[Video request] 1up 4up Variation

[Marden117]

Hi rec.

I was playing around with 1up 4up variations [1] last week and I'd like to
suggest a trick for someone to get on video because I am not up to the
challenge as I suck at pirouettes.

The trick:

(starting from 5 ball cascade)
1. Throw one very high and collect two in each hand.
2. Throw synch _split_ duplexes so that one split is much higher than the
other.
3. Do a pirouette under each of the throws (3-stage pirouette?) and go
back into cascade.

Thanks to anyone who attempts this and kudos to anyone that actually gets
it on video.

[1] www.freewebs/multiplex/blog.html

--
----== posted via www.jugglingdb.com ==----

[Marden117]

Oops, butterfingers. www.freewebs.com/multiplex/blog.html

[ChrisFowler]

So, like a 3 ball whirlwind, but with two sets of duplexes?

[Marden117]

Exactly that but the split duplexes, as you read, are thrown synch.
Care to try Chris? :D

[popstar_dave]

I'm thinking that it's a little different to this, as in a three ball
whirlwind, the first ball that's thrown is the first to be caught after
the pirouettes. In Dan's idea, the first ball to be thrown is the last to
be caught (if I'm understanding it correctly).

Aside from the lack of synch-ness on the duplexes and lack of proper
timing for pirouettes, I'm guessing that it's something like:
55555f22[64][64]0022[72][72]7700 [1]

Dan, is this the kind of thing that you were looking for?

Cheers,
Dave

[1] I'd write it with '1x's and '!'s, but I never really got the hang of
the synch-asynch transition notation.

[AlexM]

> I'm thinking that it's a little different to this, as in a three ball
> whirlwind, the first ball that's thrown is the first to be caught after
> the pirouettes. In Dan's idea, the first ball to be thrown is the last to
> be caught (if I'm understanding it correctly).
>
> Aside from the lack of synch-ness on the duplexes and lack of proper
> timing for pirouettes, I'm guessing that it's something like:
> 55555f22[64][64]0022[72][72]7700 [1]
>
> Dan, is this the kind of thing that you were looking for?
>
> Cheers,
> Dave
>
> [1] I'd write it with '1x's and '!'s, but I never really got the hang of
> the synch-asynch transition notation.
>

I tried my hands at a Siteswap for Dan's Suggestion as well, but assumed
that the single throw was to be caught first. Just like you, I can't do
those rhythm-transitions, so I chose 6x,4 as the base pattern, which
unfortunately makes the Duplexes asymmetric, though that could be adjusted
as well. I came up with
(6x,4)(4,6x)(ax,4)(2,2)([ag],[ai])(0,0)(0,0)(0,2)(0,2)(2,[22])(2,[22])(4,[6x2])(6x,4)(4,6x)
which works reasonably well in Jugglelab. I did allow for two synchbeats
for each of the pirouettes to stress them, which again makes the duplex
quite high. Good Luck Chris ; )

[ChrisFowler]

I'll give it a shot this week, although someone could probably beat me to
it. We'll see how it goes:)

[Marden117]

Oh, yes. I realise now that it is not the same as the whirlwind as the
high throw is caught last. The order of the catches goes (1) lower duplex
(2) higher duplex (3) initial high throw with a 360 done before each catch.

I haven't worked out the siteswap but the synch duplexes must split like
([6x6],[4x4]) but your version, which is equally interesting, uses cut
duplexes ([64],[64]).

[JoelC]

There's no way I'm going to manage it, but I had a go at the siteswap and
got:
R554xgx21x ([8x8],[4x4])(0,0)(2,2)(6,5x)(2,1x)! R5555

In Juggling Lab, complete with an attempt at pirouettes:

http://jugglinglab.sourceforge.net/siteswap.php?pattern=R554xgx21x([8x8],[4x4])(0,0)(2,2)(6,5x)(2,1x)!R5555;body=........(0).(180).(0).(180).(0).(0).(180).(0)....;

http://tinyurl.com/5782ld

Is that the trick you were imagining Dan?

Joel

[Jeff]

There are way too many pirouettes in there...

[Marden117]

I've just got home and had time to play around with the siteswap and this
is what I got (very similar):

(2,8x)(8x,2)(2,8x)(8x,2)(2,8x)(mx,2)(2,2)(2,[22])([6x6],[axa])(0,0)(0,0)(2,2)(2,2)([22],[8x2])([8x2],2)

I'm not that knowledgeable on inputting pirouettes in jugglelab but I am
sure you could take the above siteswap and insert the 3 x 360s for me to
get the trick looking like it should.

Danny

[Miika]

Marden117 wrote:
> JoelC wrote:

> > Marden117 wrote:
> > > The trick:
> > >
> > > (starting from 5 ball cascade)
> > > 1. Throw one very high and collect two in each hand.
> > > 2. Throw synch _split_ duplexes so that one split is much higher than the
> > > other.
> > > 3. Do a pirouette under each of the throws (3-stage pirouette?) and go
> > > back into cascade.
> >

> > There's no way I'm going to manage it, but I had a go at the siteswap and
> > got:
> > R554xgx21x ([8x8],[4x4])(0,0)(2,2)(6,5x)(2,1x)! R5555
> >
> > In Juggling Lab, complete with an attempt at pirouettes:
> >

> > http://tinyurl.com/5782ld
> >
> > Is that the trick you were imagining Dan?
>
> I've just got home and had time to play around with the siteswap and this
> is what I got (very similar):
>
(2,8x)(8x,2)(2,8x)(8x,2)(2,8x)(mx,2)(2,2)(2,[22])([6x6],[axa])(0,0)(0,0)(2,2)(2,2)([22],[8x2])([8x2],2)
>
> I'm not that knowledgeable on inputting pirouettes in jugglelab but I am
> sure you could take the above siteswap and insert the 3 x 360s for me to
> get the trick looking like it should.
>
> Danny
>

I was not going to bother with this. As it turned out, I had nothing
better to do at one o'clock in the morning than to start learning how to
animate pirouettes with Juggling Lab.

Using this siteswap
[52][52]5555554xex21x([6x6],[4x4])(0,0)(2,2)([22],[1x1x])!

and this body movement
(0).............(0).(120)(240)(0).(0).(120)(240)(0).(0).(120)(240)(0).

I got this animation
http://tinyurl.com/63ebca

Thanks to JoelC for the reminder about body movements.

-Miika

--

(btw, tämä on sadasviidestoista viestini tässä uutisryhmässä.)

[popstar_dave]

Ooh... _split_ duplexes. I get it now. (Again, ignoring the fact that I
can't write the synch-asynch transitions) I think you're looking for
something like: 55555f22[76][43]0022[72][72]7700
Does that seem right?

Hehehe... just thinking about the fact that my juggling skills are so far
away from actually being able to perform this trick, yet I still get a
kick out of being able to (somewhat) describe it in SS!

Cheers,
Dave

[popstar_dave]

Ooh, pretty. It seems I was misinterpreting the pattern. I had it as a
3-stage 5-up(under high throw and duplexes)/3-up(between
duplexes)/5-up(duplexes relaunched and still under high throw).

I guess they're all viable, but still way out of my league.

Cheers,
Dave

[rhalf]

180-540-360??? wouldn't it be easier to make it 3 360's?

[Marden117]

Thanks Miika (and Joel). That's exactly what I was looking for :)
Now I am just looking for someone to get it on video so I can be amazed at
how it looks for real.

Any takers?

[David Ferman]

im gonna go try it
would it be easier to do the high throw after the 4 up???
it would still be the same trick but with an easier start

[Marden117]

Oh, sure. I imagine the high throw won't need to be as high so I
understand why it'd be easier to manage. Hope you get it successfully and
look forward to seeing it.

[David Ferman]

i am close to getting it
i wud hav had it if my mom didnt make me come inside (im 14... lol)

[Doyen Dean]

Marden117 wrote:
>
> Hi rec.
>
> I was playing around with 1up 4up variations [1] last week and I'd like to
> suggest a trick for someone to get on video because I am not up to the
> challenge as I suck at pirouettes.
>
>

I also suck at pirouettes. In fact, I can't even do pirouettes. Is there
a step-by step instruction guide available on the web, either in video
form or text? If I find time, I'll look at it and perhaps actually master
this dizzying art ;-)

DD
Just signed up full time at the fiberglass factory :-/

[David Ferman]

i nailed it
ill try to catch it on film today... shud only take a few mins

[David Ferman]

YAY!!!
here it is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTgm5IAw3-g

[Marden117]

Sweet, it looks awesome! Thanks for taking the time to learn and record it.
I'll put a link to it in my blog this coming Saturday.

Thanks again.

[David Ferman]

thanks for the trick idea
i am terrible at coming up with tricks
whenever i think i came up with one i see it a few days later on a thomas
dietz vid or sumthin
im thinking of trying this in the extreme juggling competition at ija this
summer

[Marden117]

Just watched it again and realized that the duplexes are cut duplexes
rather than split duplexes but it's still an awesome trick. I think any
variations on my original request still kick ass.

Also, had a look at your other youtube videos. Nice stuff.

[David Ferman]

wat is a cut duplex and wat is a split duplex
maybe i can get it this weekend with watever a split duplex is

[Jeff]

On May 29, 4:33 pm, juggler1...@yahoo.com.nospam.com (David Ferman)
wrote:

> > > > here it ishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTgm5IAw3-g

>
> > > Sweet, it looks awesome! Thanks for taking the time to learn and record it.
> > > I'll put a link to it in my blog this coming Saturday.
>
> > > Thanks again.
>
> > Just watched it again and realized that the duplexes are cut duplexes
> > rather than split duplexes but it's still an awesome trick. I think any
> > variations on my original request still kick ass.
>
> > Also, had a look at your other youtube videos. Nice stuff.
>
> wat is a cut duplex and wat is a split duplex
> maybe i can get it this weekend with watever a split duplex is
>
> --
> ----== posted viawww.jugglingdb.com==----

I call them split and stack duplexes, but regardless...

In a split duplex, two balls are thrown from one hand, yet the two
balls land in different hands. In your video, which is very
impressive by the way, both balls are caught in the same hand (the
throwing hand). Check out the juggling lab animation that was posted.

The way I see it, there are five qualitatively different multiplexes
that could be used for this trick. Excuse the terminology, which may
not be the same as yours.

- There's stacked multiplexes, which is the way David did it (standard
1-up-4-up multiplexes)
- Crossing stacked multiplexes (also a common 1-up-4-up pattern)
- Split multiplexes as Dan suggested (not so common, I don't think)
(something like [44x] and [66x])
- Split multiplexes where the bottom pair cross (something like [4x6]
and [4x6])
- Split multiplexes where the top pair cross (something like [46x] and
[46x])

Siteswaps are not exact, but give you an idea. I think all other
multiplexes are "trivial" or are symmetrical to one of these.

First one to film them all wins a video of themselves doing cool 5
ball multiplex tricks!

Jeff

[rhalf]

You missed the proper terminology. I know it is twisted, but:
multiplex is stacked when you throw the balls, and catch them all to one
hand, and then release them again
multiplex is cut when you catch each ball separately, and each is thrown
before the next one is caught
In siteswaps it would be [33], [444] etc. for stacked multiplexes, but
[64], [753] etc. for cut multiplexes

[Marden117]

David Ferman wrote:

> wat is a cut duplex and wat is a split duplex
> maybe i can get it this weekend with watever a split duplex is

Split multiplex throws, as the name suggests, involve throwing both balls
from one hand, "splitting" them in the air, and catching them in separate
hands.

Cut multiplex throws involve throwing both balls to the same or other hand
like a stacked multiplex but in a staggered fashion so the bottom ball of
the duplex is caught, and re-thrown before the top ball is caught. These
are used in the Shower Explosion family of multiplex tricks.

I use cut duplex lightly as you don't rethrow the bottom ball but instead
do a pirouette. I really should've said stacked duplex as that's what you
did.

[David Ferman]

did u want the [44x] and the [66x] or the [4x6] [6x4]
i think the [4x6] and [6x4] seems to be possible but the [44x] [66x]seems
harder but mite be easier if i can get down those multiplexes becuz u can
throw them one after the other to seperate the height easier wich was the
hardest part of the stacked version i did (for me that is... its probably
easier for a guy who loves to multiplex)

[ChrisFowler]

Oh, that's what you meant. I was thinking you meant something different.
I like it.

[ChrisFowler]

:::looking further down at the other replies::: Oh, so that _wasn't_ it.
I think the one I tried is different still from the ones mentioned by
Jeff. It's hard as anything, though, and I couldn't do it. The one Dan
explained sounds a lot easier, and David should definitely be able to beat
me to filming it.

[David Ferman]

could someone please explain to me wat the "correct" version... clearly

[Jeff]

On May 30, 11:22 am, juggler1...@yahoo.com.nospam.com (David Ferman)
wrote:

> > > > > here it ishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTgm5IAw3-g

>
> > > > Sweet, it looks awesome! Thanks for taking the time to learn and record
> it.
> > > > I'll put a link to it in my blog this coming Saturday.
>
> > > > Thanks again.
>
> > > Oh, that's what you meant. I was thinking you meant something different.
> > > I like it.
>
> > :::looking further down at the other replies::: Oh, so that _wasn't_ it.
> > I think the one I tried is different still from the ones mentioned by
> > Jeff. It's hard as anything, though, and I couldn't do it. The one Dan
> > explained sounds a lot easier, and David should definitely be able to beat
> > me to filming it.
>
> could someone please explain to me wat the "correct" version... clearly
>
> --
> ----== posted viawww.jugglingdb.com==----

This is the version that Dan was originally describing:

http://jugglinglab.sourceforge.net/siteswap.php?pattern=[52][52]5555554xex21x([6x6],[4x4])(0,0)(2,2)([22],[1x1x])!;colors={red}{red}{blue}{blue}{black};body=(0).............(0).(120)(240)(0).(0).(120)(240)(0).(0).(120)(240)(0).

However, I think he conceded that it would be easier and just as
impressive if the lone ball was thrown after the multiplexes, as
opposed to before.

Jeff

[bill coad]

First of all, good job on the trick David.
The multiplex throws Dan described were different than what you did in the
video. In Dan's version, 2 balls thrown from one hand are caught one in
each hand, while in your video 2 balls thrown from one hand are both
caught from the hand that threw them. You can watch the animantion in
this thread to see the difference.

[David Ferman]

ok i get it... finally lol
it seems too hard tho
i mite give it a shot over the next few days
i probably wont tho becuz i need to record my act for ija
i would do it later today wen its less sunny and there arent people
pressure washing my house but i g2g to a trak meet

[Doyen Dean]

I cant wait for the time when I can complain about doing dietz tricks! My
hat off to you as a great juggler. I'll watch your video as soon as I can
get to a computer that can play videos :-)

[Marden117]

David Ferman wrote:

>
> bill coad wrote:
> > First of all, good job on the trick David.
> > The multiplex throws Dan described were different than what you did in the
> > video. In Dan's version, 2 balls thrown from one hand are caught one in
> > each hand, while in your video 2 balls thrown from one hand are both
> > caught from the hand that threw them. You can watch the animantion in
> > this thread to see the difference.
> >
> >
>
> ok i get it... finally lol
> it seems too hard tho
> i mite give it a shot over the next few days
> i probably wont tho becuz i need to record my act for ija
> i would do it later today wen its less sunny and there arent people
> pressure washing my house but i g2g to a trak meet

Thanks again for making the video. I thought the version you did was
harder than the one I originally asked for which is why I was so surprised
to see you nail it so well. Don't worry too much about getting my version
on camera as you've pretty much proven how awesome it'd look. Much respect.

Danny

[David Ferman]

Doyen Dean wrote:
>
> I cant wait for the time when I can complain about doing dietz tricks! My
> hat off to you as a great juggler. I'll watch your video as soon as I can
> get to a computer that can play videos :-)
>

lol
it was that 7 ball 99bbb22 (360)catching the first two that came down and
multiplexing them back up and then going bak into the pattern
its in david ferman juggling video #1
and then i see dietz doing it twice the same week... once as a 360 and
then as a 720
he did it b4 me
i thot i had came up with it lol but i was wrong like always

[jani]

I can has ppl hu nows hau to spel an kut out unnesessari shit, jes?

Or cheezburger?

jani