Maria - - Parent

Well, actually you want to keep the same rhythm in most patterns, but it doesn't have to mean that you throw at the same time. Me and my regular passing partner mostly do "4-handed siteswaps" where the throw order is my right hand, his right hand, my left hand, his left hand...
There are, however, patterns where for example one juggler does 3 throws in the same time that the other juggler does 4. So, different rhythms, byt they have to match anyway (tricky stuff, haven't done much of that).

No problem! :)

7b_wizard - - Parent

@Terix - https://www.jugglingedge.com/log.php?LogDate=2018-10-24&UserID=976

Hey! .. you're just doubting some. Normal, when you put a lot of energy into sth hard.

My all shows were shit (but this I have known already before)

What did your audience think about your shows, right?! .. You're just painting black.

Then, .. But I am now too old to became a professional juggler

Bullshit. Think of all the lifetime, you have ahead! .. Youth is only, say 5yo to ~20yo = 15 years. Now How many times fifteen years are still ahead of you! Ha!

So, chin up! & three cheers and a tiger! [ lol, looked that up in a dico XoD ]

7b_wizard - - Parent

oh .. forgot, .. one more thing .. you don't have to be a master of juggling, not have to be skilled like a shaolin, be a numbers monster, but you can have specialities that aren't strictly speaking ``mainstream´´. Or also, you can entertain or present, the way, that only you with your personality can do. Carrying fun or devotion, passion, something special to the people is the more important part, I reckon.

Terix - - Parent

Thank you, juggling wizard, for your long comments, I really appreciate that you have read all my training log and tried to give me sth positive. I think you are right, but I can´t accept it fully because my dream was always to be this number monster :D and juggler that is the best, but you are right - what does it mean to be the best?
Everyone can be the best in their own way

Thank you

Terix - - Parent

And about shows, there were people, who were expecting much more from me and were disappointed, and on the other side there were people who really liked my shows and gave me standing ovations, but I have to think about these who were disappointed, I feel like I have deceived them

7b_wizard - - Parent

@ Jamie - https://www.jugglingedge.com/log.php?LogDate=2019-10-08&UserID=885 (your comment)

It's awesome how you are able to practice for so long. I tucker out after an hour usually :(

Well, that's a big topic as it concerns a major part of lifetime ( on a day and every day and overall ).

.) - Knowing in advance that my session and stints will take hours, I won't reasonably power out and all the time "go for it", pumping, exhausting myself, only when I feel 'fresh', fit, when I feel like sth goes.

.) - Generally I believe, juggling is mainly a (sportive) skill ( for the art in the end ), not a force act, not a work out sport. The 'finished' pattern is easy, fluent, smooth, effortless, maybe nimble, maybe soft.

    It's not like biking up the mountains, not like weight-lifting or iron-man, not like any power sport that stays muscle-intense also with mastership, where technique helps a lot, but in the end doesn't do the job and one will have to bite ever again.

    Juggling is often like that too .. when you're still learning .. you do in tensed ways, needing to keep a pattern up somehow, then to hold it up for a while, before you can seize its rhythm, timing, precise automized aiming an' all, <before you found the good ratios, your height an' all. But in the end it should flow 'like nothing'.

    So my conclusion is, that whenever it's hard, you're doing sth wrong!? And that means, you can relax(!) instead of forcing harder, and it'll be a right way to go. Just like in martial arts they say "be like the water". At least, that's my personal approach to it all these last years ( it wasn't always like this, but formerly did with burning muscles, tensed, forcing, but also for hours ).

.) - Then, there's will, what I want, and what I've taken the decision(!) to do - so there's kind of no alternative to succeeding in what I started, what believing I can achieve. So when it becomes tedious and I'm getting nowhere, I say to myself, all I have to do is to get it (or drop dead trying), and I can hook it off and proceed. And again, knowing that in the end, it sould be easy, simple, helps in reflecting and analyzing what to change and how to try differently to get there.

And last not least, Hey, people work from nine to five, so .. ;oD

 

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

Forum stats