Abschnitte mit Rob van Heijst

7b_wizard - 1/22/2016 22:52 - Vorredner #

Great, a welcome read and watch on what interests me!

I never do more than 1 hour at a time; it is fun at first but after just half an hour I find it tiring and repetitive.
You never know what will happen and people in cars are different.


[roughly cited:] 5b routine with best tricks needing concentrated focus -> 10 € versus 3b tricks + interacting with the cars --> hat brimmed
Looks like people are paying for being contacted, for your will to entertain them, unlike more than for any skill.


It's not legal
On the other hand cities like to boast with a vivid cultural life in town when putting forth their image in prospects for tourists or in the media. So, cities and police mustn't be too severe with you.


Andres Holguin .. Oh, my goodness!
Watched Manuel till the end.
Pretty spectacular machete juggling, also. You made a nice choice of different videos!


[..] and your skill level is not as important as your humble smile.
So, .. using strong colour make up to highlight your smile will fill your hat more? :o])


I find interesting how people who wouldn't care if they saw same on tv or even at a circus, get excited (take photos, stand and watch, give tip) when they're life part of the scene.
Guess it's the unexpected eyecandy, and a setup amidst everyday's life.
I'm sure there's people taking a detour to see if the juggler's there again at that crossing.

Daniel Simu - 1/24/2016 07:10 - Vorredner #

I am glad you enjoyed it, thanks for the comments :).

Yes, people get excited when you are out there especially for them. However, only half of the cars pay attention to you, plenty of people just look away...

7b_wizard - 1/24/2016 12:09 - Vorredner #

That's the broke ones ;o)

Daniel Simu - 1/23/2016 23:30 - Vorredner #

good one, I'll do that :)

Daniel Simu - 1/24/2016 07:09 - Vorredner #

Thanks for reminding me, I knew there was something about that :p

7b_wizard - 11/12/2015 21:26 - Vorredner #

It being a commercial doesn't derogate the performance (if that's what you mean). We should be happy for every juggler earning what they deserve and grant ( \not begrudge) the success.

bad1dobby - 11/29/2015 23:23 - Vorredner #

Skimming? Sacrilege!

shawnlives - 11/30/2015 03:53 - Vorredner #

Haha. I promise to read every word from now on!

Little Paul - 6/3/2015 04:08 - Vorredner #

I'm not one of those people who thinks everything has to be a competition, so I'm not at all interested in seeing it actually happen (I'd rather see another successful festival set up than another competition)

But if it were to happen, what shape would you see it take? "Best juggler" is so subjective that drawing up a ruleset and scoring system is problematic.

That's why the IJA winners in any given year wouldn't win at WJF and vice versa. Those two competitions judge two entirely different aspects of juggling, both of which have some validity,

So which style of comp would if be? How would you score it?

Little Paul - 6/3/2015 06:23 - Vorredner #

That makes me wonder, how many sets of competition rules have we got at the moment? Are we up to 14 yet?

I can think of:

- IJA Numbers Comps
- IJA Individuals, Teams, Juniors competitions
- IJA Individual Prop Competitions (not run any more?)
- The IJA "Extreme Juggling" Competitions (not run any more?)
- WJF (Various, each event seems to have different rules - it's been over 10 years and I still don't understand the WJF)
- Atlanta Jugglers Association Groundhog Day competition (does that count as a serious competition?)
- The Dutch Juggling Championships (https://www.nkjongleren.nl/ - seems it may not be running due to a drop in interest?)

I've not included the various fight night, voleyclub, joggling competitions/leagues etc because they're very narrow in scope - and on the whole seem to be better structured/understood than the more general competitions.

I've also left out well respected, high profile circus competitions like Mote-Carlo, North American Circus Competition, Festival International De Cirque, Circus Maximus etc as although jugglers have entered/won - they're not juggling specific competitions.

A great man is purported to have said

"I don't believe in juggling competitions. It's like seeing who could paint the fastest painting!" Francis Brunn

Daniel Simu - 6/3/2015 08:22 - Vorredner #

Dutch juggling championships didn't run in 2014, but it will this year!

From my experience with the Dutch juggling championships:

People are interested in having a national title to put on their website. They join 2 years in a row, win a competition, and never return. Those who are really at the top have no further interest in taking part. There are maybe a total of 5 Dutch technical jugglers who worked hard and cared about the technical competitions, but after multiple years of competition their interest fades away too.

The only competitions that sustain well are those that get a fresh bunch of 13 year olds every year, so the diabolo competition is obviously flourishing.

On the other hand, everybody has been saying all what I said above for ages, yet somehow the championship has existed since... I believe 2006 and is still going!

lukeburrage - 6/3/2015 08:48 - Vorredner #

I helped host the first competition in 2005. At the time Marco Bonissimo was very open about him and a few others running the competition as a way to add "Dutch Juggling Champion" to their business cards and websites.

Daniel Simu - 6/3/2015 12:39 - Vorredner #

And the effect is amazing. I know pretty much all of the 'dutch champions', and when they tell this to non jugglers they are incredibly in awe...

I know I was in awe long time ago when I met the devilsticker who got 3rd at the Dutch Championships the year before... Just for the title!

Little Paul - 6/3/2015 19:40 - Vorredner #

How many juggling competitions can you name at 7:30am? :P

Monte - 5/19/2020 14:14 - Vorredner #

I agree with you Jay. I think that sports that rely on an element of judging are closer to arts than sports.
That would include things like gymnastics, ice dance, snowboard style events etc. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to kick them out of the Olympics or anything but I certainly wouldn't want to encourage any more inclusion of ''judged'' disciplines.
Any type of juggling which actually can be measured empirically such as endurance events would be pretty tedious to watch. Gladiators being a possible exception or maybe volley club.
Overall I'd rather just leave it as entertainment rather than sport and if you want to compete just compete with yourself to get better.

The Void - 5/19/2020 15:05 - Vorredner #

FYI: This thread is 5 years old.

Monte - 5/19/2020 19:17 - Vorredner #

I noticed that but it wasn't me who bumped it.

emilyw - 6/3/2015 11:52 - Vorredner #

Had you considered organising one?

7b_wizard - 6/3/2015 12:09 - Vorredner #

No. But it does work in other sports.

Mini - 6/3/2015 22:59 - Vorredner #

Sport?

since when did drinking tea, eating biscuits and chucking stuff about become a sport?

7b_wizard - 6/4/2015 09:19 - Vorredner #

Have I the priviledge to refuse evidence on that behalf? :o|

Daniel Simu - 6/3/2015 12:42 - Vorredner #

Well, where are you going to get that funding from? Big sports events are funded by audience.. But in juggling there is not much audience, most of the people rather juggle themselves than watch a competition..
The Dutch Championship is always organised as a tiny convention. Of course people watch, because their friends are on, but mostly they attend because there also is an open gym. The participants pay much more than the regular visitors....

7b_wizard - 6/3/2015 21:25 - Vorredner #

That sounds real good! .. and that could buy a decent massive gold cup maybe with a little diamond on it ;o] (= really know to few of such things .. guess juggling world owes J. Garfield or post-Garfield WJF for that)

lukeburrage - 6/4/2015 10:14 - Vorredner #

I talked to Christian Hauschild, who got third place at the WJF last year, which was $1000 if I remember rightly, but lost a lot of money on the trip.

Personally I think competitions should either cover all the costs of all the competitors, and then the winning money is a bonus, or not have any cash prize at all. Because if Thomas Dietz is going to a WJF, why would I (or most other jugglers) ever bother going?

The thing I tried to do when setting up the BYJOTY and now with making Fight Night more of a thing is to make the competition intrinsically entertaining and interesting, not just to watch but also for everyone taking part. For the most part this means reducing the brain stress for all the competitors to a minimum. Rules that the participants have to know can be super short (a few paragraphs should be enough), while those organizing the tournaments should be doing more work and have to know more stuff. And the audience should be able to just turn up and see a fun event too. This is the model of all juggling games sessions at conventions too.

This might seem blindingly obvious, but from the outside it seems like the WJF still hasn't got this figured out. For the top competitors it just takes too much work at boring juggling to have a chance at success. Fight Night? Turn up and 10 minutes later you're playing combat. BYJOTY? Make a juggling act between 2 and 5 minutes long. 5 ball endurance? Quick, someone give me some thuds and I'll give it a go!

7b_wizard - 6/4/2015 11:20 - Vorredner #

Well .. the "ThomasDietz"-problem can be resolved by an attractive staggered many prize-ranks like 40%, 30%, 15%, 10%, 3%, 1%, a.s.o. or alike what turns out best andor depending on number of participants .. (it needn't be a "the winner takes it all"-prize)

lukeburrage - 6/4/2015 11:57 - Vorredner #

No. Everyone who makes takes part in a competition should be paid all their expenses to be there, and more as an incentive to take part or a proper professional fee. That's the only way anyone will ever take a competition seriously.

OR the tournament shouldn't reward the winner monetarily.

It has to either be a professional sport/competition or an amateur event. There isn't a middle ground in any sport that has a vibrant competitive scene with any longevity. You can't learn any of this by looking at previous juggling events, you can only learn by looking at the history of established sports and the development of new sports (such as esports).

Little Paul - 6/4/2015 17:58 - Vorredner #

I broadly agree on the pro/am distinction.

The bit I can't get my head around for a professional juggling competition, I'd where the money would come from. Sport it's easy to see, as there are spectators to charge, advertising and sponsorship deals to arrange, TV rights to sell because the audience is large, volume of equipment sales are high enough that manufacturers have advertising budgets to spend...

For juggling? Well, how many jugglers at BJC Nottingham paid the extra to go and watch the WJF showcase competitions? A couple of dozen? Are Henry's/babache/renegade/play selling enough kit that they could bankroll it out of their advertising budgets?

Somehow I doubt it.

The only route into that I can see is grow an am event, make it big and popular with spectators, then when you're big enough go pro.

The WJF tried to skip the first bit, and what you're doing with combat like is making inroads into the first bit.

Unfortunately it won't meet in the middle, because the skills in the two events are really very different.

ill just drop this here https://adsoftheworld.com/sites/default/files/styles/media_retina/public/images/wws3.jpg?itok=PYjImafp

Dee - 6/4/2015 18:43 - Vorredner #

In terms of making combat a popular spectator sport, quite a few of my students were saying "WTF?!?" when seeing Luke v Jochen in Toulouse.... and saying that they'd pay (some) money to see it.

I made them analyse the behaviour of jugglers arriving at EJCs in order to make recommendations about how resources should be allocated for pre-reg / reg desks [and what opening hours they should have]. They asked what type of festival lasts 9 days and has people arriving at silly o'clock throughout the event. I answered that question with several videos!

^Tom_ - 6/4/2015 20:34 - Vorredner #

From working one EJC on registration, I recall that yes, of course the biggest queue was as the doors opened, but there was also a fairly regular stream of people for the rest of the day, and rather a lot of people arriving on the second day as well.

It also depends a lot on how you get to the event. When flying, how expensive the flights are, and how often they run can make a big difference.

To get to Lublin, for example, I spent 2 nights in a swanky hotel in Warsaw before travelling on towards Lublin because the flights on that day were so much cheaper than the ideal time that overall I saved, even after 2 nights in a nice hotel.
Now, in that example, the cheaper flight was earlier, and so we were there at the start time of the convention. But it could just as well have happened that I'd have arrived later, as I seem to remember plenty did.
Whilst I like to get to the event at the start, if the difference in the flight cost is more than the EJC ticket, it can be a difficult decision to make.

And if you have a 12 hour drive or train journey to take to get there, you might need to get there the evening of the first day rather than at the start.

lukeburrage - 6/6/2015 12:03 - Vorredner #

Look up all the controversies with esports and how that prize money works out. Top competitors agree before the final to split the winnings, then just piss about in the final match. There's loads of issues at big tournaments all the time.

Marathons have elite divisions and then everyone else. It's one day, but there's really more than one sport going on.

Mike Moore - 6/7/2015 03:04 - Vorredner #

I've been a part of esports culture for the last decade, specifically Melee and Pokemon. Except for the era of Ken and Isai, that doesn't happen much, especially at the big (non-regional) tournaments. It also hasn't happened recently in Pokemon. Recently some of the bigger players in Smash got sponsored, buffering their winnings, but I don't think that's meaningful to this discussion.

I don't follow the bigger ones (League, Dota, etc) but I feel that those are less relevant, as they're quite a bit larger than juggling scenes and are funded largely by spectators/corporate sponsors. What esports were you talking about? Is it widespread within, and beyond that esport?

Re: distance running, in non-elite tier, races pay out to winners, partially/largely from the pot generated from registration fees from others. Are you saying that this is not the case in the elite tier (money coming from spectators, sponsors, etc., rather than registration fees)?

lukeburrage - 6/7/2015 15:54 - Vorredner #

My point about esports is actually a bit wider than any one controversy, but the controversies are indicative of two main issues that prize money exacerbates.

1. Esports, almost by definition, are most exciting when new and the technology is shiny and novel. They have also, in the past, appealed most broadly to a younger demographic, typically kids and students. As the specific video game matures, so does the player, and the player will probably move on to another source of income once the popularity of the game fades.

This leads to a churn of not just players, but the games themselves. Starcraft has longevity, and Counter Strike is getting there, but fighting games don't stick around, nor do the gamers, except maybe Melee. Tournaments and the prizes they dish out aren't structured around the longevity of the game itself. The prize money is to attract the best players to THIS event. Providing long term financial support to a player or team, to let them make a professional career out of the activity, is hardly a consideration.

In terms of juggling competitions, it's obvious how this applies:

The WJF wants to reward technical jugglers, but is now just for young jugglers with unlimited free time. There is remarkable churn compared to other conventions. Jugglers return a few years in a row, but once it becomes obvious they aren't in prize money contention, it obviously isn't a good value proposition for jugglers as they are no longer teenagers and have to earn a living, either by juggling or with a real job.

Also there is a churn on the tournament itself at the WJF. The rules change so much year over year, with every one having different structures and different events and different competitions and different levels of prize money. It also only happens once a year, so it's not a good time investment to train for it even if you think you could win.

2. There are no official AND exclusive governing bodies. This means any issues with a player, and if they are banned from a specific tournament, they can just go elsewhere and play the same game in other tournaments. This is not the case in almost every other professional sport, because the governing bodies don't allow them to. This works the other way too, because if the best players don't like one tournament of organizer, they can simply kill it by not turning up.

This, again, means the incentive for tournaments isn't the longevity of the game. They want their single tournament to be a success, and maybe be big enough to attract players the following year.

There are a few exceptions to this, of course. League of Legends is the best example of an esport that is taking a different route. All the main tournaments and leagues are run by Riot, the game developer, and the players are salaried with prize money a bonus. Riot Games understands all the issues I've outlined above, of course, and are developing the esport right alongside the game itself.

This second point is more nebulous, but without prize money, and with a sport as an amateur activity, there doesn't need to be a governing body. In fact, it's good that there isn't. People want to participate as much as possible, so if there's no money involved, it's best to allow as many tournaments or other events as possible. Once money is involved, it brings along so many more restrictions in rules and possible play and loads of other issues. Not only do the rules need to be there for fair play reasons, the governing body has to be exclusive to stop players going elsewhere for money after breaking rules.

Juggling and juggling competitions don't need a governing body, but the early WJF did lots of posturing in this regard. There were pages and pages and pages of rules, even down to what clothes a juggler could wear, or the props allowed to be practiced in the juggling space at the convention.

lukeburrage - 6/7/2015 15:58 - Vorredner #

Ha. I guess those numbers are messed up due to markdown list support.

Orinoco - 6/7/2015 17:54 - Vorredner #

1. Yup
2. Specifically indenting lines with 4 spaces or a tab plus using blank lines to indicate line breaks or multiple paragraphs within a list item wasn't accounted for.
   
   However,
   
   this should be working now
   
   like so.
   

lukeburrage - 6/9/2015 22:19 - Vorredner #

So to be clear, a single tournament per year is not enough to provide any juggler with either a suitable financial compensation that they could base a professional career on it, nor does it provide enough motivation for anyone to put work into it unless it was at a convention they were going to anyway. Which is why the IJA and WJF winners are never thought to be the best in the world at anything, nor even world champions of anything, merely the best of the people who turned up that one time.

This isn't just for juggling as defined as sport.

There are loads of competitions in Germany (and other European countries) for jugglers, or at least that jugglers can enter. They are called street show festivals, and there are always jury prizes and audience voted prizes available to win if you've got a good show. I earned more money from street show competition prize money in a single year than any juggler has ever won at a single IJA festival, AND at those festivals I was passing the hat every show to earn money that way, AND I was being paid travel expenses, AND I was given food the whole time, AND I was put up in a hotel the each night of the festival. Meanwhile, at the IJA you have to cover the cost of all those things yourself. Of course you do! The IJA is doing you a favor, letting you take part in their show, rather than treating you like a professional.

It's a good living, if hard work, but even those who don't ever win, and never expect to win as they have smaller shows, can still get by with a summer full of festivals.

It's like the ATP tennis circuit. There's the main professional tour for the elite players, then the Challenger series for those ranked 80 to about 200 in the world. One of the requirements for a Challenger event isn't just an at least $80,000 prize money pool, but also accommodation for all the players, as that's one of the biggest costs for a professional on tour.

lukeburrage - 6/7/2015 00:38 - Vorredner #

In 2004 I wanted to go the IJA festival anyway, but then was asked to take part in the Cascade of Stars show. When I asked what I would be paid after travel expenses and accommodation, I was told those wouldn't be covered, and that I'd just get free entry to the festival. I turned that "offer" down, and took the same "fee" for doing a turn in another show.

But I still wanted to cover some expenses. Entering the IJA competitions was a purely financial decision. I made some money with some three ball competitions, I think, but didn't place in the main event.

Overall I found the main event quite stressful, and also not particularly fun or rewarding, especially as I think the wrong person won (should have been Emile Carey, who only got third), and when asked about how the judging was handled was told that the judges decided not to follow the rules. Oh, and nobody seemed to feel anything was weird about not following the rules.

Personally I'm not sure why I expected anything different.

Needless to say this kind of experience shaped future juggling competition experiments.

Little Paul - 6/3/2015 19:38 - Vorredner #

+1 like

The Void - 6/3/2015 15:30 - Vorredner #

I propose to organise this... next May.
It will be the World's Longest Juggling Championship Championship. Extended deliberation sessions are planned. Judges are requested to bring their own cake, but armchairs will be provided.
#buttercups

Little Paul - 6/3/2015 15:52 - Vorredner #

There will be a separate under 16s competitions competition, held 3 fields over where I can't hear it

mrawa - 6/4/2015 03:00 - Vorredner #

As has already been said. It's not really possible to quantify "best" juggler. The art/painting analogy is apt here. You can't compare modernism to cubism and ask which is the best! They're different. That's the great thing about juggling, there are so many different styles, disciplines, view and methods. At the end of the day do we need a best juggler?

The Void - 6/4/2015 10:31 - Vorredner #

I think David Cain might be in with a shot for longest 3 clubs. Not sure about longest 5 clubs...
https://youtube.com/v/GIhGSeRSKF0

Little Paul - 6/4/2015 10:55 - Vorredner #

Jason Garfield is a strong contender:

https://youtube.com/v/4W8KsBwhl9o?start=209

Earlier in that video, he has to stand on a pair of chairs to be able to do alberts/treblas.

Daniel Simu - 6/4/2015 16:35 - Vorredner #

It took a few seconds to see why this vid was relevant.. but besides that it is amazing! Why have I not seen this before? It is my new altime favorite juggling vid!

Little Paul - 6/4/2015 18:03 - Vorredner #

It's good, but it's no "juggling tae bo master"

Cedric Lackpot - 6/4/2015 20:22 - Vorredner #

> JUGGLING SHOULD BE IN THE OLYMPICS.

It's not the first time it's been suggested, in fact IIRC Albert Lucas' International Sport Juggling Foundation had Olympic recognition as one of its aims. And of course juggling of some sort was actually in the Olympics once upon a time, 1932 perhaps? Have a search around the rec.juggling archives and you should find a few references to the matter too.

The long and the short of it is that entry to the Olympic Games is by no means a new idea, and generally in the past one of the main reasons it has failed is because juggling does not possess a strong, over-arching, and authoritative umbrella organisation.

Which is also why this whole thread started with a request for a World Juggling Champs, yet no-one seems to have grasped that we already have IJA, DJC, WJF, X-treem Games, BYJOTY, Fite Nite, MLC, and a raft of professional circus competitions. Far from having a lack of competitions we have a plethora of them, but none dominates.

peterbone - 6/5/2015 08:36 - Vorredner #

> And of course juggling of some sort was actually in the Olympics once upon a time, 1932 perhaps?

I think that rhythmic gymnastics has more in common with juggling than club swinging did. Kati Yla-Hokkala of the Gandinis started out in rhythmic gymnastics.

7b_wizard - 6/5/2015 11:46 - Vorredner #

I like to look upon the pole vault as a combined balance & juggling oneself, aswell :o]

ejwysz - 5/25/2015 04:55 - Vorredner #

I still say Anthony is far and away the best. I'm sure he could break a minute if he still really cared, and the pattern looks flawless, not to mention that he usually did it with Pinkies. Plus I've seen him do a 7-up 360 to nearly a qualify, and also go into 9 ball overheads for a short period of time. The latter to me seals the deal, although I will agree with you that the 9 ball backcrosses is one of the most impressive things I've ever seen.

Since I've been working on 8 and 9 a lot lately, I have been incredibly surprised at how few people can hold the pattern up there for more than a few seconds. I'm especially surprised at how seldom I see people run 8, even if they can flash 10 or 11.

But yes, of course Ty Tojo is up there after AG. I'd also put Thomas Dietz(didn't he do a 9-UP?), Doug Sayers, David Ferman, and Alex Barron at the top of my list. I still find it really crazy that Alex can flash 13 and qualify 11 but hasn't shown us a much more solid 9.

7b_wizard - 5/25/2015 11:57 - Vorredner #

14 yo flashes 9b .. https://www.youtube.com/v/v6-5EUTRfHo have him on the list for near future aswell ..

7b_wizard - 5/25/2015 12:00 - Vorredner #

and .. reading the thread there: If that's all he needs, someone give the guy a higher ceiling!

7b_wizard - 5/26/2015 12:06 - Vorredner #

Haha :o]) great!

lucasgabd - 2/18/2015 14:07 - Vorredner #

unfortunately not. only the DVD.not sure why Daniel didn't make a dowload version

Mike Moore - 1/12/2015 14:56 - Vorredner #

Welcome to the Edge!

How large would you say a typical Swedish Juggling Convention is?

Maria - 1/12/2015 18:37 - Vorredner #

Thank you Mike!

I'm not so sure about a "typical" SJC, I know the number of participants have been decreasing and I have only been to... 2½ SJCs. I'd guess 40-70 people. This year they are putting some extra effort in to welcome other circus disciplines as well, hopefylly that will help to get some more people coming. I have been to a circus convention in Sweden that had 150-200 participants, but that was not SJC.

Maria - 1/12/2015 20:34 - Vorredner #

Yes, I know, that is not much. I guess there are too few (hobby) jugglers in Sweden. Not that we don't have a good time on the conventions, but I would like to share the fun with more people.

I have never thought of Sweden as "big", but sure, there are a lot of towns and villages with a long distance to the closest city big enough to have a juggling club, so that might be part of the reason. I'm sure there are more people who could be interested, but they might not know that juggling conventions even exists, even less what it is. It should not be that difficult to find it, though, I found my first convention by googling "juggling Sweden" (but in Swedish).

I'm not completely sure what exactly is the "Swedish manipulation style", but I think I can say that no, it's not "almost every juggler" anyway.

Thanks!

Daniel Simu - 1/13/2015 13:13 - Vorredner #

If you try and define Dutch style, I want to know it and would be glad to help out with my thoughts!!!!

Little Paul - 1/13/2015 14:13 - Vorredner #

8

Orinoco - 1/13/2015 17:31 - Vorredner #

You can think of 8 country specific styles?

I think that needs expanding.

Little Paul - 1/13/2015 18:40 - Vorredner #

7

Orinoco - 1/13/2015 18:50 - Vorredner #

This is just a shallow attempt to get your post count up isn't it.

Little Paul - 1/13/2015 19:01 - Vorredner #

6!

The Void - 1/13/2015 19:04 - Vorredner #

720?

emilyw - 1/13/2015 19:41 - Vorredner #

420.

pumpkineater23 - 1/13/2015 23:39 - Vorredner #

3 props I should say.. not just 3 balls.

Maria - 1/12/2015 21:02 - Vorredner #

Thank you!

Oh, I guess you must have been close to the circus schools to find a lot of jugglers, they are not that easy to find otherwise. (We are usually not very many in my juggling club...) Yeah, I'm really happy that I found a juggling club in Stockholm that does a lot of club passing, I've been a member there for two years now. I don't really live in Stockholm so it takes me 1½ hours to get to the juggling practice, so first I only went once a week, but now I go twice a week.

Yes, that is right. The Swedish Juggling Convention is usually organized by a local juggling club somewhere in Sweden. Svenska Jonglörsföreningen helps out with advice, spreading information about the convention and some other things that might be needed. They can also provide some financial security for the organizers. They get part of the profits (if any) from the SJC and covers parts of the losses other years. It's always good to have some people with experience of organizing juggling conventions to turn to with questions.

Mïark - 1/12/2015 22:38 - Vorredner #

Oh, if you are doing a lot of passing in Stockholm, say hi to Staffan from me - ask him when he is going to link to Juggling Edge rather than IJDb from his juggling webpage.

1½ hours twice a week shows dedication, I am lucky enough to have juggling/circus clubs within 15 minutes to juggle 4 nights a week. Just need to persuade those jugglers they want to be club passers.

Maria - 1/13/2015 20:08 - Vorredner #

Oh, you know Staffan? Wait... Did you pass with me and Staffan at the last EJC? (I'm bad with names, but it was not Mark or Mike so...)

I have circus practice 20 minutes walk from where I live twice a week too, but there I'd need to persuade the teenagers that they want to be jugglers first... But that's where I first tried passing.

Mïark - 1/14/2015 04:23 - Vorredner #

Yes, quite possibly passed with you and Staffan at EJC in Millstreet, I am even worse with names so I didn't think you would be the same Maria. There can't have been that many female Swedish club passers at EJC (and not many Mïarks). Good to meet you on-line (small world).
I have been trying to convince the hula hoopers who meet round the corner from my house that they want to take up juggling, I have taught a few to juggle so far but it might be a while till they are up to club passing.

Maria - 1/14/2015 18:36 - Vorredner #

The juggling world is not that big, I guess. But there was one more female Swedish club passer at EJC, her name is Marie...

jamesfrancis - 1/14/2015 23:36 - Vorredner #

Now that makes sense. I vaguely know a Swedish club passer called Marie / Maria (never seen it written down and have terrible memory so didn't know which) and was wondering if it was you. But the other one has definitely been to more EJCs than 1.

Anyway welcome to the Edge and maybe pass at a convention soon (assuming you are the Swedish Marie / Maria I haven't passed with)

James

Maria - 1/16/2015 19:15 - Vorredner #

I'd guess the one you know is the Marie that I've met at Swedish conventions then. She is a much better passer than I am... Millstreet last year was my first EJC. Bruneck will be my second (according to the plans anyway).

Thank you, and I'd be happy to pass with you sometime. :)

RegularJugular - 1/9/2015 11:27 - Vorredner #

They're also statistically more likely to be computer programmers... So as I understand it, the boring answer: White males are with almost no exceptions the most privileged demographic on Earth, juggling is time consuming and gets surprisingly expensive after a while collecting various props. The logic there is obvious.

Additionally, I'm personally slightly timid when approaching people who would obviously have a different background to me. This can appear racist, although I like to think I'm not, I am afraid of 'causing offence; so I often suspect I cause more offence by saying nothing at all. Saying nothing at all also came naturally before I learnt juggling as a socially inept, introverted, white male. This one the logic to me is: White male jugglers who learnt because they we're introverted white males experiencing lots of privilege and not realising it, still put off people with more diverse and challenging backgrounds (women, people from different countries or ethnicities, even people with different ideas about money and time :( )

I most admire the people who got into juggling from backgrounds unlike my own, even that can put such people off because it puts even more focus on them... I wish I knew how to balance all this.

There are examples in the computer programming industry that mirror the problems with juggling.

I may not be entirely right, but I feel I'm not entirely wrong. :(

varkor - 1/9/2015 17:33 - Vorredner #

Maybe we can try to perpetuate the stereotype that poi isn't for either gender, and see if there's any improvement...

Orinoco - 1/10/2015 10:40 - Vorredner #

Diabolo (not diablo!) originated in China in the 1100s so why wouldn't it be more deeply routed in Asian culture? I don't follow the WJF results but I know the Frenchman Antonin Hartz won the diabolo section at the first WJF competition off the top of my head.

The WJF is always held in a country where the population is 72% white (according to 2012 census). It is a very expensive event to attend, even more so to compete in so it is prohibitively difficult for many people from other countries to attend. Japan is the obvious exception that has two factors that most other countries do not: they are a very wealthy nation & personal excellence is *very* deeply rooted in their culture so the desire to compete is high.

If you are only looking at the WJF competitions you will have an extremely narrow snapshot of the juggling world as a whole. Have you ever been to an EJC or any other festival outside of the US? The WJF attracts attendance of a couple of hundred people, the EJC can be anywhere between 2000 & 6000. The juggling world is a lot more diverse than you think. Just because non white/non males are not going to the WJF events doesn't mean they don't exist, there is a lot more to juggling than just sport juggling too.

ejwysz - 1/10/2015 19:39 - Vorredner #

I see that everyone in this thread is pretty much trying to disprove my original post - and that's great! I want juggling to be as diverse as possible - and I know it very well can be.

I think you've solved the Diabolo(!) mystery for me, Orinoco, and that makes a lot of sense. You've also got a great point about the WJF, and no, I have not been to the EJC, although I would love to.

I will say one more thing though - I do live in the US, and I have been to juggling conventions in multiple states, and I have NEVER - I mean NEVER - seen a black or hispanic juggler in attendance. Ever. And statistically, that is weird. That's all I'm trying to say, guys, and you can't ignore that point!

Cedric Lackpot - 1/10/2015 20:35 - Vorredner #

> I have been to juggling conventions in multiple states, and I have NEVER - I mean NEVER - seen a black or hispanic juggler in attendance

They do exist, but as a UK juggler my first thought was "Er, what about Skye then?" a black lady juggler IIRC. The fact that my mind turned immediately to the one US black juggler I can think of does underline your point a bit. Also, does Anthony Commarota count as Hispanic at all?

Little Paul - 1/10/2015 20:58 - Vorredner #

I'm no expert on the USA scene(being the wrong side of the pond) but AFAIR Sky doesn't have an e.

What was the name of the chap on r.j years ago with the walking stick manipulation stuff? Drew Brown? I can vaguely remember a few more, but most people on rj haven't ever made a "thing" of their skin colour, so I could easily miss a load just by it never having come up in conversation.

There's a historical list here https://www.juggling.org/jw/87/2/joetaylor.html

Did Bibi & Bicu ever make it to the USA?

Anyway, we could cite examples until we're blue in the face, but there is a huge amount of selection bias in all of our experiences. There are no really good surveys of this stuff (that I'm aware of) - festival attendance is skewed by affluence, Internet surveys are biased by self selected samples, your perception of people's vocations is skewed by the (comparatively) small circle of jugglers you've talked to about their "real" life.

Basing opinion on videos of ija festivals could lead to statements like "the IJA is mostly affluent middle class bearded white men in their 50s who wear socks and sandals" or "the WJF is all socially awkward, thin, teenage boys whose mums cut their hair"

Neither of those statements are (entirely) true, but do exhibit the skewed perceptions you can get when you like at a small section of even a subsection of the community.

david - 1/10/2015 18:16 - Vorredner #

What it is, from someone who has who has lived and worked on four continents, if you count Europe and Asia as separate continents. You might want to check out the girl jugglers of the Afghanistan MMCC circus or the Ethiopian bounce jugglers. It's a diverse world and so are jugglers.

lukeburrage - 1/11/2015 00:01 - Vorredner #

For Fight Night Combat, see: http://fightnightcombat.com/category-gender.html

15 female players out of 268 players listed. Admittedly, record keeping by me might not be entirely up to scratch.

Daniel Simu - 1/11/2015 12:35 - Vorredner #

I wondered for a second why JJ wasn't on top of the male list :p

lukeburrage - 1/11/2015 14:10 - Vorredner #

Thanks! Alex is such an ambiguous name.

lukeburrage - 1/11/2015 14:13 - Vorredner #

Turns out Alex Haas is the same person as Alex ???

Daniel Simu - 1/11/2015 16:10 - Vorredner #

You are quuick at updating these things! Especially with all these fake names on Fbook I can imagine it is hard sometimes...

Little Paul - 1/10/2015 21:57 - Vorredner #

Ooh! Nice. I'll play properly when in back on a computer

Orinoco - 1/10/2015 22:01 - Vorredner #

If you like that you'll love Nothing to Hide by the same person.

Orinoco - 1/11/2015 10:15 - Vorredner #

Was supposed to be coding, now I'm drawing snakes.

RegularJugular - 1/11/2015 11:11 - Vorredner #

https://youtu.be/mEyrfFwf3rI

"You might put your love and trust on the line
It's risky, people love to tear that down
Let 'em try
Do it anyway
Risk it anyway"

haha!

peterbone - 11/12/2014 12:07 - Vorredner #

I think that rating all patterns automatically would be very ambitious. Ben's formula is good, but not perfect.

The way I would approach it would be to use more of a simulation method rather than a purely mathematical approach (I'm an engineer). Simulate a juggler and the props in the pattern as accurately as possible using a physics engine. You could then measure the amount of energy used, the proximity of the props to each other, the chance of collisions and so on. Adding small throw errors would give an indication of how much energy / accuracy is needed to make corrections. Combining all this information would I think be the only way of accurately rating difficulty for arbitrary patterns with a range of props.

Ilia Poliakov - 11/12/2014 12:47 - Vorredner #

Do you think, somebody will do it in this century?
I don't find a perfect formula. I think, we can correct Ben's formula, include some for collisions.

emilyw - 11/12/2014 16:20 - Vorredner #

Can Marvin not do it?

Marvin - 11/12/2014 18:07 - Vorredner #

In toss juggling all siteswap patterns merely involve throwing the props to the correct height at the correct time which is a trivial task providing you can physically throw to the maximum height required. Therefore all patterns that have a maximum throw height within your physical limits have a difficulty of 0, all patterns involving a throw height outside of your physical limits have a difficulty level of 1.

Orinoco - 11/12/2014 18:16 - Vorredner #

Marvin, get back to untangling all those cables.

Orinoco - 11/12/2014 13:14 - Vorredner #

For Excel users: replace all ';' with ',' to make the formula work.

eg:

=2+SQRT((IF(LEN(A2)>0,(MID(A2,1,1)-2)^2,0)+IF(LEN(A2)>1,(MID(A2,2,1)-2)^2,0)+IF(LEN(A2)>2,(MID(A2,3,1)-2)^2,0)+IF(LEN(A2)>3,(MID(A2,4,1)-2)^2,0)+IF(LEN(A2)>4,(MID(A2,5,1)-2)^2,0))/LEN(A2))

yDgunz - 11/12/2014 16:17 - Vorredner #

And I just tested my opinion that 534 < 7531 < 7441 against the Excel formula and perhaps I was mistaken? Apparently 534 is 4.2 difficulty, 7441 is 4.9 and 7531 is 5.0. Granted they are pretty close, but I guess I should keep working on 7441 then!

Brook Roberts - 11/12/2014 16:20 - Vorredner #

I certainly agree with the formula there - 7441 is definitely easier than 7531 - it's much easier to do a very fast low 441 than 531.

^Tom_ - 11/14/2014 19:12 - Vorredner #

7441 is much much easier than 7333.

Of those three patterns, 7441 is the easiest, then 7531, then 7333 in my opinion.

Ilia Poliakov - 11/14/2014 20:52 - Vorredner #

I will try in monday.

Ilia Poliakov - 11/18/2014 11:41 - Vorredner #

Yes, I always did 73334, and never 7333.
7333 is harder then 7441.

Ilia Poliakov - 11/18/2014 19:22 - Vorredner #

One important thing - ask people about tricks, in that they have got records.
If I have got record in 4b mills mess and 4b 534 mills mess, you can ask me about comparing this trick.

Mike Moore - 11/19/2014 14:06 - Vorredner #

In comparing the difficulties, are you talking about difficulty to flash the pattern, qualify it, or run many catches of it? I've heard from many people that running 5c backcrosses is easier than running 5b backcrosses, but I bet a flash is easier with balls because recovering into a 5b cascade is so much easier than recovering into a 5c cascade.

Ilia Poliakov - 11/20/2014 10:03 - Vorredner #

maybe we can ask 3 times?)
I don't know, what is the most important - flash or qualify or many cathes.
If I choose many cathes, for some tricks it is unreal.
If qualify - for one trick it is 6 cathes, for another - 12 cathes. I think it is not good system to compare.
P.S.Mill's mess qualify - is 6 or 12 cathes?

Little Paul - 11/20/2014 10:48 - Vorredner #

Mill's mess qualify - is 6 or 12 catches?

Clearly 12 - as it's a 6 beat pattern to get you back to the staring position, and a qualify is "2 cycles" of the pattern.

It all gets a bit mad when you start trying to apply mills mess arm movements to 4 beat siteswaps though.

Ilia Poliakov - 11/20/2014 11:04 - Vorredner #

Yes, 5 ball mills mess and 6 ball mills mess - qualify is 12 catches?

I don't think that flash gives any information about trick. Flash 4 clubs flats is easy for me, but I can't juggle them more.
And I don't think that 100 cathes is not good because it means, that we can ask only people who can make 100 cathes. For some tricks it is too much.
I think, that most of jugglers who like to beat records use WJF qualify system (what else they use, I don't know. They give more points for more then qualify cathes? They give pointes for flash?)
And I will choose Qualify. But always we need write "Qualify: 5b cascade(10 cathes) or 4b mills mess(12 catches)"

What do you think?

^Tom_ - 11/21/2014 21:37 - Vorredner #

I believe that the WJF awards no points for flashes. I thought that went some way to explaining the song that Luke Burrage set his routine to.

Ilia Poliakov - 11/13/2014 19:59 - Vorredner #

In my browser it does not work.
I dont understand Niederland language, but I understand idea.
So there are some good ideas, but we have no anybody, ho realize a good system.
I think, we are very close. And we have good very good instrument to do it.(jugglingedge and you,guys)

For me it is not important - to make a program, or ask people. The mix of this ways should work.
It is very important, that we no need a numeric score, but we want to see a compare list.
I think, it is stupid question about difficulty from 1 to 10. (juggling-records.com)

We can ask people to compare two tricks.Than other two tricks, and other. Some details are important - like to do this trick only ones, or make 100 cathes, or...
What do you think? Very easy, funny and useful.

Ilia Poliakov - 11/13/2014 20:18 - Vorredner #

or maybe we can use all records on site?
Everybody has got a great collection for comparing. If I have got 314 cathes in 741 and 227 cathes in 714, then we have got 1 vote, that this trick harder in 314/227 times. Other guy has got another situation - 23 cathes of 741 and 37 of 714. So, now 714 easier. Calculate 314/227 * 23/37.

peterbone - 11/14/2014 10:04 - Vorredner #

The problem is that some tricks are much more popular than others because they look nicer or for some other reason, so people train them a lot more.

Little Paul - 11/14/2014 10:38 - Vorredner #

Yeah. The problem with using records as data are that you "get better at what you practice"

To take a simple example, most people would agree that 4 balls is easier than 5. However, then you get someone like me who comes along and never bothers to learn 4 balls, never practices it, I skipped it and worked on 5 because I was more interested in being able to juggle 5 balls. I don't record my records, but if I did, and you took my personal bests with 4 and 5 as data, you'd look at it and see that I get more catches with 5 than I do with 4, so you might conclude that 4 balls was a harder pattern than 5 balls.

It's not, I've just logged a couple of orders of magnitude more hours working on 5 balls than I have on 4.

Peoples records say as much about what they're interested in working on as they do how hard those tricks are, and without the missing "how many hours have you worked on this trick" data (which hardly anyone ever records accurately) you can't really use them to judge difficulty in any meaningful way.

Ilia Poliakov - 11/14/2014 12:43 - Vorredner #

Yes, its true. But I want to see, what happend if we will make this program.

Ilia Poliakov - 11/13/2014 21:48 - Vorredner #

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-_JKCnscMy1Ulp3X1loYS1rS0k/view?usp=sharing

Orinoco - 11/13/2014 22:57 - Vorredner #

Or this form supports siteswaps of any length with throws up to height z.

Enter siteswap:
Get arbitrary numerical value

Siteswaps 0, 1 & 2 obviously have anomalous difficulty ratings using this formula.

Any formula/algorithm/statistical analysis will only ever end up with an approximation. I've never seen the point of analysing complexity personally. What does it achieve? What can you do with a list of incrementally difficult tricks? Is learning progressively difficult tricks optimal, interesting or otherwise beneficial?

I choose what tricks I want to learn based on what I find enjoyable to do & what looks good. I never tell people I'm teaching how difficult I think a trick is either as that just puts up a barrier to learning.

varkor - 11/14/2014 08:22 - Vorredner #

I like how it thinks (6x, 4)* is harder than the 14 ball fountain! I feel rather proud of my efforts now. It does make you wonder why Alex hasn't managed to flash 14 yet, though...

Orinoco - 11/14/2014 14:04 - Vorredner #

The button text is accurate!

I should've mentioned that Ben's formula covers Vanilla Siteswaps only & that little widget doesn't do any validation.

Ilia Poliakov - 11/14/2014 19:36 - Vorredner #

Do it yourself)

Little Paul - 11/14/2014 10:41 - Vorredner #

These days I'm more interested in learning individual tricks which are so far outside my skill set that I'm pretty certain I'll get nowhere quickly with (but then I'm not a toss juggler)

My current obsession is mouthstick+bottle, which I started working on in September and in the last week I've managed to catch a throw onto the mouthstick twice (in two practice sessions) and I'm super stoked about that as progress.

Ilia Poliakov - 11/14/2014 12:48 - Vorredner #

What do you mean? In general.

Little Paul - 11/14/2014 18:35 - Vorredner #

I don't really juggle balls/clubs/rings any more, I've been juggling for about 22 years now and I'm just not interested in them any more - so rather than working my way through an endless list of siteswaps I'm working on other props.

You said that you like to work on tricks which are just beyond your reach, but which you can learn within an hour. That doesn't satisfy me any more, and I prefer working on tricks which are *way* beyond my abilities. Tricks I don't expect to be able to learn in under 3 months.

Everyone is different, and I just find tricks like that much more satisfying to learn!

I spent probably 3 months working on The Golf Club Trick on and off until I got it solid enough that I'd happily attempt it on a renegade stage, but my current goal is a sequence which appears to be far harder to learn, but which looks much less impossible.

For example, the sequence I'm working towards at the moment works like this:

1 - hold a stick in your mouth (I'm using a wooden spoon)
2 - throw an empty wine bottle so it spins, and lands balanced on the stick
3 - balance the empty wine bottle on the stick
4 - using a flick of the head, throw the bottle up into the air, and catch it back on the stick

In September I started working on step 1, and step 3 (the easiest parts of the sequence) and within a month I had the balance pretty solid. So I started working on step 2.

This week, I've caught the throw twice, in my two most recent practice sessions. I'm not kidding myself that they're anything other than fluke - but I'm happy with the progress.

At my current practice rate, I think I'll have the whole lot by this time next year, probably not "performance ready" but at least "more often than not".

I guess I just get a kick out of putting a horrendous amount of work into learning a trick which fills at most 30 seconds of stage time.

The Void - 11/14/2014 18:40 - Vorredner #

More knees.

Little Paul - 11/14/2014 20:19 - Vorredner #

I do say that to myself repeatedly :)

Orinoco - 11/15/2014 14:13 - Vorredner #

More wine!

barnesy - 11/15/2014 14:31 - Vorredner #

best of both worlds perhaps: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.juggling/7cyh6bJ_lvc/X4RuHBJ8_BUJ

Little Paul - 11/14/2014 20:22 - Vorredner #

I'm not sure what you mean, I thought I was quite clear about what I'm working on at the moment.

Ilia Poliakov - 11/14/2014 20:56 - Vorredner #

When I train a balance, I take different stuff. Start from long and big, and then shorter and smaller.

Little Paul - 11/18/2014 10:58 - Vorredner #

Ahh right. I understand you. When I was learning chin/nose balances I did the same thing, and worked down to around 8" (never did quite make it to a well controlled teaspoon balance)

Mouthstick balances are a little different to most balances. You don't control forward/back by moving your head forwards and backwards, you control that plane of motion by tipping your head forwards and backwards. With a wine bottle, you have 2 points of contact with the mouthstick, so you don't have to worry about that plane at all, only the side to side movement.

So to replicate that with a longer object you need something long and wide. I tried with a large cardboard tube (which happened to contain a promotional poster for "cards as weapons" I've have for almost 15 years but never got around to framing) but that hit another issue.

I generally balance by looking at the top of an object. It's useful if you can keep the mouthstick horizontal, but that limits how far "up" I can comfortably look. Which means that I was finding objects longer than about 14" more difficult than I had expected. Wine bottles are about 12" long, and 2" doesn't make much of a difference, so I gave up on long objects and went with the bottle.

In terms of "feel" it's a very different balance to the chin/nose or even the golfclub setup (which it shares some similarity with) which is why it took me so long to feel comfortable with it.

That said, I've been practising "over" the trick, by also working on the much harder football-on-a-mouthstick balance. I don't have a channel in my mouthstick (which would make it slightly easier, but cost me money) so I'm not really making a huge amount of progress there, but it's an interesting diversion.

Little Paul - 11/18/2014 10:58 - Vorredner #

btw - the slow reply was because I've spent most of the last week or so reading the edge on my phone, and that doesn't really lend itself to long replies like I thought this needed.

Little Paul - 11/18/2014 15:56 - Vorredner #

You've now got me wondering about building a mouthstick equivalent of
https://youtube.com/v/grflWD1zg-Y?start=18

The Void - 11/14/2014 14:08 - Vorredner #

For a given value of "enjoy".

Orinoco - 11/14/2014 20:08 - Vorredner #

Stupid is a harsh way of putting it. There are many different approaches to learning. I never did any intermediate exercises for 5, 6 or 7 balls or 5 clubs. I've flashed 8 balls but I can't reliably do 4 balls in either hand. I find that practicing so called exercise patterns make me better at those exercise patterns but they don't really help me with the end result. I think this is because I tune my juggling to whatever feels/looks best to me for any given trick. This usually means that I will juggle a 5 object pattern with a hole to a different height/speed/rhythm to the way I would juggle the full 5 object pattern. For example I do 4 club 5551 on triples, but the 5 club cascade on doubles.

Ilia Poliakov - 11/14/2014 21:16 - Vorredner #

I always say to my students - if you want juggle 5 balls, take 5 balls. Yes, you need start feeling 8 balls in the air. And you need adapt for them in your hands.

Marvin - 10/26/2014 18:41 - Vorredner #

No.

The Void - 10/26/2014 18:58 - Vorredner #

By the way, Marvin, I was pleased to rediscover these audio gems after not hearing them for so very long.
https://hhgproject.org/variations.html

Orinoco - 10/26/2014 20:18 - Vorredner #

Fantastic! I'd only heard Metal man before.

Marvin - 10/26/2014 20:19 - Vorredner #

Well of course you'd get enjoyment from those odes to my misery. Why wouldn't you?

Brook Roberts - 10/27/2014 09:38 - Vorredner #

Although, quick question, if I did 18 throws of 3-count to collect, as did my partner, the default is to count selves (I think), but should I put 18 because I personally did that, of 36 because the two of us did that? (and maybe put a little note somewhere to say that?).

Brook Roberts - 10/27/2014 09:48 - Vorredner #

(I'm assuming the sum, due to the 20 ball passing record being 20 passes).

Orinoco - 10/27/2014 10:19 - Vorredner #

Interesting. I'd put 18, because to take it to an extreme: saying you did 100 catches in a 100 person W feed is a bit misleading in terms of how much actual juggling was done!

However, according to the JISCON rules they count the sum of caught passes between both jugglers ignoring all self throws which I think makes a lot of sense.

I have changed all cascades & fountains to 1 count, the showers to 2 count, siteswaps have been left as is.

Brook Roberts - 10/27/2014 10:33 - Vorredner #

So I totally agree about preferring only to count your own, but I think it's nice for records to be comparable - so I"m mostly asking about your site policy, so that people match :)

And since that was how you imported the existing records (i.e. I assure you 20 ball passing has yet to be qualified!) I've copied it for importing my own records. Personally I'd prefer it to be the way you described - but since one of the main points of the records is to allow comparisons I think it useful for there to be a 'standard' way of recording it on the edge from the start.

Brook Roberts - 10/27/2014 10:35 - Vorredner #

...and think that the edge should make it clear to users the expected way for users to input records.
[also, I assume from your example that I can include patterns with more than two people in the records section ;)]

Orinoco - 10/27/2014 11:52 - Vorredner #

Yep, right we are going with the sum of passes caught between all jugglers as per the JISCON rules. The passing format instructions have been updated accordingly!

I've also just added b2b & sbs modifiers for back to back & side by side patterns respectively.

You can indeed record 3+ person passing patterns by using Préchac notation with lots of | & listing everyone's name after 'with'.

Brook Roberts - 10/27/2014 12:20 - Vorredner #

Great!

"Change the '#' to the number of catches you want to record" - which appears when you are viewing a passing record and considering updating could perhaps be updated similarly.

Orinoco - 10/27/2014 12:31 - Vorredner #

Good idea, done.

Orinoco - 10/27/2014 11:35 - Vorredner #

The * indicates a hurry eg: Jim's 3 count. & yes I've just noticed the missing 'x' for crossing passes!

I've not come across any Préchac that uses () in the wild, could you give me an example?

Yeah, that sort of unwieldy regex is what I was expecting, but when I meant validation I was thinking more mathematically. For example \w+ will match a vanilla siteswap but it won't validate it. For highlighting siteswaps on the Edge I first do basic pattern matching to find candidates then put them through mathematical validation. In the case of Préchac I'm wondering if mathematical validation might be cleaner than the pattern matching.

I'm not very familiar with Préchac notation either, I've read (well, dived in & out of) Sean Gandini's guide, a lot of stuff on PassingDb & the Passing Wiki, but I've not done much practical work & have yet to come across any articles about validating Préchac notation. Is there a combination of throws that produces an invalid passing pattern, or can I stick in any old number anywhere?

Adrian G - 10/27/2014 13:32 - Vorredner #

OK, I'd never seen hurries put in prechacs, nice to know there's a proper way to do it though.
Wikipedia contains the pattern : <(4xp,2x)|(4xp,2x)> A more obvious example (to me at least) would be 8 club singles 2-count which would be <(4p,4x)|(4p,4x)>

Ah, ok, I completely misinterpreted the 'validation' then. For full validation you will have to do a similar thing to siteswap. In siteswap the most intuitive definition of valid is where each point has the same amount of objects coming into it as going out, this is still true with prechacs.

So what you would need to do is for each throw from each juggler work out which hand/which juggler/what time it lands and make sure that it's valid there. This gets slightly more interesting with over two people as a 3p from one juggler goes to a different person to a 3p from a different juggler, and you need to use 3p₂ for changing who it goes to. Because subscripts are annoying, I've often seen things like 3a/3b instead of 3p₁/3p₂ (though Sean Gandini seems to use subscripts in his guide you linked, so I assume that was the original way)

The final conceptual problem for me is how to tell which hand juggler 2 should start in... I feel like by default both jugglers start right-handed, and this seems to hint that there's no nice way to indicate for one juggler to start left handed (see under 7 club 2-count). I suppose a '*' could be used to indicate a hurry at the start maybe? or is there a standard way of indicating it?

I'll have another look at it tomorrow and try to write a simple validation program in python.

Orinoco - 10/29/2014 13:21 - Vorredner #

Thanks Adrian for all your work on this. I hadn't thought to check how the simulators handle it. Préchac has to date not gained the popularity that regular siteswap has so it looks as if the usage is inconsistent. I will have a better look at your code this evening.

Adrian G - 10/30/2014 12:02 - Vorredner #

No problem, I've been meaning to learn passing siteswap properly for a while so it's good to have some motivation :)

I think Prechac also hasn't quite had the mathematical scrutiny that siteswap has so there are a few things like this which I assume whoever came up with the notation (Jack Boyce according to social siteswaps) would have considered and made logical decisions on it, but haven't mentioned those decisions anywhere so other people have misunderstood/changed it to work better for them.

I still need to check properly how JoePass handles it as I haven't been able to due to not understanding the format properly...

Also, I'll have a go searching for old r.j threads and hope something comes up there too

Adrian G - 10/30/2014 11:57 - Vorredner #

Thanks for that tutorial! I really liked the way you related crossingness to which hand was to pass next in the diagram, it helped clarify that concept nicely for me.

I assume you've looked into the implications of it more than me, does it mean that anything with an 'x' becomes a hurry? I'm fairly certain of this but not completely sure

I do like how it means that both jugglers have the same siteswap, I rewatched Social Siteswaps (thanks for reminding me, I'd forgotten about that one) and it seems they do the same thing there, in particular they mention <3 3 3 1p|L3 1p 3 3> (which JugglingLab won't accept unless the 'L' is removed, in which case it makes it a slightly different pattern) and do what JugglingLab calls <3 3 3 1xp|L3 1xp 3 3>.

One odd consequence of this technique that I noticed is when writing down jims 3-count, if you do it based on which hand should throw it next and add an 'x' if it's to the other hand then you end up with <3p 3* 3 3xp 3 3 | 3xp 3 3 3p 3* 3> (notice that both jugglers do an 'xp' for on pass and a standard 'p' for the other) this causes a couple of odd conceptual things because 'x' doesn't even consistently mean straight or crossing for each juggler in one pattern, however it also makes sense in some regard because it is those 'xp's which are what mess with the rhythm. This possibly may also render the '*' unnecessary for clear understanding of the pattern...

I also skimmed the passing section in Ben Beever's book (I haven't had a chance to read that part thoroughly yet) and he writes 7c one count as (where 'x' = crossing pass and 't' = tramline):
J1: {3.5tp, . }
J2: { . ,3.5xp}
Which other than the weird notation, seems to be the same as JugglingLab.

Also, can you elaborate on how to go to odd-handed siteswaps? I'm not entirely sure what you mean, I feel like the passing notation itself doesn't allow for odd numbers of hands as it's of the form < (two hands) | (two hands) ... | (two hands) >

Mike Moore - 10/30/2014 13:44 - Vorredner #

"I assume you've looked into the implications of it more than me, does it mean that anything with an 'x' becomes a hurry? I'm fairly certain of this but not completely sure"

I have a confession to make: I barely ever pass only clubs. >90 % of my passing is with balls or mixed objects, so I'm not familiar with most club passing/traditional terminology beyond the very basics, like "early double". As such, I'm working off of a definition I found online, "A hurry comes about when a club (or ball) is thrown one count sooner than normal," to think about your question.

Reading that definition, I'm still having trouble. What's "normal"? You can pass something like (4x,4xp), and I don't see any hurries in there. Or something like (4,2xp)*, which is a super fun (hard!) pattern where two jugglers share a box.

I can't think of any examples that aren't in synchronous siteswap, though, so maybe asynch siteswaps with xs require hurries.

"Also, can you elaborate on how to go to odd-handed siteswaps?"
I think you caught me sleeping there. I think I was mixing up the old school passing siteswap form that's similar to the one I use in the tutorial, but all the numbers are doubled (which then makes fewer assumptions about the number of hands). It represents the number of beats later a juggler throws a certain prop (I think...this was a while ago) so you often get large numbers. For example, 7 object ultimates would be 7p. Do you know the notation I'm talking about? I think it was used in the passing section in the original Siteswaps DVD. I'm pretty sure it can be used to deal with odd-numbered hands (though I have little experience with that).

Orinoco - 10/31/2014 12:58 - Vorredner #

I've never heard that definition of a hurry before.

I think the more common hurry is when a pass is thrown that upsets the normal throwing sequence. For example: two jugglers are passing 6 clubs 4-count with right handed tramline passes, each is throwing left right left right... If one juggler passes a crossing single the receiver is forced to make 2 right hand throws one after the other, first the pass then a self to empty the hand to receive the incoming crossing pass. That's a hurry.

Mike Moore - 10/31/2014 13:30 - Vorredner #

The earlier definition came from: https://www.passingdb.com/download.php?section=articles#articles5

Now that you mention it, the definition you gave sounds familiar. Would you say a hurry is one that forces your partner to "throw" a 2?

In that case, it's definitely not true that xs always result in hurries. However, I think that taking an x out where it was before, or putting one in where it wasn't would result in a hurry.

Brook Roberts - 10/31/2014 17:07 - Vorredner #

That sounds sort of right, and a way of thinking about it that I hadn't before. Certainly you can view all juggling as a slow cascade i.e. (4x, 2)* for just doing three clubs. That way on each beat either hand can throw, we normally alternate, but you don't when you hurry. This is one reason for this sort of pattern why people often juggle a bit slower!

However, interestingly, for a lot of standard patterns with hurries, rather than doing 4ps you can collapse the throws down to 3.5ps. So Jim's two count under the above interpretation is (4p, 2)(2, 4x)(4p, 2)(4x,2) for one of the passers, with the hurry on the last 'pair' of beats. But if you float your passes slightly, you can juggle at a normal speed and instead juggle the global siteswap 77466, (in local prechac 3.5p, 3, 3.5p, 2, 3). This has a very different feel (and you can of course add in flips on the 2s to prove you really now have a period 5 pattern). In this case you no longer 'forced to throw a 2', but on the other hand, they don't feel like hurries either!

Orinoco's definition of hurry sounds close to standard.

Brook

If anyone fancies trying something hard with hurries, firstly try 7 club 2 count Jim's (doubles better), which is easy. Then try Oddz Godz (see e.g. Aidan's book) for a pattern where every self is a hurry (but still 2-count)!

Brook Roberts - 10/31/2014 17:10 - Vorredner #

P.S. I've never seen a notation that explicitly allows for hurries apart from either: having a hold in the other hand, or better, relabeling hands in a causal diagram. The idea of using a * is neat (although * is a bit overloaded, I think you could always tell them apart in practice). I might use it!

Adrian G - 11/1/2014 12:24 - Vorredner #

As I mentioned in my reply to Mike's post, I feel like the 'throw a 2' method doesn't quite hold up when you get patterns like 4x* (which he describes in more detail here). I do however think if you really want to be specific, you are right about just writing it using sync notation as then the hold times are explicit and you don't need to worry about screwing with siteswap in order for it to make sense.

I haven't seen the 'unhurrying' of jims patterns before, I will have to try that out next time I'm doing some club passing, it's a neat idea.

I'm with you about the '*' notation too, I hadn't heard of it until Orinoco mentioned it. I'm fairly sure you're right about being able to tell them apart unambiguously in all cases too. As far as I know a '*' for repeat on the other side only can occur after the ')' of a sync pattern, whereas for a hurry it must be after a throw, so as weird as it looks, (3x*,3x*)(3*,-)* makes sense for a height 3 version of columns. Incidentally however, Christophe Prechac uses '%' to designate repeat on the other side in his notes in order to avoid confusion which I like (even though '*' is standard now and there's not way that's going to change)

Adrian G - 11/1/2014 12:25 - Vorredner #

err 'part 2' link should be: https://www.passingdb.com/articles.php?id=16

Mike Moore - 11/1/2014 14:57 - Vorredner #

""This definition makes more sense to me as from a siteswap perspective, hurries are actually invalid"

Couldn't this be made valid by increasing the throw rate and inserting a bunch of twos? Similarly to how you can call a 3o cascade (4x,2)*?"

Oops, you wrote about that in another post, please ignore this bit.

^Tom_ - 11/1/2014 23:00 - Vorredner #

Of course convention would probably dictate that I started with Rr rather than Ll, but that looked like too much effort to go through the post and fix anything that needed fixing. It makes no difference, but it allows you to start the pattern with both throwing with their right hands. By choosing to start with both throwing from their right, we fix that the person who starts is the one with straight 7s and crossing 5s/9s.

^Tom_ - 11/2/2014 10:01 - Vorredner #

Vanilla 4hss notation is exactly as limited to representing only patterns where no 2 hands throw at the same time as regular siteswap notation is.
However, now that we have 4 hands rather than 2, there are more than the previous 2 options (async/sync).
Now we have at least (async async/antisync async/async sync/sync async/sync sync), and maybe even more, but I'm going to leave it at those.
(As an aside, I'd like to mention that in my opinion, 2hss sync notation is probably wrong, either all of the numbers should be halved, or (0,0)s should be present (I can think of interpretations where it's right, but they're fairly illogical)

Let me start by dealing with the ones which are probably the most common problems, either sync- or antisync- async (even or odd numbers of clubs on 2 count respectively).
One solution is to adopt a sync2hss-style approach, which Aidan's book, "The Highgate Collection" makes use of, this makes 7club 2count something like (8x,6)*.
I don't know if everyone uses an x here or if some use a p.
This problem meets complications when combining it with sync sync patterns, although it should still work, conventions of notation are then going to be more important to distinguish between a self cross, a straight pass, and a crossing pass - I think the most logical is (x, p, & xp) or (x, xp, p) or (a context dependent combination of both).

An alternative, which was presented as an article on the ija ezine some time ago is to move the beats slightly until they deviate from the assumption of equispaced to approach the limit of being synched.
Then we see that for one juggler, a 7 pass takes the same time, and has the same crossingness as a 5 for the other juggler, and we can now write sync siteswaps in the vanilla async framework (* links and diagrams can be provided here if you're interested). Giving something like 7 club 2 count a notation of 9667.
The same method can be used to fix notation for sync patterns. If course trying to apply both of these at the same time to notate a sync sync pattern is going to get messy quickly, but it is at least possible.

^Tom_ - 11/2/2014 18:01 - Vorredner #

For the alternative, take a look at the bottom sections of http://ezine.juggle.org/2012/05/09/period-5-patterns-four-handed-siteswaps/

Adrian G - 11/3/2014 08:02 - Vorredner #

Thanks I think I understand most of that...

I agree that sync is inconsistent, but it's also so much easier to teach I think, trying to explain why 4b fountain is 4 but sync 4b fountain is (2,2) would be hard... And always adding an extra beat would just get annoying... So even though I agree it doesn't make sense, I still kind of prefer it this way

Hmm, so I assume with (8x,6)* that's (R,l)(r,L)? (capitals = J1, lower = J2), I suppose that works, I haven't seen it written quite like that before. I think it may get weird once it gets to sync/sync though with something like (8x,8xp,8x,8xp) of similar because all throws are throwing at the same time, is there a neat way to do that that you've seen?

RE using x/p/xp etc. options, I feel like that's going straight into the whole crossing vs straight in Boyce notation that we've been discussing in other parts of this thread...

I can see the logic behind trying to write everything in vanilla ss however I personally don't like it as an alternative as now given a siteswap, not only do you need to know how many hands, but also the hand throwing order/rhythm. While it may be more 'pure' in some sense I feel it's a lot less practical. (also I really hate that different throws from each juggler are the same)

Conversion makes sense now, thanks for that!

Ahh, I didn't realise the doing the Prechac transform on an even length would cause it to be not vanilla.
"I'm not quite sure how systematically this can be done"
I think what you have works systematically as an algorithm for the transform:
- Take a ss, e.g. 3 3 (local)
- Double it, e.g. 6 6 (local)
- Add period and add an 'x' to an throws you add it to, e.g. 8x 6 (local)
- Reorder throws for global siteswap, notation assumes (R,l)(r,L) etc.
- so you get (8x,l)(r,6), to put the other jugglers throws in you need to put the last half at the front as prechacs are staggered symmetric patterns, so J2 has 6 8x (local)
- Final global siteswap is (8x,6)(6,8x)

I think those steps should work in general for even length patterns...

"so for patterns with 2 or 4 hands throwing simultaneously, I often write it in Boyce notation unless it includes a transition to/from async async."
I have to agree with you there, I still haven't made up my mind as to which notation I prefer for patterns that can be written in vanilla 4hss, because while it is a lot nicer to write them in 4hss, if it's only one case of patterns I feel like I might as well write them in Boyce notation too to be consistent.

Though honestly at least 80% of the time I learn passing patterns I learn them from a causal or from an english description (crossing pass, straight double pass, self)...

Adrian G - 11/3/2014 08:03 - Vorredner #

Err, and apparently I'm really bad at copy-pasting links, that should be: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/rec.juggling/prechac/rec.juggling/6BH4fqbWV9c/zB4D425T85gJ

Brook Roberts - 11/5/2014 09:58 - Vorredner #

That is how Jim's 3 count usually works.

Do most people consider a 4p to cross? Are you saying that you would notate 8 club 2 count on singles as ? Because that's definitely not how I would do it normally...

I see where you are coming from in 4p by default being straight, because in typical async patterns that is the case. But I don't think it is normal usage, and I think sticking with x for 'cross' makes sense from a reading point of view!

Mike Moore - 11/5/2014 14:33 - Vorredner #

I see where you are coming from in 4p by default being straight, because in typical async patterns that is the case. But I don't think it is normal usage, and I think sticking with x for 'cross' makes sense from a reading point of view!

Do you mean a 4p by default being a cross? In typical async patterns, I think that's usually the case (e.g. 4p23 for early doubles).

I'm not using x to mean cross, I'm using it to mean "do the opposite of the usual in terms of crossing/non-crossing". This is the same usage it gets in lonely-juggling synchronous siteswap (though you only see [odd number]xs in transitions).

Brook Roberts - 11/5/2014 14:47 - Vorredner #

Yes, I meannt 4p being by default a cross - was a typo.
Yes I know you're not using x to mean cross - I'm suggesting that common usage (at least around my parts) is to use it to mean cross, and I think it is more intuitive in general.
I realise it's not consistent with what is used in transitions (I use x to mean opposite of normal in transitions too) but I think case isn't a great precedent since the notation for transitions is a bit of a fudge anyway.

Adrian G - 11/6/2014 00:59 - Vorredner #

So, the way I see it, the problem with using 'x' to mean cross is that siteswap should not (and does not) give you hand directions, imagine we're passing 6c 2 count, so 3p 3, now I turn and start doing dropbacks, if we keep the same 'p is straight' then suddenly the pattern that we're juggling changes (passes are going right-right and left-left instead of left-right and right-left.

So 3p 3 can now denote two different patterns. But OK, maybe 'x'=cross wasn't right, what about 'x'=right-right/left-left instead? This is essentially what JugglingLab does, except that a default even throw is right-right/left-left in the same way as solo juggling, so the x just swaps it, which makes more sense seeing as you still can have solo throws.

But then that gives other weird issues like 7c 2 count is 4px 3 etc. which the whole basing it off which hands a throwing makes nicer as simply 4p 3.

That was sort of a random mush of thoughts so hopefully makes sense...

Brook Roberts - 11/6/2014 09:46 - Vorredner #

Yeah, x=right/right is what I would actually have it as.

Adrian G - 11/7/2014 07:43 - Vorredner #

Yeah, ok, I still don't think I like the idea that the throw direction is defined based on how a small case of passing works (two jugglers passing face to face), IMO the rational behind a notation shouldn't rely on certain juggler positions.

I think my other reply to you a few posts down the other day explained stuff better than that one after rereading them, it was just before I left to go to my exam so I was a bit rushed ;)

But the gist of it is I feel like it removes any connection to normal siteswap for no good reason...

Brook Roberts - 11/7/2014 09:46 - Vorredner #

It's certainly not a small case of how my passing works! Which probably explains some of the bias.

Passing tends to have a large number of notations in use, more than I ever use in solo (prechac, multihanded notation, causal diagrams, Aidan notation, brolly notation etc) so I think there is a bit of a break in my mind in really gearing it towards (my) passing use.

Adrian G - 11/7/2014 10:48 - Vorredner #

Fair enough ;) It's definitely the majority of my passing as well, but a small case of overall passing (consider all the side by side patterns, over 2 person patterns where crossing isn't as clear normally, etc.) and IMO a notation should be catering for the general case in that regard rather than based on a certain use.

Even if it isn't as easy to see what's crossing and straight, it isn't too bad and I think the trade off with consistencies with solo siteswap and a notation that preserves the same nice things between async and sync vs. it being slightly easier to tell which passes are straight/crossing in certain patterns, for me the former definitely wins out.

Brook Roberts - 11/5/2014 16:16 - Vorredner #

I think Tom's example of 7 club 2 count is a good one. Any notation ideally strikes a balance between intuitive and consistent, so that it has nice features and works well for those who understand it fully, but also where possible agrees with the naive understanding, so that people don't have to get bogged down in discussions like this just to use it (since funny, some of my friends aren't as keen on talking about numbers for hours as me and just want to juggle!).

I suspect any such user will describe 7 club 2-count as 4p 3, and I think any good notation would need to have a good reason to differ from the comparable precedent. (i.e. we need a good reason to tell people actually it makes more sense to describe this as 4px 3 locally). I think instead it seems more obvious to not use the x at all when 4p fully describes it's target (i.e. when the received of your pass is juggling async) and only use x's when they are required.

And if so, I would then say that if you are only applying x's to patterns where a 4p and a 4px could exist, it makes sense then to make the choice of x's meaning straight. Note straight 4ps are used far more often than 5xs in transitions.

P.S. Not sure what you mean by antisync sync (the same as async sync?) but in techno both jugglers use all 4 hands at the same time if you think of it as a sync pattern, so it is sync sync {(4x, 4p)(2,4x)*|(4x,2)(4x, 4px)*} If you just mean one does crossing one does straight I'm not sure that is a useful category since you can obviously have patterns where both people do straight and crossing e.g the symmetric pattern (4x, 4p)(4px,4).

Some people think of techno as 7 club 3-count on singles, in which case you can avoid all this anyway ;)

Obviously in the above I used 4p to mean straight!

^Tom_ - 11/5/2014 17:14 - Vorredner #

I'm not sure as to whether the group antisync sync exists or not, at the most, it's a subset of sync sync, but I wanted to make a distinction as the juggler who's passing switches with each beat.
Obviously techno (even the sync version, which I've been told is the only true way) is siteswap 966 in the limit of synchronizing the beats (just as the box is 960).
My definition of antisync is most clear with the difference between sync async (6 club {1,1.5,1.67,2,3,4,6} count, 8 club 2 count (async), etc) and antisync sync (7club 2 count).

"I would then say that if you are only applying x's to patterns where a 4p and a 4px could exist, it makes sense then to make the choice of x's meaning straight."
Is that what you mean, that 4px should be straight? I presented an argument for both sides above, though I'm not certain which I think would be more obvious.

Brook Roberts - 11/5/2014 18:35 - Vorredner #

I am doing a good job in this thread of stating the opposite of what I mean.

I am strongly in favour of 4p meaning straight!

Adrian G - 11/6/2014 01:32 - Vorredner #

I'm not entirely sure what I think of not including 'x's at all when it doesn't need them, on the one hand, yes it's great (like in solo siteswap) where unnecessary information isn't included, on the other hand, when it's causing a hurry or being different from normal in some way, it still feels a bit weird to call it just a '3p' (but maybe that's just what I'm used to).

"I am strongly in favour of 4p meaning straight!"

So onto sync, it's really only a question of even passes, I think odd passes automatically go right-left (straight) by default. The problem as I mentioned above with something 'meaning straight' is that what happens if one juggler is turned around? So I'll assume you mean right-left instead of straight. To me this is like saying that a 4 should cross by default...
However, take this example, suppose you have two jugglers simply juggling four clubs: <(4,4)|(4,4)> now they start to pass:
If you have a solo juggler switching from (4,4) to (4x,4x) then it's obvious that the 'x's "cancel out" in a sense. Now take <(4p,4x)|(4p,4x)> (using 4p = R-L) vs <(4px,4x)|(4px,4x)> (using 4 = R-R), in the second you have the same fact in that the 'x's still cancel out and it is obvious what is happening in the throws. Additionally, in the same way that <3 3|3 3> can turn into <3p 3|3p 3> and <4 4|4 4> can become <4p 4|4p 4> when both jugglers pass with the same hand, <(4,4)|(4,4)> can become <(4p,4)|(4p,4)> when both jugglers pass with the same hand, rather than <(4px,4)|(4px,4)>

One final argument (if you're not sick of reading this post already :P ), is that jugglers facing each other is (IMO) kind of weird, one jugglers right hand is on the same side as the other jugglers left hand. Having a 4p, if you imagine the other passer standing in front of you, facing away, should go straight from your right hand to their right hand in the same way that a 4 goes from your right hand to your right hand, turn them around and you get a 4p, still going from right-right, is now crossing.

That was all written quite quickly, with all my other recent posts here as I haven't checked this thread properly in a couple of days and need to head out soon...

Adrian G - 11/6/2014 01:09 - Vorredner #

Yes, you can do 7o 2 count all crosses, however both jugglers would start right handed so you would get the following pattern: <4p 3|3 4p> instead of <4p 3|L3 4p> (so in the seconds, 'L' means J2 starts left handed, which through your rule for what crosses, makes the passes straight instead of crossing). And yes, if both jugglers are only throwing one club at a time, it is very easy to see which hand the club has to be thrown to (because that hand will be throwing that club again on the beat after it lands) so yes, any pattern where only one hand per person throws at once can be unambiguosly written without any 'x's (so from the point of interpreting it, you can completely remove 'x's if you really want). Sync still needs them of course, however.

I still agree with your original reasoning to say evens are right-right by default (I think cross/straight are bad terms for this as I briefly mentioned in another post about where one person turns around), as was mentioned earlier if you want to do 8c 3 count <4p 4 4|4p 4 4> seems the most logical to me.

"Using xs to mark crosses instead of using it the way that's consistent with solo siteswap seems like an effective way of handling things. But it feels so wrong to me!"

I agree that it feels wrong, which is why I think it shouldn't mean that ;)

Mike Moore - 11/6/2014 13:40 - Vorredner #

"Yes, you can do 7o 2 count all crosses, however both jugglers would start right handed so you would get the following pattern[...]"

Ah, good point. I suppose the crunched down 4p3 siteswap leaves ambiguity in that form.

"I agree that it feels wrong, which is why I think it shouldn't mean that ;)"

I was using "crossing" to mean a right/left or left/pass for brevity (laziness?), so I think we were on the same page. Using an x to mean right/right or left/left still feels wrong! My juggling focus is synchronous (solo) patterns, and while I rarely actually work out sync/async transitions in siteswap, I do have [odd number]xs pretty internalized. I'll have to compartmentalize those parts of my soul.

^Tom_ - 11/6/2014 21:28 - Vorredner #

If you were using the term "crossing" to mean right to left, then I suspect there's been a lot of talking at cross purposes (or should that be straight purposes).

In this thread I've always used the term crossing to mean right to right, and I'm 99.99% sure that Brook has been too.

Mike Moore - 11/6/2014 22:15 - Vorredner #

Oops, the whole "saying opposite of what you mean" must be contagious. I meant crossing as right/right or left/left, and straights as right/left and left/right.

Adrian G - 11/7/2014 06:40 - Vorredner #

Ah, I must have misinterpreted your post, specifically "I do now agree about typical passes being thrown as straights, regardless of whether they're even or odd. I think I was extrapolating from too small an example base." as I think a 4p should cross by default...

I've done some more reading through passingdb/the passingdb articles you linked/old r.j posts and can't find anyone writing sync patterns like that (though admittedly sync passing patterns with even passes aren't that common and I only found around 10 references total). However all the articles I've read through (incl Christophe Prechac's ones and the Social Siteswaps DVD) as well as both JugglingLab and JoePass seem to use <(4xp,4x)|(4xp,4x)> instead of <(4p,4x)|(4p,4x)>

I also think this makes far more sense as it's how solo siteswap works, IMO a 4xp should be considered a 4x that is passed instead of a 4 that is passed (in some direction), the first has a logical sense to it the second is completely arbitrary. Yes, defining it as 'crossing' (R-R) for when jugglers are facing each other may not seem arbitrary, but juggler direction still is and suddenly when they turn around then 'x' means straight. To me it makes more sense to have the rational for the definition of it independent of juggler positions.

Adrian G - 11/2/2014 06:54 - Vorredner #

honestly, in terms of describing it to another juggler, the easiest way is to simply say 423 with the 4 as a single because it's concise and doesn't rely on them knowing anything extra about siteswap (and even a lot of people who don't know siteswap know what 423 is).

However, what you said about siteswap is not 100% correct, while siteswap doesn't care about the height, it does care about the relative heights of throws, so a 4 must be higher than a 3[1], so technically if you throw them at the same height it is not 423 (though arguably it's still better to call it that)

However, you don't have to go to hurries to be able to describe it correctly, simply by using sync notation, you can get (4,2)(4x,2)* which is a completely reasonable (and I think completely isomorphic) notation for it.

Of course, hurry notation can be a lot simpler to use in many cases than writing out the sync siteswap in its entirety (even 3x3* is much more concise than (4,2)(4x,2)*), which is why you will occasionally see it around (though again, it's mainly in passing patterns such as Jim's 3 count where it makes stuff a lot simpler).

The reason I used the above example was simply as a simple hurry pattern which people would recognise so I could use it for examples.

[1] The amount higher will be (4-1)²/(3-1)² is 2.25 times higher - yes, technically your 4 should be 2.25 times higher than your 3 (assuming a dwell ratio of 1/2), you can see this if you put it into JugglingLab with a 'dwell beat' of 1 (dwell beats = 2*dwell ratio). If you're interested in why this difference is so large, Boppo (Bruce Tiemann) has a great video about it https://youtu.be/s09mV9TXEis

fat_hampster - 11/2/2014 12:20 - Vorredner #

"""However, what you said about siteswap is not 100% correct, while siteswap doesn't care about the height, it does care about the relative heights of throws, so a 4 must be higher than a 3[1], so technically if you throw them at the same height it is not 423 (though arguably it's still better to call it that)"""

Actually, siteswap cares not for your relative heights, it is a notation for describing orderings. You can change your throw heights and dwell ratio dynamically in a pattern, e.g. gradually raising then lowering the height you juggle 5 balls. Assuming the twos are inactive, 423 and (4,2)(4x,2)* are both accurate, but 423 might be preferred for being more concise (in the same way that we prefer 3 to 522 or (4x,2)*). If you have active twos, then one of these becomes inaccurate depending on whether they are activated synchronously or asynchronously*.


* It can be argued that nothing is truly synchronous, but there is a point where you can't tell the order, and even slightly before that point it can be useful to pretend. (e.g. some people do 8 club 2 count singles slightly async)

Adrian G - 11/2/2014 13:26 - Vorredner #

Very good point, thanks for mentioning that, I forgot that you could have differing dwell times for each ball, having a dwell ratio of (for example) .8 for the 4 and .3 for the 3 would make them both go to the same height from the formula I mentioned so that would work.

So, yes, my earlier post was assuming a consistent dwell ratio (and all the other siteswap assumptions, such as a regular beat, etc.) and in that case will hold.

"gradually raising then lowering the height you juggle 5 balls"
Depending on the amount you raise or lower it I believe you may have to change your beats per second (which breaks the 'regular beat' assumption of siteswap). From a 5b pattern with dwell ratio 0.5 you can get it ~1.6 times higher (dwell ratio 0) and ~1.8 times lower (dwell ratio 1) before having to change throwing speed. So all this adjusting of heights through dwell time (IMO) is not a good way to describe it (at least for the 5b example) as dwell ratios beyond [0.2,0.8] become extremely difficult and really aren't what you are actually doing when adjusting the heights the majority of the time as no one juggles with extreme dwell times like that

I do realise that you could have a changing beats per second and siteswap can still work due to it only caring *how many* beats have passed and not how long they were, but I feel like while you *could* say that, siteswap does expressively forbid it...

I'm happy to be corrected on ^ if you disagree but that's my understanding

fat_hampster - 11/2/2014 14:29 - Vorredner #

So I don't remember the exact formulation people generally use for siteswap, but an assumption of regular beats seems pointless because the abstraction works just as well/better when you only consider ordering, and also because in practice people don't juggle with regular beats. It can be a nice property to assume for the translation, and it generally works out as the easiest way of juggling them, but I view siteswap purely as an abstraction for orderings, and the physical aspect of the beats interferes with that abstraction. Further you then need to consider other physical properties, such as, how does your example work with relativity? If a juggler is moving away from you at a high speed does the siteswap he's juggling change? Madness I say.

Adrian G - 11/3/2014 08:02 - Vorredner #

I could also be misremembering here, but I've always thought that a regular rhythm was by definition, it may also be that that's what all the tutorials say simply to make it easier to understand...

After thinking over it a bit more, I feel like I kind of agree with you on some of that however, siteswap can definitely still describe it but I'm still not completely convinced that it's worth removing that restriction...

Either way it feels like a kind of moot point, so it might be better to just agree to disagree.

Cedric Lackpot - 11/3/2014 22:52 - Vorredner #

> I could also be misremembering here, but I've always thought that a regular rhythm was by definition ...

It depends who you ask. Purists/pedants (like me) assert it's fundamentally about the order in which events occur, and the timing is at best of secondary importance; practical people (probably you, and most other siteswappers too) insist it tells you about timing too, because of the presumption of a regular or semi-regular rhythm.

Both arguments have merit; only one is wrong ;-)

Adrian G - 11/6/2014 00:36 - Vorredner #

"practical people (probably you, and most other siteswappers too) insist it tells you about timing too"

I think I was a bit unclear what I meant there, I completely agree that the notation doesn't tell you anything about timing, as you said all it really cares about is order. However, siteswap is normally coupled (for better or for worse) with the assumption of regular rhythm. IMO, seeing as you can describe any pattern simply using a different siteswap, a dwell time and consistent throwing speed, then that to me is a good way to do it (I realise this is nowhere near as useful in practise for writing things down a lot of the time (though this is the assumption that most simulators work under) as there are weird resulting siteswaps, but to me simply changing the siteswap and keeping the rest regular can allow for any pattern, unambiguously, which I personally prefer.

However, from a theoretical point of view, I completely agree with you about the information that a siteswap actually tells you.

^Tom_ - 11/4/2014 18:58 - Vorredner #

I guess I'm the only person who writes the box as either 630 or 603, and (6x,4)* as 690, 960, or 672. People tend to think it's silly, but this way calculating transition throws I'd much easier.
When I say that the different notations are equivalent, people like to correct me by saying things like that it may be convenient to pretend they're the same, but that they're different really.

Adrian G - 11/6/2014 00:41 - Vorredner #

I'm curious, any reason why you don't represent box as 612 instead? it seems like a more natural way than 630 or 603 to me...

^Tom_ - 11/6/2014 10:53 - Vorredner #

I think I disagree with you. Obviously, the box is the pattern at which 612 423 630 and 603 all intersect, but in terms of maintaining appropriate throw values (which is the only reason why I would switch a number divisible by 3 and a 0 to a 3n+1 and a 2), the typical box has 4s and 2s, so if we're going to make the 4 larger, it seems wrong to also make the 2 smaller.

On the other hand, the jugglinglab simulation for 612 looks pretty good, but then again that's not the point.

I guess the main reason is that we know that there are 3 orbits, 1 odd number, period 3, and 1 unthrown throw, to me the simplest representation is 630 or 603, and I don't see any reason to tweak it.

Adrian G - 11/6/2014 11:27 - Vorredner #

"so if we're going to make the 4 larger, it seems wrong to also make the 2 smaller."
Fair point, I suppose I was more thinking in terms of what feels like the box instead...

"3 orbits, 1 odd number, period 3, and 1 unthrown throw"
Yep, we're definitely thinking about it differently, I tend not to think about patterns in terms of orbits and crossing throws, I quite like that method of catagorisation though, I may start thinking about some patterns that way.

^Tom_ - 11/6/2014 16:45 - Vorredner #

It's not necessarily how I think about patterns, but when writing an alternative notation for a pattern, these just tend to be some of the properties which you need to check that you preserve.

Topper - 11/6/2014 20:04 - Vorredner #

WHOOSH

Orinoco - 11/6/2014 20:17 - Vorredner #

Managing to keep up then Kev?!

lucasgabd - 9/23/2014 17:42 - Vorredner #

ops, hahhahahaah damn copy paste, forget to change diabolists for jugglers.
well, you got the message :D

lucasgabd - 9/29/2014 19:21 - Vorredner #

I had more than 1h of good footage on the timeline after taking some things out, not sure of the total but it was more than 200gb! :D

lucasgabd - 9/29/2014 19:22 - Vorredner #

I'm glad you enjoyed it!you should totally check more f the freak fandango orchestra!https://bit.ly/freakfandangoMS