@ Ethan .. 5b blind .. sooo great Shaolin art! .. especially that 6.-th wholly juggled throw + catch! .. Wish I could do that!
@ Ethan .. nice rumbling up the Hall of Fame, you did there!
Awarded: "whizz kid". greets the wannabe
Ethan (if you read these), what are you considering a 5 ball box? Based on your other records, that one seems a bit out of place. Do you do multiplexes in it?
Naw dude, it's a true box. I agree that it does look out of place, considering I mostly like multiplexes and strange siteswaps.....But I thought it would be cool to branch out and try something new, change things up a bit, you know.
There are still a couple of few possibilities. Do you mean (8,2x)* (aka c03 or c30 )or the stacked version?
(It's probably just me not knowing what the accepted version is - stacked or not-stacked).
Dude.....I already told you. It was (8,2x)(4,2x)*....It's the only version that's considered a "True Box." If you want it explained in more detail. Go to this site. https://juggle.wikia.com/wiki/Box
I think Tom's problem is that (8,2x)(4,2x)* is a 4 object pattern, not 5.
Although (a,2x)(6,2x)* isn't valid either! The only pattern I can come up with for a 'true' 5 ball box is (c,2x)(8,2x)(4,2x)*
I think that (8,2x)* is the basic 5 ball box. Basically sprung 4 ball fountain.
That's not what Mr Java animator did for the 5b box listing back on the IJDb, so it was contrary to my expectations. (8,2x) makes perfect sense to be the default 5b box, it just has some history against it.
Though, thinking about it more...
To me, a key aspect of the box is that the sides can be thrown up as perfect lines. As all the non-stacked versions lack this, I feel that that aspect is a good argument in favour of the stacked versions.
I think I would much rather refer to that as sprung four ball fountain, thus it's nice to have 5 ball box refer to something else.
Just for Mïark here's a list of 'true' box siteswaps up to the limits of the modern English alphabet:
When did these stacked patterns become the "true" box for higher numbers? The sprung patterns such as (8,2x)* feel like 3 ball box but higher and faster. The high throw alternates hands and the low ball zips back and forth.
I definitely think of as 5 ball box as the stacked ones. In my mind one of the key features of box is that you have no crossing points and it is basically a 1 dimensional pattern.
I'm undecided as to whether to have (2n-2,2x)* or to have (n-2) repititions of the (2n-2,2x) bracket before the asterisk as my "true" box - but I agree with you that the (4(n-2),2x)(4(n-3),2x)...(4,2x)* stacked patterns aren't the most logical extension of (4,2x)* to >3 balls.
The word 'true' is obviously confusing. Also incorrect since the only true box is with 3 balls? Perhaps other words are needed for the 5b box variations.
Especially because "True box" can also refer to the box with a lid!
Eesh, our jargon needs work.
Would that be a *half* box with lid? And yes there too - Captain 'add the word true to stuff' strikes again! All these years and I've been doing a false box.
One nice thing jugglingdb did was have a simulation of the pattern on the page. It didn't work for all patterns, but for quite a few it clarified what the actual pattern was.
That puts simulations on the records pages? It only highlighted siteswaps in small talk for me.
Oh, I see no it doesn't. I never put that in because I didn't want someone to watch an animation of (6x,4)* & add their record after clicking a + link which would enter the trick against (6x,4)*+bal for example.
That's what I would consider true 5 ball box. I considered trying to learn it a while ago, but it is tricky.
And now Mura can run it for bloody ages so it's not so exciting!
I was just curious which pattern you meant, because it clearly wasn't the one you wrote - which is why I asked if you meant something else (although the something else had a flaw).
I don't need anything explained in more detail, and that page that you linked to doesn't include the answer. I just wanted to know which of the 3 options was your "true box":
I'm inclined to say that (8,2x)(8,2x)(8,2x)* is my idea of a true box, or if not, then (8,2x)*
I'd prefer (perhaps controversially) not to think of (c,2x)(8,2x)(4,2x)* as the true pattern, but that's just my feeling, and that's clearly stacked - which you said yours wasn't.
Then again, you said you did (8,2x)(4,2x)*, which is difficult to do with 5 balls, and which itself is stacked... so I don't know what to think you meant.
I assume you did the stacked-and-not-stacked excepted 4-and-5 ball box, with an unknown siteswap, but probably not c03
Ah, I was thinking it was this version:
(8,2x)* (which I think it what you meant) makes more sense.
I think that many people will expect 5b box to be the (c,2x)(8,2x)(4,2x)* because that's what it meant on the IJDb. (8,2x)* also makes perfect sense to be considered a 5b box. It's one of the several unforatunate ambiguities of juggling vocabulary.
There should be some sort of warning if you try to reply to a months-old post. Or a way to undo your foolish action.
I'm happy to get this post bumped! I was talking about this ambiguity just this weekend with some friends. After trying (8,2x)*, I'm back thinking that (c,2x)(8,2x)(4,2x)* is the "true" 5b box. To me, not having to dodge balls in the air (i.e. throwing a perfect column, rather than a fountain throw) is a more important property of the box than having the even-numbered throws be of the same value.
Maybe "double-walled" versus "stacked" or "high-low" (JWikia calls it "high-middle-low") ?
I'm most impressed with the 10 catches of 5 ball continuous under the leg throws - assuming it's what I think it is.
Continuous under the leg with 3 balls is shown in this video at 10s. Is that how you did it? Sorry to be suspuscious but I've never seen it done with 5.
Yeah, that's how I did it....I saw it being done in some WJF youtube video, and thought it looked cool.....I might try it with 7;) jk! Now that would be impressive.
sure! It was actually an IJA video. The under the leg thing is at 38s......and yes, I now realize it was actually 4 balls he was juggling, but you get where the inspiration came from:)
That's 4b shower 91 with the Ones under the leg in the video .. by "5 ball continous utl " I understand a 5b cascade with e v e r y throw under the leg .. O.o .. what exactly then was it, you did with 5 balls?
And could you point out or explain again, which "5b box " you recorded .. if it wasn't a stacked one, maybe it was that fountain-like (8,2x)(2x,8) one?
The video I posted was only my inspiration;) I made sure the 5b under the leg was legit, it WAS a indeed a cascade with EVERY ball going under my leg. The video I posted was simply what gave me the idea in the first place. That's how I work dude;) Ha ha! not again.....The 5b box I did was a (c,2x)(8,2x)(4,2x)*.
.. or was your box that stacked ( not(!) in the sense of stacked multiplexes, but stacked orbits in this caseb ) .. stacked version (8,2x)(4,2x)*, with 4 balls, then?
I have no idea .. commented on records logged in records section that day. (https://www.jugglingedge.com/profile.php?UserID=906)
Yes :) It is the same Matan that juggled 6 at age 6.
also, just to set the record straight. I qualified 6 at 6, but not 6 at 5 or 7 at 6. I qualified 7 for the first time when I was 14 (I think, maybe 15). And yes, some of the jugglers from the Rochester juggling club presented me with a plaque at the 2002 RIT Juggle-In, I still have it hanging above my bed :D
@ Ethan . Well done with the playing card juggling and your quick response to my records. The world record apparently is 88 catches, so start filming and upload to recordsetter when you beat it. Are you based in North Carolina? I ask because I updated my record around 11am UK time and about 5 minutes later you had beaten my record, but it would have been 6am NC time! Also, Is your 7 ball record really only 35 catches or have you done more and don't bother updating it?
I also have a more general question to everyone. How are people counting catches in siteswap patterns? The way I do it is to only count a siteswap throw if I throw that object again the correct number of beats later, otherwise it's not really a valid siteswap throw? A db97531 to collect would be 0 catches, but a db97531 back into 7 catches of cascade would be 7 catches with my method.
[ Service : ] 88 catches 3playingcard cascade by David Solomon, U.S., Feb. 2013, recognized by RecordSetter, https://recordsetter.com/world-record/consecutive-catches-juggling-three-playing-cards/24919#contentsection. Or here: https://www.youtube.com/v/GDS_xqf4-mI
I count catches - don't have to rethrow - if I did a clean qualify of 7 balls, i.e. 14 throws and then 14 catches, I would definitely mark that down as 14, rather than 7.
For something like a db, I would think of it as a trick and would be unlikely to record it unless it was back to pattern, (and would make a note of the difference). For something like 933, I would treat it as a pattern and just count catches. I would be unlikely to record a non-integer number of rounds, and wouldn't include set-up throws. In the case of 933, if I did 6 rounds of throws and clean collect, I would count it as 18 catches, but feel slightly guilty that the last 9 wasn't really (it could have been a 7 say). But I would do it anyway ;)
Yes, if you catch an object the correct number of beats later then I would accept that as a counting method. My problem comes, as you said, when people record a number of catches that isn't a multiple of the period. For example, someone does db97531, followed by a throw at the same height as a typical d and then collects and records it as 8 catches. How can they prove that the last throw was a d when it had no beats after it? They could have thrown it much lower and just called it a d.
Note they may in fact be catching the next 1, which would be a lot more valid.
This is why I've always preferred tracking siteswaps in "cycles" (to the extent that I've ever tracked them at all) and discarding partial cycles (where a ball is thrown and then not caught)
Although as a methodology, that's not without its flaws either.
9955 looks cool. Tackered it into JL and found the second set of 5-es is sort of being aimed below those 9-es falling at direful speed. Guess, you did it from running cascade?
Yes, got a stable 7 pattern running and then went for 1 or 2 rounds (if the first set of 9s looked good) and then just tried to get it back to a 7 pattern. If you can recover a 7 pattern from it, I feel that's an indicator the throws are roughly right. There's no thinking about aiming or whatever with the 9s and 5s though; it's really a case of hammering out throws and relying on your juggling skill to get them right, without trying to think too much.
Just struck me that the 5-es don't go, say, above what's caught before them like in lower siteswaps (e.g. 773355 - the 7-s are much lower and slower, so the 5-es can go over them landing), but the 9-es are still so high when you throw the 5-es, that they can collide.
Yeh, without getting back to cascade, but collect, the last two 5-es could be anything between 5-6x-7-8x sliding to comfortably collect them, i reckon.
Tried some 9-es from early 7b cascade yesterday .. gee! .. they went anywhere. Will you stick to that trick or was that it for time being?
-tried some 9-es from early 7b cascade yesterday .. gee! .. they went anywhere
You have to keep them really tight. It probably helps a lot to practice 9 balls.
-Will you stick to that trick or was that it for time being?
I'd like to get up to 10 rounds or 50 catches of it. Will you stick to it?
> "practise 9b"
.. long not there yet, if ever. Had one lucky flash, pushed by zeal of the 'impossible', early before accum. tens of hours trying to confirm.
Am just peeping into the options there are with 7b for giving one a casual jaunty try. Only non-cascade 7b upto now are not unfrequent accidental outside throws, and a °27° throw some now and then (willingly, then, lol), not counting 7b-splits.
@ Orinoco - "20 catches of 5 ball cascade isolated" .. Do you want to talk about it? ;o]) [no answer needed]
"Isolated" can now be used to modify a trick.
What does foot isolation mean? It could be many things; standing with feet still, standing on a folding chair, or standing on some blocks or bricks.
So I requested isolated as a modifier as I've been working on my technique recently. I appreciate it could mean various things to different people, but since I mostly use the records section to track my own progress I'm not too bothered about people having different definitions of isolated. For any records where the modifier is ambiguous or I have interpreted it in a non-standard way, I try to say so as a comment, partially so people who want to compare records can be aware of any differences.
My main example of this is juggling rings with a head balance- my policy is to only count records if they are done with a ring balance (which I try to state in the comment) as that is what I really want to work towards. I do juggle them with a club balance, which is way easier and as such I have done much longer runs, but I don't post the records because according to my personal policy it doesn't count. If people want to compare records they can see the comments and make their own comparison. Like when Peter Bone beat one of my club balance records with a teaspoon balance...
As far as isolated goes, I did over 100 of 6 ball on the ground without moving my feet, but I felt the knowledge that I could move made it easier so I tried it on a chair. Unfortunately the only chair available seemed structurally unsound and though I got around 60 catches I was constantly worried about it collapsing and how I might break my fall, so I opted for a pair of bricks as an intermediate. Either way, having seen your juggling Stephen I don't think you would find it particularly difficult to beat those records, however you decide to interpret 'isolated'.
I hope no one take this too seriously though as I don't really want to cause any arguments...
I think isolation should mean standing completely still. Vova moves over all the platform in this video https://youtu.be/UoZnOoWP2zM?start=98, and they call it 'isolated'. If they had made the platform a bit bigger, would it still count as isolated? If isolation meant no foot movement at all, then this ambiguity would be cleared up.
Also, most of my 6 ball practice is done kneeling down in my bedroom, and I consider that to be isolated because my knees stay in the same spot.
I agree that the amount of movement Vova exhibits is stretching the term isolated and I agree that it is in a sense unambiguous to have no foot movement at all (which is definitely what I would do whatever I was standing on). Kneeling/sitting/standing still/on a chair etc are all (at least to me) different in difficulty though, for whatever reason. As such, I think even if one would be justified in terming a run isolated by keeping the feet completely still, it would be useful by way of comparison to note how you isolated yourself eg. kneeling/standing on bricks.
Incidentally, even if you are keeping your feet still, would you count a rola bola as isolated?
[replying whole thread:] All I know about it is:
- Gatto in a vid says his father showed him this way of practising with (at its best) immobile feet (and also straight legs, knees not bent, i think, .. the way he did his 10 min 7b record). It is then - afaik and what i plead for - called "isolated endurance".
- While isolation usually (also? or originally?) means an illusion of an "isolated prop" (e.g. hoop, flow-rings, the ring of a lasso, a diabolo spinning on place, a spin-top, a gyroscope, .. ) or an "isolated pattern" (e.g. 3b cascade done walking around it being immobile in space, in its plane, or else slowly swapping its plane once around. Mike Moore did this, and I casually try that, and many more did alike, I'm sure, also in history).
- Burrage somewhere stated on this ambiguousness and blamed the term ( "isolation" in context of "on a stool" ((even allowing for steps on that stool then)) ) for being misleading and deliberately badly chosen.
Here's something I wrote on this previously in a discussion about juggling terminology that annoys me:
"Isolated" - To mean "doing a hard trick standing on a chair". It's another word that is creeping into general usage from a single juggling competition. The term isolation already has a meaning in juggling, and it does not mean "not moving". Isolation means a prop, part of a prop, or part of a pattern remains fixed in a specific location while other parts of the prop, the pattern or the juggler move around it in space. The isolated object becomes the frame of reference for all the other movement, instead of the floor or other physically unmovable surface or object.
To call "juggling while standing on a chair" an "isolated juggling pattern" means that EVERY juggling pattern ever where the feet don't move is also an isolated juggling pattern, the juggler just doesn't happen to be standing on a chair. It also doesn't make sense because there is no movement around the isolated object, in this case being the feet. Finally an isolated part of an object or pattern can't be physically attached to a surface that is physically fixed to the floor or environment. That means there is no skill or technique involved with it remaining isolated. A fork left unmoved on a table is as much an isolated fork as a juggler standing on a chair is doing anything isolated.
I have used the word 'isolation' incorrectly, and have passed this incorrect usage to others.
The fourth result for the Google Search 'juggling isolation' is also incorrect: https://juggle.wikia.com/wiki/Isolation. The first three search results correctly use the word isolation to describe contact juggling.
Even Gatto used the term, 'isolation.'
The juggling terminology that I have read in your posts is intuitive, do you have a juggling dictionary that I could reference?
Normally I don't mind language evolving with use, but this case in particular is annoying to me because "isolated" already has a very specific use within the field of juggling, used by thousands of jugglers for at leas the past 17 or 18 years I've been involved in the juggling scene, without any confusion.
And then, out of nowhere, someone uses the same word in a single other context, and it sticks.
I think "doing a hard trick without moving your feet" is a strong enough concept that a single word or term would be very handy and helpful. I just wish it had been "fixed-feet" or "perched" or anything else!
It could be renamed contact juggling (feet always in contact with the ground). This would avoid any further confusion.
@ aawray - Hi, I'm afraid, your 2 rev is pretty much the same as ([44x],2)* rev .. (360 catches by Ethan) and these will have to be linked together soon or late. Also any [32t] tricks are all 5b "splits" variations. Great work, though. Keep it up!
@ peterbone - amazing stuff, you're logging there lately, 7b with club balance.
Is there a story to it, I may ask? Something you always neglected, yet still always wanted, or else an impulsive rediscovery, or else inspired by recent Scott Sorensen's 9b with pole balance?
A combination of things. Mainly I've been stepping up my training recently now that I have a good daily training space. 7 balls with a balance is one of the cornerstone tricks for me that I believe helps improve everything else. I was also inspired by Scott and Luke Davies' recent success with a balance. I'd also like to do 11 balls with a balance, which you can see me fail miserably at in the recent cool connections video.
Interesting. I think, I can see a parallel to how Gatto rates headbouncing while juggling a perfect exercise for cleaning your patterns.
However, good luck & fulfilment & fun with your prospects!
°wouie° what a brain twirler .. I'm thinking it:
1 5 5 - 1 5 56,
but still there's a lot of changing the 1-hand and the 6-hand puzzling.
Subscribe to this forum via RSS
1 article per branch
1 article per post