Viewing all threads tagged #schoolbook.
Is there any undisputable general principles, tenets, toss-juggling truths?
.. that necessarily always apply? Cos' it seems of all good advices and tips and "good for"-s it will always depend on your preferences, on your own approach, on your anatomy, on your way of learning, on skills you already have or have not, on which trick, which prop, on many things, if they even apply for you or not.
Is "There is no toss-juggling truth, that cannot be questioned, doubted on, done differently." true?
Like .. Is there any logical necessities when learning, when improving, that are without any doubt possible always true?
Mike Moore - - Parent #
Joggling is/was considered pretty cool where I live...we had the most world-record holding woman who frequently trained here, along with some others because we have an annual race. It's posted about fairly often on our "overheard/overseen" facebook group, always positively. The people I run by while joggling almost always smile, and say "That's amazing/impressive/so cool/etc."
Somehow, here (maybe not there) the juggling part lifts or removes the stigma that running has to non-members of the community.
Actually, juggling in general is pretty well-respected in our city, as our club does a fair few charity shows, and is pretty popular. Last Thursday, someone came up to us while we were practicing in a lecture building lobby and said, "I've had classes here for the last four years, and I want to finally thank you guys for brightening up the place."
Mike Moore - - Parent #
How about: it's easier to learn a pattern that only touches your hands sighted, then blind, rather than the other way around. I feel like the prevelency of doing this in practice is strong support of it.
Even something like BBB, some people use mirrors and the like to be able to better diagnose common mistakes.
I also mean like .. Is there any (true) guidelines, rules, that could show up in a schoolbook of juggling, any law(s) of juggling, that are not ``depends´´ and not ``yeah, but´´ in-case-true?
I mean, even gravity doesn't grant for props falling always "down" since people get the idea to juggle while hanging upside down, or when bounce juggling within big triangles, or when showing siteswaps on pool tables, rolling. Hardly any insight, anything you learn, seems to be really granted, as there will always be someone who'll do it exactly opposite or make the impossible happen. Isn't that pretty queer for a discipline? You don't have that in javelin throw or tennis or sports-fishing. Or let's take artforms .. there's howto-books for drawing, painting, music, dancing, anything, animation-arts .. only juggling has no true guidelines?? Only: you can do this or that pattern, and "Let the upper arms point downward!"
Daniel Simu - - Parent #
I say bullshit.
Of course all the other art forms continually reinvent themselves, and of course juggling has howto books.
Javelin throw and tennis and sport fishing have objectives: winning. Ineffective paths can be removed from the tree and ultimately the sport will come close to perfection. With anything that doesn't have an objective or rules, there are limitless directions.
Does juggling have rules? Depends how you define juggling. The rules question is pretty pointless, but if for the arguments sake you were going to set some rules, for example that juggling means throwing AND catching, then a truth is "a drop is an error".
But even without written rules, the laws of physics are still applying to juggling. There are truths about the path a ball can make, about the possibilities and limits of the body.
I don't really know what you want to discover through your hypotesis, but juggling is not at all creatively superior to the other "artforms".
Little Paul - - Parent #
"a drop is an error"
I thought the quote was "a drop is a sign of progress" and "a touch is as good as a catch, because you knew where it was headed"
Daniel Simu - - Parent #
Don't tell my students I said that ;)
Hmh ..
I don't see it so clear:
You can have distinct objectives, results to be gone for in juggling too, but hardly any or no clear guidelines, that will bring me there as i think is the case in other sports ( music and painting are very bad examples of mine as anything is possible there too, and any howto-books can only be propositions or approaches and many ways lead to a wealth of possibilities ).
Maybe I've just read too few juggling books.
Agreed for: In (``strict´´) toss-juggling, a drop is a fail.
Although transitions are fluent to easily deconstructing this. (Intended drops; juggling near and with the floor; Olivia Porter's drops being part of the act; .. )
I think, you really only slightly misread me there: I wasn't out for a "Yes." on ".. no toss-juggling-truths..", but rather hoped on some of such guidelines or general truths, something that I've overseen. Gather some wisdom here. Or else, to find out, that there indeed isn't any. (It was really a question, not a subsumed hypothesis). Wondering, how everything always ``depends´´ or can be done as you like, for it can't be "wrong".
I am somewhat gotten mixed up in notions and reference frames now ("art" vs "sport" vs different "disciplines" or "styles" .. then "guidelines" for what exactly?), but I'll take with me: juggling is too much an art (with no common default objectives?) to necessarily need rules like other competitive sports do, unless it's combat or some juggling-game with distinct rules.
.. and (toss-)juggling is not only an art, but also sport, gymnasics, body-science (?), physics, where I would expect common default guidelines, juggling-truths for a schoolbook of juggling.
Daniel Simu - - Parent #
Yup, and they exist:
Break down tricks, start with an easier step for faster and better learning (start with one ball)
Use big muscles rather than small ones, e.g. don't throw from your wrists. Larger muscles are more accurate.
Visual feedback is useful. Don't look into the sun, juggling white balls on a white background makes juggling harder
Underfilled beanbags are easier to collect, especially if you are juggling large numbers.
The pattern 423 can loop forever but the pattern 432 can not. (invalid)
Holding time influences the minimum throw height.
A cascade with clubs takes more time to learn than a cascade with balls.
What goes up will come down, even if you are Ignatov jr. and you juggle propellers.
The same trick with larger props can be recognised from further away.
This list could go on and on and on, but most seem too obvious to even mention.
Daniel Simu - - Parent #
And of course you can ignore all of the "truths" above and say: But what if I want to be groundbreaking and juggle with only my wrists? But this is also true anything else like gymnastics: A summersault requires a 360 rotation.. but what if I want to break my neck?
Aha. There's some statements to work with.
All looked fine and obvious at first read, but here's my "yeah but"-s and "depends":Break down tricks, start with an easier step for faster and better learning (start with one ball)
a) The upside-down box was my first box. I never did a 3b mills mess - jus a good bunch of windmills - I'll try that with 5b for the first time one day, if necessary to break down with 4b, only then 3b. That is: having focussed on 7b (and 5b) cascade mainly (but also doing other few ball tricks, stuff and 3b freestyle), I am used to a lot more balls in the air and have earned skills and speed, so that tricks will collaterally just fall like ripe fruit.
b) You can skip easier steps and do it the hard way (but it's not thathard). Often people tell you to do completely different patterns just because they're with one prop less e.g. lotsa 4b siteswaps with holds and or empties ("0"-s), where you don't get the constant cascade feeling or rhythm.
I don't think it's obvious or undisputable. A "sure, but"-halftruth.Use big muscles rather than small ones, e.g. don't throw from your wrists. Larger muscles are more accurate.
Completely disagreed: I believe, (if even, then) all the muscles involved should work together at an optimal rate. And using less bigger muscles (upper arm, shoulders) - those only for stabilizing purpose - and using the levers from forearm and wrist, even fingers to get on height needs less effort in sum. We're not throwing cannonballs, not even pétanque, just small weight props. Darters use less than half the weights that jugglers use. Juggling is a question of skill and technique, not force.
This one is "point of view" as far as I'm concerned.Visual feedback is useful. Don't look into the sun, juggling white balls on a white background makes juggling harder
100% agreed. I'll add disturbing, irritating strong contrasts in peripheral view; and throwing shadows, silhouettes of balls only, against a dark cloudy sky or nebulous diffuse weak cloudy light.Underfilled beanbags are easier to collect, especially if you are juggling large numbers.
"Yeah, but" they consume more thrust. They slip around your finger more easily. They don't aim as well as well filled or more compact balls. - So, not the whole truth, here, I'd say.The pattern 423 can loop forever but the pattern 432 can not. (invalid)
Absolutely undisputable siteswap maths.Holding time influences the minimum throw height.
.. at a given beat. (Else not)A cascade with clubs takes more time to learn than a cascade with balls.
Hmnjuhmjesnomostly .. not sure. I heard, some people get along better with clubs - for low numbers just as much as with higher numbers. It makes sense, as I just learned - here from ^Tom and Maria, that the throwing movement is or can be pretty different for clubs. So: "depends" what suits you better.What goes up will come down, even if you are Ignatov jr. and you juggle propellers.
Too obvious to not agree. Yet, we've seen Flüügzüch with Helium Ballons; jugglers juggling upside down (props then fall UP!); and bounce juggling in big triangles (balls ``fall´´ to and from sides too there, before they fall as physics require). So, "depends", but ordinarily: "Okay, how else."The same trick with larger props can be recognised from further away.
hmnjuhmyes .. Yes, but that's optics involving an audience, not really a guideline for the task of juggling itself, and not really what you'd start a schoolbook with. But, well, sure is true.
Daniel Simu - - Parent #
I'll give them numbers so it is easier to respond:
1 (breakdown)
Yeah the only thing the upside down and the normal box have in common is their rhythm. I hope you started with 2 balls and not 3? Until we teach 2 large group of people the same trick through different methods, we can't tell for sure if it really helps to break down. However, I know from my own experience that I'll do better runs of 3b backcrosses if I do 1 minute of practising one side at a time and 1 minute of running it, than if I go for 2 minutes of just running the pattern. There are too many things going on which after all these years I still can not understand unless I break it down and correct errors one by one.
2 (muscle size)
Look up "best dart players" on google image.. all have big arms!
Of course all muscles are involved, but the roles of applying force and transferring force are assigned to different ones. In circus school anatomy class I was told that larger muscles can perform more accurate actions but I can't quickly find a source to back this up. Juggling will become a question of force. Try and run 5b non stop for half an hour, and see afterwards if you can still make it to half of your personal record.
4 (saggy balls)
Everything works, or doesn't work, depending on the goals. The saggy balls are just an example, you could name any prop for any other benefit. Obviously flashing 11 balls is going to be much harder with golf balls than it is with the bagladies finest number bags.
6 (holding time)
Same thing here. Things work or don't work depending to the "rules".
7 (clubs)
Motivation issues aside, I can't be convinced that people with no prior throwing and catching experience will ever be quicker to learn clubs. Juggling a cascade with balls was a challenge of 2 hours. With clubs 2 weeks.
8 (gravity)
again: You make up the rules! Wanna talk about juggling as this meaningless all-containing concept, or wanna talk about juggling as we know it? Yes, I've seen some great acts using hair driers to keep balls afloat, but it is completely irrelevant if you want to understand juggling better and you're just working on that 97531.
9 (size)
Hahaha, so involving helium is allowed but involving an audience not? In my definition of juggling, the audience is very very relevant. Juggling to me is a visual medium, anything I do has to be seen.
As always, it depends on the rules.
And since everything depends on the rules, there will never be an ultimate truth. Until god steps up and writes the bible and lawbook of juggling, we'll be free to do anything and call it whatever we like. For communication sake I have some boundaries to my concept of juggling, but I wont force them onto anyone else.
So, next up on our agenda:
Are there any truths in life?
1 - break down - Oh! .. you got me there .. i think, yes: broke the inv box down to two balls at first. So let my objecting examples be exceptions from the rule that is then not logically necessarily always true, but very much mostly true by experience.
2 - muscles - I'm not taking that argument: anything, even simply keeping your arm held up for ½ an hour or merely standing immobile for a long time will of course stress any involved muscles, even lying still without moving every once in a while. I agree that going to some (not all) extremes (enure, high numbers) might or will stress muscles - but that doesn't go for (toss-) juggling in general or as guideline, and still then, technique and skill will make up for lotsa unnecessary effort. I'd say, there's lotsa a room for research on optimizing movements - it's being done for one-armed robots, engineers are far ahead there in knowledge about kinetics and forces involved. So: "highly disputable" if not wrong, the way, you said it, or not the whole truth about biokinetics and just a minor aspect neglecting a view on optimizing the whole.
MCGilligan, LØfberg and Sobolieva have thin arms. (Raise! Double or nothing.)
4 - saggy balls - Disputable. I believe, hard balls give higher precision, but i think have greater spread on smallest differences in releasing them. Saggy balls might be easier to collect in sum (they do roll around your finger more easily), but are less precise, i believe, and for sure consume thrust, i am convinced of. Any proven or experienced and agreed on properties of props will furthermore be highly individual and depend on many things like which pattern, how you throw or catch or juggle, depend of the style you have, depend on your grip, depend on combination with other ball properties (underfilled + slippy surface; overfilled + grippy surface; their shell, their filling and its behaviors, endless combinations). So, I don't see any obvious simple truths easily stated here - just single experiences stated out of again a whole context.
5 - s'swaps - I'll add Ben Beever's Axioms here. Add that universal siteswap map, built on states. But also relativize any notations as being abstract and describing only parts of the whole, the calculable aspects. Any siteswap-maths statements are true within their system, that is assuming a lot be idealized (beat, hands, vanilla setting, or extended). For a lot of juggling, upto this day's notation systems have their limits.
6 - dwell-time - Yeah, but again the whole set of involved factors is needed here for describing the physic's ratioes: When you don't account for different beats, it's only half the truth or only for juggling at a constant beat, which in practise is not an obvious thing to do (when still learning or when allowing for changes of the beat). But when you include a changing beat, you have three variables: height, beat-speed and dwell-time. Nonlinear. Complex. And that is for an ideal pattern, with idealized hand movements. Reality might involve even hand and arm positioning for different patterns giving different measure values.
7 - clubs vs balls - Hm: undecided? I wouldn't wanna call club-only-jugglers an exception from a rule that favors balls. Maybe we need a club-only (or mainly or better) juggler state on this.
8 - gravity - make up rules, concept vs juggling as we know it
A concept, structured knowledge, valid guidelines that apply, for what we know it from doing it (but, okay, that's generally thinking, not in this concrete gravity issue). - That act was great! I thought it's done, but he did it with more and more and he didn't even want to lol - Okey, if it's true, then it's soo trivial. Or, we can question it - after all the intention of juggling is to make gravity disappear, right.
9 - dependsdependsdepends
yeh, .. that's why i wondered if there's truth that not ..endsdependsdep.., but generally serve to guide you along a well structured learning or improving.truths in life
Yes! You have to break down challenges to their parts an work with one ball first.
1 break down - i agree on it beeing the fastest way to "master" a trick but sometimes i still prefer to just "force try" a trick either because it seems easy enough, or because it´s more fun or because i just want to do it once on camera but don´t intend to ever practise it.
2 muscles: i think we could formulate this in a way that it applyes to russian technique (there is some problem with the leg beeing the largest muscle which shouldnt be involved). also i think this gets counteracted by the many disciplines that utilize the wrist and minimal bodymovement which let´s me make up this rule
10 Minimize unnecesary (body) movement - (for speed, precision, minimum efford etc)
4.1 jugglers will always argue about their balls/props
5-9 jep there´s some truth in physics
10 - unnecessary movement - Can You give one or two examples of which in particular unnecessary movement there is. (unnecessary walking with pattern instead of doing pure, isolated? unnecessary flourishing? unnecessary, exaggerated use of shoulders, upper arms for an easy small 3b pattern?). I also see a problem defining "unnnecessary" for vivid, dynamic, dancing style juggling vs static, immobile styles (doing the same patterns). It would be very helpful, though, to know which movements or parts of movements are necessary (wouldn't go without, somehow the prop must go up), and which really aren't. And I wonder if such required minimum movements necessary can be easily spotted and defined.
.......................................................... .,-~°~-,.................................................
Are there elements of toss-juggling? Is there an elementary most basic (easiest, uncomplicated, minimum) throw?
I lately tried to break down the simplest very low 1 ball throw from relaxed standing position with hanging arms and stronghand holding the ball, intending to find t h e most basic element of toss-juggling (possibly in order to build a natural optimized juggling theory up on from there): So, in that position, I thought, it might be a good idea to lift my forearm to get prepared for a throw. I lifted it to 90° angle to upper arm. I found by the weight of my forearm up, the upper arm would sway back slightly, then pointing slightly backwards. Then I lowered the forearm a bit to build up momentum and continued the movement back up to release the ball. It (instinctively?) happened with rather stiff wrist which seems to provide greater control on the flight direction (straight up in this case). A day later, I wondered, why I had lifted my forearm just to get upward rid of the ball in the hanging hand, when I might just aswell throw earlier from further below and could use my wrist more to make up for a long way up of the forearm. So, this time, I threw right on fromout hanging arm, mainly from my wrist, without lifting my forearm more than necessary to not throw ahead, but up. Long paragraph to say only this: really nothing seems granted from the moment on that you decide to throw sth up. Is juggling complex from the very first moment on, does it have no basics, no elements? (And I didn't even throw it to the other hand and it hardly left my hand)
Daniel Simu - - Parent #
As for the legs: You know that there is someone juggling 4 balls with one foot, even though toes are not by far as forgiving as hands? I find that legs can make very very precise throws/kickups with not too much training!
But of course, using your legs while juggling can destabilize your upper body, which is bad.. Though I know some passers/synch jugglers who put their legs to good use!
Okay, our schoolbook of juggling upto now contains the following (upto now undisputed or agreed or not disagreed on) guidelines:
a) It's easier to learn a pattern that only touches your hands sighted, then blind,
rather than the other way around.
b) In toss-juggling, a drop is an error.
c) Breaking tricks down, starting with an easier step, will usually grant for faster and better learning,
for the fastest way to master a trick.
d) Visual, optical conditions impact on the quality of your juggling.
Visual feedback is useful. Don't look into the sun, juggling white balls
on a white background makes juggling harder
e) Calculations and statements within a given description system are logically true.
[s'swaps, validity; fitting orbits; how many hands for how many props; calculable stuff; Beever's axioms;
lotsa maths and logics; .. example:
The pattern 423 can loop forever but the pattern 432 can not. (invalid)
]
f) Holding time influences the minimum throw height at a given beat.
g) What goes up will come down, even if you are Ignatov jr. and you juggle propellers.
h) The same trick with larger props can be recognised from further away.
[ Sorry for citing wrong, modified, altered, trying to make it yes-no-statements, or hopefully more generally valid for e) ]
Hmh ..
#JugglingWisdom #schoolbook
Subscribe to this forum via RSS
1 article per branch
1 article per post