Hello forum.
Not sure I'll get much time to keep up with things here, I don't do a lot of juggling of late, but I thought I'd drop in and say hi.
If you want to catch up with me, I'm easy enough to find on the interwebs. Emails always welcome, and always answered.
Cheers,
Colin
James Hennigan - - Vorredner #
Welcome to the Edge! I found your videos on youtube very helpful when I was learning siteswap notation a few years ago.
I stumbled across an interesting claim from you which I haven't seen anywhere else: "The number of periodic juggling patterns of period n and with strictly fewer than b balls is b^n."
Source: https://www.maths.tcd.ie/~mathsoc/old/2002-03/juggling.html
I'm wondering what the proof for this is.
Thanks,
James.
How do you launch your numbers basic patterns?
- In a clear crescendo way, as a ``ladder´´, starting with lower throws getting upon height towards the later throws.
- A mix of 1. and 3., pretty much the same height as good as I can get it, but the very first one or two throws a bit lower. And-Or doing the two or three latest throws just a little bit higher to have the launch better well-spaced.
- All on the exact height required (from first throw on), thus also in the right tact.
- Different ways, or all of the above, or depending on which pattern, which number, or with a special initial throw or kick, or with a siteswap, or from juggling a lower number (only part of the props) with full hands.
[ #numbers #launch #technique #poll ]
This is a competition thread which ran from 26th Sep 2016 to 16th Oct 2016. View results.
James Hennigan - - Vorredner #
Don't lots of jugglers do the opposite of 1? They throw the first ball higher and all the other throws are at regular height.
Example: https://youtu.be/Jpah1ywgZUk?start=298
Never seen this. Very interesting; it seems to earn a moment to prepare and get back in position for the steady launch with one ball less.
He should then vote "4.".
No, serious: I see two slight disadvantages in that method (regardless of how much these might be outweighed by the advantages), at least when still learning: a) the very high first ball comes back very fast, thus is a bit harder to catch or at least ask for a different first catch, and b) it's out of tact and out of pattern and tact, so timing your launch to it, matching both, seems a skill on its own, maybe comparable to kicking into launch.
The advantage is that it makes the first throws easier when there's a lot of weight in the hands. Perhaps Anthony developed that method because he started numbers so young. I tend to do it a bit with clubs.
When flashing high numbers I prefer 1 or 2. The advantage being that they separate out in the air making the catches further apart. When running numbers I prefer 3.
I like the first two pairs of throws notably lower and wider, to have the middle free to fire the rest up keeping a slight crescendo. (Clearly "1." then, and for 9b and 7b) My 8b wimpy, I do it in a `robotic´ way all to same exact height - there's just much more time to swing up thrust in synch.
James Hennigan - - Vorredner #
This reminded me that Anthony could juggle 5 clubs before he could even hold 5 clubs!
https://youtu.be/4TAle4wftR4?start=231
I put that down to hype - no-one does bullshit like circus does bullshit...
Daniel Simu - - Vorredner #
To me it makes a lot of sense. The first ball is hard because the hands are heavy. You can make the first high throw easy by using the legs, and the legs add so much push that you can even make enough time to slow down the next one or two balls. With more time you can also put more force in these.. Until you quickly need to get your hands empty to make the first catches, and then stabilize into pattern hight as you only need to deal with 1 ball weight..
Ah, yeah .. ``hop´´ the first one up - forgot about that one.
And, true, yeah, .. once they're all up, be it only halfway aligned, spaced and timed, you can still correct into pattern dealing with one prop each rethrow, which makes up a bit for a flawly launch - I need that a lot ;o) .
This poll has now ended. The results are:
- In a clear crescendo way, as a ``ladder´´, starting with lower throws getting upon height towards the later throws. (1 vote)
- A mix of 1. and 3., pretty much the same height as good as I can get it, but the very first one or two throws a bit lower. And-Or doing the two or three latest throws just a little bit higher to have the launch better well-spaced. (0 votes)
- All on the exact height required (from first throw on), thus also in the right tact. (2 votes)
- Different ways, or all of the above, or depending on which pattern, which number, or with a special initial throw or kick, or with a siteswap, or from juggling a lower number (only part of the props) with full hands. (1 vote)
Anyone know what the most amount of catches in async is with 10 balls?
Cedric Lackpot - - Vorredner #
Is it perhaps 23?
Not exactly the answer, but some 10b context is here with videos linked for catches done, claims and tricks (including yours, which you maybe not know of being linked there), that you can check. Async ftn leads to a Garfield video (but only 17 catches if I counted right). Ferman does his 26 c in wimpy. Dan Wood 24 c synch ftn. Daniel Eaker's 22 c are synch ftn. Rumford and Gatto claimed 20 c without explicitly telling the pattern). Dietz claimed 28 c on synch.
James Hennigan - - Vorredner #
If Gatto got 20 catches it was probably in asynch. I've never seen him try any other pattern.
Lukedaviesss - - Vorredner #
Is there video evidence of the 23 catches?:)
Jason Garfield, 20 catches of async fountain - https://youtu.be/Lik27AjCyMQ?start=48
How happy are you with a l l your props, the w h o l e set*, your equipment, your gear as a whole, that you use most for juggling, for your (main) practise, all those props that you really need?
- All perfect.
- Pretty much okay, all in all, just this or that could be notably better.
- So-so. Okay, so far. I would or could maybe wish for much better, but they're clearly good enough.
- Not really what I wish for. ``Jugglable´´, better than e.g. tennisballs, than e.g. some replacement, that's all.
- Not happy at all. I need better ones!
- [other]
[ * "available" props - needn't be your own, whatever you usually get into your hands ]
This is a competition thread which ran from 4th Aug 2016 to 21st Aug 2016. View results.
Mike Moore - - Vorredner #
Selected 2. Love my beanbags. I'd really like an absolute ring or two, but they're hard to find these days.
James Hennigan - - Vorredner #
2
I've used SRX russians for over 2 years now and I can't imagine switching. I'm surprised at how uncommon they are.
Other than that I just use 1 club for balancing.
Ben Clarke - - Vorredner #
1, I love my props, sport co for toss juggling, 400gr play 5 inch ball for contact, 3 inch acrylics from renegage for multiball contact...
That said, I have just got a set of norwiks and am interested in switching to them for a while to try them out for tossing, but they feel soooo different than bean bags!
Ben Clarke - - Vorredner #
Sorry, replied to wrong thread and can't figure out how to move or delete my post. :(
noslowerdna - - Vorredner #
1
This poll has now ended. The results are:
- All perfect. (1 vote)
- Pretty much okay, all in all, just this or that could be notably better. (10 votes)
- So-so. Okay, so far. I would or could maybe wish for much better, but they're clearly good enough. (3 votes)
- Not really what I wish for. ``Jugglable´´, better than e.g. tennisballs, than e.g. some replacement, that's all. (0 votes)
- Not happy at all. I need better ones! (0 votes)
- [other] (0 votes)
So yesterday I managed to qualify 10 balls in asynchronous for the second time! Amazing feeling, video is available to view on my YouTube youtube.com/jugglerdavies
James Hennigan - - Vorredner #
Has anyone got more than 20 catches in async?
Lukedaviesss - - Vorredner #
Don't think so but I am not 100% on that!
According to the IJDB juggling records Alex Barron did 23 catches of "10 Ball 2 Hand Asynch Fountain ss:a" in 2011. See archived page here: https://web.archive.org/web/20110614120914/https://www.jugglingdb.com/records/member.php?user=9869
Hello people, I want to start training 6 balls. I'm leaning towards mmx balls but I'm not sure which size to go for and can't find any help on this matter elsewhere.
What's your 5 balls like? I'd say you need at least 200 catches to properly start training six.
My six is nowhere near solid, but it's rapidly improving so here's my tips:
Firstly, I don't personally like mmx balls, I have always found them a bit small, heavy and slippery. My recomendation would be either to go for some nice beanbags like Gballz or uglies, or to go for Norwiks. They have been the only ball I use since I started using them about 6 months ago because I love them so much. On my second day of using them I broke more PBs in a day than I had for ages, they're really not that hard to get used to (if you get these make sure to get the 75mm ones).
Hope this helps, if you have any other questions feel free to ask.
Austin
Oscar Lindberg - - Vorredner #
Im with Austin, not a big fan of MMX. At least the size I got. Maybe bigger would feel better.
Oscar Lindberg - - Vorredner #
They are called MMX 1. I think they are 62mm. I own 5 so haven't tested them on higher numbers.
The size is perfectly ok, it's just how they feel. They are small and hard + roll away when you drop. Many people seem to like them though, this is just my opinion.
Instead I use Juggle Dream Uglies (very good for numbers) and sometimes a ball called "120g Thud Juggling Balls (The Standard Ball)" from Firetoys.
Some Gballz or similar would be sweet to own.
My 5 is getting more and more solid but I'm probably more around 150 catches. I can flash six to a good standard but I am looking to improving my 5 more before properly training 6, however I am at a position where I have a but of money to spend on some new balls so I want to invest in some good balls to help my future progress.
Thanks for replying, there are so many options! Had a look at the norwicks, I can't tell, if they are beanbag or more like the mmx style ball? Is 75mm a stand size ball for juggling 6?
Oscar Lindberg - - Vorredner #
Norwiks are "russians". They have a hard shell (like play pit/wiffle balls) and are filled with sand.
75mm is probably a bit bigger than standard. But if you don't have too small hands it shouldn't be a problem. Some crazy people out there juggle 9 norwiks.
Yes, they feel massive (and very light, 67g) when you first use them, but after a while they feel perfect and everything else feels too small. They're really not hard to hold enough of, I work on up to 8 balls with them and have no problems. Plus you can get them wet and muddy and clean them easily, which is very helpful if you juggle outside.
James Hennigan - - Vorredner #
Do you go to any juggling clubs or festivals? The only reliable way to figure out which juggling ball is best for you is to go out and try them yourself. You might buy Gballz or Norwiks and realise you don't like them.
You should consider making DIY russians. They are very cheap and easy to make. Norwiks are essentially DIY russians.
If you want to learn 6, start working on 3-in-one-hand immediately. It's also a good idea to keep working on your 5 ball cascade and 6 ball flashes. Practice both sync and async.
Hi Jaz. I use MMX balls as you know and I like them a lot. Previously I'd always used underfilled beanbags for everything but now prefer the feel of MMX even if I'm not able to do as much with them. I find that I can throw much more accurately with them instead of constantly struggling to keep the pattern together. I have the smaller 62mm balls. I have to agree with other that they are a bit too small for 7 ball or fewer balls. I mainly got that size so that I could work on 9 with them. The 67mm MMX fit the hand much better. They're slightly heavier but not too heavy for 7 I think.
Stephen Meschke - - Vorredner #
I use the 67mm 135g MMX balls. Previously I'd always used 63mm 100g salt filled russian style juggling balls. With the exception of the half shower, I'm not able to do as much with the MMX balls. For the relatively short time the balls are in the air, I am doing more juggling and less struggling. My patterns are cleaner and done with less foot movement.
The MMX balls I use are heavier and bigger than the russian balls I previously used. I could run 7b. cascade for much longer using the lighter smaller russian style balls. I prefer short controlled runs with MMX balls. My MMX ball personal record is 140 catches, and my personal record with russian balls is 205. Shorter and more controlled runs with 7 balls are more popular with spectators as well.
Collisions are a problem for me with even numbers. The russian balls were great because I could juggle through collisions. Switching to the silicone MMX balls was tough because collisions are catastrophic. Silicone-on-silicone has a lot more friction than plastic-on-plastic.
Yes, there are several reasons why Russians make things easier, but for me that doesn't make them better. I don't like the way they feel and 9+ is almost impossible to start from the hands. Why did you switch if you liked the Russians more?
True, 9 is tricky but I got 7 gathers in a reasonable pattern yesterday, all from the hands. My favourite part is that they are large but not heavy, so they look much nicer.
Stephen Meschke - - Vorredner #
I switched from Russians to MMX balls for several reasons:
- The Russians were not durable and would leak during juggling.
- With the Russians, I can get away with a lot of asymmetry and foot movement. Juggling with Russian balls doesn't look as good as with stage balls.
- I had gone a long time without any progress, especially in the half-shower pattern.
- Low Price. I got 8 MMX balls from Renegade Juggling for $79. They shipped in less than 2 days.
I am still experimenting with the MMX balls. They are perfect for 5, but I want a smaller and lighter set for 6, 7, and 8. I hardly ever do numbers juggling, my goals are one minute with 7b and 5c.
I like my MMX 1, 62mm, very much because of their squishyness. I agree, that they are a bit slippy (due to somewhat peachy surface(?), i don't know), but slips don't happen so often, so I can take that. I unfilled mine from 110g to 80g (awkward fumbling, took a while), so that now their squishyness comes mainly from squeezing against the air inside (they are ``airproof´´ [do you say so?] ), not from squeezing against the few millet left inside. For indoors, I'd maybe prefer a good beanbag.
That sounds sensible. In my opinion most juggling balls seem far too heavy, even before I changed to russians.
I'm new to juggling and have a stupid question. To "qualify" something you have to make 2x throws and 2x catches where x is the number of objects. For concreteness, let's examine the 5 ball cascade. To qualify would be 10 throws and 10 catches. Would it still count as qualifying if you can't end the pattern with catches but you get at least 10 catches during the pattern before you drop? I assume it does, but I was not entirely sure.
Yes, it still counts. If you get ten catches of five balls and then miss the next five catches, you still qualified five balls.
James Hennigan - - Vorredner #
Yes. As long as you make 2x catches before dropping, you have qualified the pattern. Whether or not you had a clean finish is irrelevant.
Also bear in mind the term 'qualify' comes from the level required to qualify for the next stage of an IJA numbers juggling competition. As such it is just an arbitrary number chosen because a limit was needed for the competition. Targets can be helpful & a great motivator, but you are more than welcome to choose any number you like. Personally I find aiming for a tidy pattern is more productive than striving for one more catch.
Thanks for mentioning this, Orinoco. I had no idea where the term came from. My original question actually stemmed from the fact that I wanted to use the term to describe something outside of juggling to jugglers. I didn't want to embarrass myself by completely misusing the term. I'm not actually working on 5 ball, although I hope to in the future. I like knowing where terminology originates, so thanks again for explaining!
"Before you drop" should be clarified. If the first 10 throws are caught, it's a qualify. If you drop the 10th catch, but make the 11th catch before the 10th hits the floor, it's not a qualify.
Other than that, the answer is what the others have said.
Stephen Meschke - - Vorredner #
The easiest way to get at least 10 catches before dropping is to make 11 throws, intentionally letting the last one hit the ground.
Here is an example: https://i.imgur.com/uPyDaa8.gifv
Throwing the green ball again frees up the right hand to catch orange and pink. If the green ball weren't rethrown, the pink ball could hit the two other balls in the hand and bounce out during the collect.
The slight increase in difficulty because of the 11th throw is more than offset by not having to catch three balls in one hand.
Because this is easier than doing 10 throws and 10 catches, I don't consider it a qualify.
To describe the example in a log, I would say, "10 catches with rethrows."
Well, not be to obnoxious, but whether you consider it a qualify or not doesn't change the fact that it is. If I were to say that I don't consider 2 plus 2 to equal 4, that doesn't change the fact that it does.
David Cain
Stephen Meschke - - Vorredner #
How do you interpret the 2016 IJA Numbers Rules, specifically rule number 13 paragraph 2 sentence 6?Any object thrown after collecting has started is considered to be a drop at the moment of release of the throw.
Going back to my example, the collects starts with the red ball in the left hand. The green ball is thrown from the right hand after the collect has begun, and is therefore considered a drop at the moment of the release of the throw. The three catches that follow the drop (orange, blue, and pink) don't count.
Well, first you should probably know that I'm the main creator of those numbers rules. Secondly, it's understood that the statement you quoted applies to individual hands. A collect that starts with the left hand still allows for an additional throw from the right hand and vice versa. Thus, all the balls caught would count as valid catches. If that needs to be clarified in the rules, I can let the Numbers Championship Co-Directors (my twin brother and my first juggling mentor) know and they can take appropriate action.
David Cain
I just read the part of the rules you referred to. Collecting doesn't really begin until a second prop is caught in the same hand. The catching of the first ball would be a catch, but "collecting" doesn't begin until the next ball is also caught in that same hand. This makes the argument for the next throw (from the other hand) being considered a drop moot.
David Cain
Stephen Meschke - - Vorredner #
Thank you for clarifying. I misunderstood what you meant by, 'collect.'
I find some of these esoteric threads frustrating because there is no dictionary of juggling terminology to reference.
Hi, did anyone learn 5 clubs by replacing always one more ball by another club from 5 balls?
James Hennigan - - Vorredner #
I learned 3 clubs this way, and haven't done much club juggling since.
Yeh, but for 5c there's the option to do 4c tricks and siteswaps containing high crossing throws first instead. Which, i guess, is the most common way?
Austin Hurley - - Vorredner #
I've started to try out 4b1c in the hopes that my doubles become really consistent but I doubt it'll start having a major effect until I try 3b2c. As a reference I have gotten 30 catches of 5c but I now usually get 12-16 catches
Austin Hurley - - Vorredner #
I don't think I understand what you mean. I can do 4club fairly ok and I only learned with clubs. I didn't do 2b2c, 1b3c or 3b1c or anything. Is that what you mean?
Austin Hurley - - Vorredner #
OH!! I might get it now. I couldn't do any 4c tricks, bar fountain, when I started 5c but I was told to do 552. Every time I drill 552 my 5c moves up a level. Granted my 5c isn't good but it's a lot better than before.
I simply meant how you got (from 3c, then what?) to 5c. Like not with skipping 4c or sth.
Yeah .. 552 an' stuff, .. that's what I meant (also what Scott Seltzer says below, guess, that's the ``regular´´ way).
I always have some quarrel with siteswaps being ``good for´´ a simple cascade .. you do different rhythms, different beats, holds an' stuff. I can't do any chases or other ``Frankensteins´´ with 4 balls, still I'm pretty much okay with my 5 balls. That's why I'm out for outlooks on 5 clubs without having to do any odd 4 club stuff and wondered if anyone skipped 4 clubs.
Austin Hurley - - Vorredner #
Ah right.
I'm Irish and I was talking to the guy that sells all the juggling gear in Ireland Stephen, about these one piece clubs that were cheap. He was telling me about some guy, who is considered the only guy that can do seven clubs in Ireland (or at least he was at the time). Stephen was saying that he needed the one piece clubs cause everything else kept breaking. He didn't do any other props or training. His goal was seven clubs and he did it two years. I think Stephen said he skipped the fountains when learning cause it wouldn't help in crossing patterns. I can find out exactly and maybe even talk to the 7cluber if you'd like.
James Hennigan - - Vorredner #
Stephen can juggle 7 clubs!?
Who is the other guy who can do 7?
Austin Hurley - - Vorredner #
I don't think Stephan can but he was telling me about the guy that bought them from him. I think I asked at the time but I didn't know the person so I forgot the name
Yes actually, if you get the chance! I'd be really interested if he did any 4c or skipped that and delved into cold starts with 5.
Scott Seltzer - - Vorredner #
4 balls and 1 club is very very hard. I'm a solid 5 club juggler and I haven't ever tried any other combination of balls and clubs but I can't imagine that I'd have any success with them. Not recommended for learning 5 clubs, but maybe a fun challenge for after.
I've also tried juggling a mix of 5 balls & clubs in various permutations.
When juggling with more balls than clubs it was very difficult to keep the pattern at a 5 club height, I found it much easier to throw the clubs at my usual much lower 5 ball height. I also found the lack of symmetry very off putting. The force required to throw a club is a lot more than that required to throw a ball which causes a small but very noticeable twisting effect on your body which I found uncomfortable.
It's an interesting exercise once you are comfortable with 5 clubs, but I wouldn't recommend it as a training exercise.
So then the common way to get from 3 to 5 clubs would be to go over 4c tricks and siteswaps containing high crossing throws (5-s)? Or is it feasible to skip 4c for the sake of sticking to the cascade pattern, like after mastering 3 clubs' various heights, speeds, widths, different dwelltimes, numbers of spins at different heights, very well? I'm not that good yet, but I could think clearer about it with having a plan, an approach to choose, with knowing if I can, or else will not, get around getting into queer s'swaps with 4c.
Scott Seltzer - - Vorredner #
I'm sure that there are already a lot of resources online for preparing for 5 clubs. Many are like 5 balls: 50505, 55500, 552, 55550, and maybe 5551. triple-singles and double-singles might be good, too. Perhaps even 534 (kinda hard on doubles). The stronger foundation you have with 3 and 4 clubs (even body tricks and tricks without doubles) will prepare you better for the challenge of 5 clubs. Bend your knees and go for it!
Hm .. I'm still undecided .. I'm not even reluctant to get into 4 clubs (i even like 4c-345, single double triple). And nothing also hinders me to try both ways .. or even flash 3up to collect with 5c until I get a fourth and fifth throw thrown, or better do that first with 3c2b.
I work quite a bit on variations of x(Devilstick) + y(Handsticks) + z(Balls) = 5 object cascade. I can also do 4b1c using singles and a average 5b height for quite a while. I don´t practise 5club but i have qualified them a few times.
I think it has an great effect on the "mixed object skill" but doesn´t help the "consistently juggle cascade" skill alot. Usually i get quickly to a point were i get 20 catches on any combination of 5 comfortable props but stall there and have to seriously push the pattern if i want toget it consistent.
When it comes to using xbyc=5 as a practise tool for 5c i believe the problem is that it only works if one already has a save 5b in 7bheight cascade since you need high 5s to match the club double.
Do you know or can you think of a trick, a move, that is h a r d e r with l e s s props? [ #trick ]
Yes, a three ball fountain vs. a four ball fountain! But, to be serious, some might consider shoulder throws with 3 balls or (especially) clubs more difficult than shoulder throws with 4.
David Cain
I suspect this is more because people simply don't bother practising them, but *proper* 4-club backcrosses (in a fountain pattern), might have a smaller difficulty gap between the 4- and 5-club version than other tricks — because the rotation of the clubs is the "wrong" way round — it rotates out of your grasp rather than into it. I would probably rate it as more difficult... but perhaps if you upped the numbers further...
Because the club leaves your hand on the opposite side of your body to the hand the club is thrown with. Throws in a backcross fountain cross your body twice (once whilst you're holding it, once in the air).
I disagree on your definition. IMO the "crosses" in "backcrosses" refers to the club crossing from one hand to the other. Which it does not do in the pattern you describe.
Not to say it's not an impressive trick/pattern.
Is this what you are calling "backsames", David?
Little Paul - - Vorredner #
I always understood that "backcrosses" were "left hand throw appears over right shoulder" and "backsames" were "left hand throw appears over left shoulder" with the implication that the catching hand is the one associated with the shoulder
I'm not sure what you'd call "left hand throw appears over right shoulder, is then caught by left hand" apart from "fugly"
Yes, Sounds like backsames. It's a four club fountain backcross-like throws that come back to the throwing hand. Backcrosses require the clubs to be caught by the opposite hand that threw the club / prop.
David
Mike Moore - - Vorredner #
I find 3b levels harder than 4b levels. I often find myself struggling to remember how to do 3b levels, whereas the 4b version feels so natural to me. (levels: https://libraryofjuggling.com/Tricks/3balltricks/Levels.html)
Perhaps a "most catches of a period one siteswap in a minute" would be easier with 4 than 3. I realize that the records don't reflect that now, but I imagine 4b columns more rapidly approaches infinite catches per minute than 3b cascade/reverse cascade. Maybe a vertically-spaced Boston mess with 3b could go faster, though...
I just found sth with triplexes:
https://fs5.directupload.net/images/160503/nxtldnmg.gif
https://fs5.directupload.net/images/160503/93gyaxj2.gif
6b [32T1] or [345][22]2 8b-[567][22]2
The 8 ball version is easier (for me), because the stacked 5 + 7 are collected together before throwing the next triplex, while, with 6b, you throw next right after the lower ball of that stack is caught. So the 3 + 5 must be well apart (needn't with 8b).
James Hennigan - - Vorredner #
I haven't tried 7 ball duplexes but I'd imagine they're harder than 8 ball duplexes. However, I'm not sure if I'd say that [43] is 'the 7 ball version' of [44].
I'd say 5b-[32T] is the 5 ball version for (horizontal duplex) "splits", and 7b-[43] their 7b version.
The lower version for 8b-[44], would be 6b-[33] (uncut stacked duplex).
So, same, evens or unevens, and same throw types, compare, rather than else it's another trick.
Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplex_%28juggling%29#Throw_types (Stack, Split, Cut, and Slice)
The words for the basic juggling patterns; cascade, shower, and fountain, can also describe a way that water flows. Is this the same in other languages as well? What is the origin of this nomenclature?
I have never heard anyone trying to use a Swedish word for the juggling pattern "shower", but we use "kaskad" (but I don't think that word is usually associated with water in Swedish) and sometimes "fontän" though I'd say it's also common to just use the English words.
About the origin, I have no idea really, but I like what I read in Charlie Dancey's book, something about the watery names coming from the fact that the first thing every juggler learns is the drop.
Daniel Simu - - Vorredner #
In Dutch we say cascade, without really knowing what it means, but pronounced Dutch. Fountain is usually called like the English fountain and hardly ever like the similar Dutch fontijn. Showers are always called showers.
In German it is pretty much the same..
If I had to guess, Dave Finnigan's books might have had a big influence on spreading these names internationally? Next time I run into a translation of one of his books I'll check what the patterns are called...
Stephen Meschke - - Vorredner #
I like the Charlie Dancey explanation.
I was confused by these juggling terms because the juggling patterns look nothing like the words that describe them.
James Hennigan - - Vorredner #
Some fountains have the same shape as the juggling pattern, and the balls follow the same path that the water does:
https://previews.123rf.com/images/nesacera/nesacera1102/nesacera110200007/8802169-Classic-Fountain-Stock-Vector-fountain-water.jpg
https://www.rezasld.com/Portals/0/Gallery/Album/12/Fountain-Spray-Rings.jpg
In Miami I've heard Spanish speakers refer to the cascade as the infinity sign. They were speaking English at the time.
When I first heard the words, i thought, "fountain" referred to the cascade-trick, bursting up and spreading like a fountain, and thought "cascade" referred to the shower-trick looking much like a waterfall cascading down a chine.
I don't know where/when they originated, but I did a quick Google Books search for "juggling" and "cascade" and found an article "You Can Learn to Juggle" by K. H. Ward in the May 1929 issue of Popular Mechanics Magazine:
https://books.google.ca/books?id=wN4DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA850&dq=%22cascade%22+%22juggling&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22cascade%22%20%22juggling&f=false
It has teaching diagrams for both the shower and cascade, along with balancing, cigar and hat juggling, etc.
I'm sure the juggling historians in our midst could tell us how far the terms go back in English.