So Nathan Peterson flashed 19 at Austin Jugglefest...
Scott Kurland, RMT
he says. So I'll explain...
Nathan flashed 7 balls, 6 rings (for the 1st time) and 6 clubs (for the 1st
time). Then, of course, he didn't even bother to show up for the ISJF
finals, else he'd've placed, though Scott Sorenson's and Sam Hartford's 24
(!!) total (9 balls, 9 rings, number of clubs left as an exercise for the
student) nailed down 1st and 2nd very damn hard.
I timed the ISJF prelims and wound up judging the finals - Wiz had to split
early - and it was a good time, very entertaining, though the crowd seemed
to appreciate the 20-second 6-balls runs a lot more than the 5-second 9-ball
run....
More later, that was a good time.
Scott Kurland, 2nd place combat and 3rd Simon Says, woo hoo!
--
1. Do not harbor sinister designs.
2. Diligently pursue the path of Two-Swords-as-One.
3. Cultivate a wide range of interests in the arts.
4. Be knowledgeable in a variety of occupations.
5. Be discreet regarding one's commercial dealings.
6. Nurture the ability to perceive the truth in all matters.
7. Perceive that which cannot be seen with the eye.
8. Do not be negligent, even in trifling matters.
9. Do not engage in useless activities
Nathan Peterson
-Nathan
Peter Blanchard
> Man, he hates it when I put it that way. Misleading bordering on dishonest,
> he says. So I'll explain...
>
> Nathan flashed 7 balls, 6 rings (for the 1st time) and 6 clubs (for the 1st
> time). Then, of course, he didn't even bother to show up for the ISJF
> finals, else he'd've placed, though Scott Sorenson's and Sam Hartford's 24
> (!!) total (9 balls, 9 rings, number of clubs left as an exercise for the
> student) nailed down 1st and 2nd very damn hard.
>
> I timed the ISJF prelims and wound up judging the finals - Wiz had to split
> early - and it was a good time, very entertaining, though the crowd seemed
> to appreciate the 20-second 6-balls runs a lot more than the 5-second 9-ball
> run....
>
[snip]
Scott, thanks for posting the results. There is not much information
available on the ISJF? Can you tell us more? What do the initials
stand for? Based on your description, it sounds as though there was a
flashing contest. Was there any juggling involved? Thanks in
advance.
Peter Blanchard
Jonathan Root
> he says. So I'll explain...
>
> Nathan
the 1st time) and 6 clubs (for the 1sttime). Then, of course, he
didn't even bother to show up for the ISJF
(Scott who?) what is the ISJF? It sounds fun but read you own post it
is dificult to tell what you are talking about. When? Where? Who?
These are details that I would love to know. Thank you...
> finals, else he'd've placed, though Scott Sorenson's (Oh, Scott Sorenson) and Sam Hartford's 24
> (!!) total (9 balls, 9 rings, number of clubs left as an exercise for the
> student) nailed down 1st and 2nd very damn hard.
>
> I timed the ISJF prelims and wound up judging the finals -
There was a prelim and a final? Wiz had to split, Who is wiz?
> early - and it was a good time, very entertaining, though the crowd seemed
> to appreciate the 20-second 6-balls runs a lot more than the 5-second 9-ball
> run....
>
> More later, that was a good time.
>
>
> Scott Kurland, 2nd place combat and 3rd Simon Says, woo hoo! Was there games? Were prizes given?
Scott Kurland, RMT
International Sport Juggling Federation, Sam Hartford et al's stab at
getting juggling into the Olympics.
> There was a prelim and a final? Wiz had to split, Who is wiz?
Yep, gotta at least flash (cycle, in ISJF-speak) 6 balls and 6 rings and 5
clubs in the prelims to get into the finals, and only the top 6 competitors
advance to the finals. Steve Wiswell, aka Wiz, is one of the fest
coordinators, an Austin Juggling Club officer, fine juggler, unicyclist, and
all-around merry fellow.
> > Scott Kurland, 2nd place combat and 3rd Simon Says, woo hoo!
> Was there games? Were prizes given?
Yep. I missed a bunch of events because I timed/judged, but there was
5-ball endurance, 7-club passing endurance, club gathering, combat, Simon
Says... more, I think, but I'm drawing a blank right now. Prizes were
T-shirts and big shiny medals! Plus door prize raffle stuff - $100 gift
certificates and stuff.
P.S. 20. Crap. Sorry, Nathan
Scott Kurland, RMT
> available on the ISJF? Can you tell us more? What do the initials
> stand for? Based on your description, it sounds as though there was a
> flashing contest. Was there any juggling involved? Thanks in
> advance.
International Sport Juggling Federation. Hang on a sec....
Got my 2K2 competition rules right here. ISJF mission statement is to get
juggling back into the Olympics. (Yes, back; club juggling used to be an
optional event in club swinging, which was part of gymnastics. Cool, neh?)
Basically a flash competition, yeah - 9-ball flash beats an 8-ball run of
any length. Timed duration is important, NOT counting catches, if, like in
Austin, two people (for example) both flash 9.
Jargon and rules still need a little work but it was a fine competition and
a good time.
TOC lists definitions, qual rounds, rules, and code of conduct.
Greg Phillips
> International Sport Juggling Federation. Hang on a sec....
> Basically a flash competition, yeah - 9-ball flash beats an 8-ball run of
> any length. Timed duration is important, NOT counting catches, if, like in
> Austin, two people (for example) both flash 9.
Surely you mean "International Sport Flashing Federation."
Sheesh. I imagine the ISJF would be the organization started by that guy
who tried sixty-seven times and failed to demonstrate a fourteen-ring
flash?
> TOC lists definitions, qual rounds, rules, and code of conduct.
"Code of conduct"? Is this beauty available on the web anywhere? If not,
can someone post it? (The whole thing, I mean.)
Greg
Colin e.
> International Sport Juggling Federation. Hang on a sec....
>
> Got my 2K2 competition rules right here. ISJF mission statement is to get
> juggling back into the Olympics. (Yes, back; club juggling used to be an
> optional event in club swinging, which was part of gymnastics. Cool, neh?)
Juggling used to be part of the rhythmic gymnastics discipline? Any idea
how long ago this used to be? When was the last time anypone juggled as
part of this competition?
> Basically a flash competition, yeah - 9-ball flash beats an 8-ball run of
> any length. Timed duration is important, NOT counting catches, if, like in
> Austin, two people (for example) both flash 9.
This sounds like a very dull competition. Which looks better to the
lay-person ... a 2 second spasm as 9 small limp beanbags are hurled into
the air in an untidy mess, or a long run of 7 _balls_ with good form? We
all know that the general public finds it hard to discriminate between the
higher numbers.
Maybe the rules were defined by a group of people who are better at
flashing than juggling?
Regards,
Colin E.
----== posted via www.jugglingdb.com ==----
Greg Phillips
> Juggling used to be part of the rhythmic gymnastics discipline? Any idea
> how long ago this used to be? When was the last time anypone juggled as
> part of this competition?
Actually, this pre-dates rhythmic gymnastics (which didn't gain Olympic
status until 1984). There used to be a club-swinging event in which
juggling was allegedly an optional feature. According to this story
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/olympics/2000/track_and_field/news/2000/09/28/swift_racewalking/
"in 1932 rope climbing and the curiously named 'club swinging' were
discarded".
Greg
Scott Kurland, RMT
> part of this competition?
Not rhythmic, no. Late twenties, early thirties, I think.
> This sounds like a very dull competition. Which looks better to the
> lay-person ... a 2 second spasm as 9 small limp beanbags are hurled into
> the air in an untidy mess, or a long run of 7 _balls_ with good form? We
> all know that the general public finds it hard to discriminate between the
> higher numbers.
Interesting point. Last year, Sam Hartford ran 5 balls for 48 minutes and,
um, something seconds, and THAT bored the crowd. Very impressive to set a
world record and all, but after the first few minutes... The runs the crowd
thought were coolest this year were around 10 seconds, like 100-meter
sprints.
As for the untidy mess... nobody caught a 9-ball untidy mess. They caught
pretty patterns and dropped ugly patterns. And as for the general public...
before this competition I had trouble distinguishing high numbers too. Now
I don't.
>
> Maybe the rules were defined by a group of people who are better at
flashing than juggling?
You know, it came up this year that with 9 balls, 9 throws and 9 catches is
harder than 18 throws and 9 catches. With high numbers, flashes are maybe
harder than timed duration. Catching 5 balls or rings or 4 clubs in your
weak hand (assuming you start with 5/5/4 in your strong hand) is tricky.
And under a 50' ceiling, if you throw everything high and just walk away,
you still get 2.5 seconds or so before the first object hits the ground and
stops the clock. Hell, I could do that, and I can't run 5 yet.
Colin E.
> > This sounds like a very dull competition. Which looks better to the
> > lay-person ... a 2 second spasm as 9 small limp beanbags are hurled into
> > the air in an untidy mess, or a long run of 7 _balls_ with good form? We
> > all know that the general public finds it hard to discriminate between the
> > higher numbers.
> Interesting point. Last year, Sam Hartford ran 5 balls for 48 minutes and,
> um, something seconds, and THAT bored the crowd. Very impressive to set a
> world record and all, but after the first few minutes... The runs the crowd
> thought were coolest this year were around 10 seconds, like 100-meter
> sprints.
I wholeheartedly agree that the other extreme is just as boring. You need
to pitch it somewhere in-between a 2 second spasm and a 40 minute
yawn-fest!
> As for the untidy mess... nobody caught a 9-ball untidy mess. They caught
> pretty patterns and dropped ugly patterns.
Really?
Most of the 11 ball flashes I have seen have been quite untidy, relying on
luck to a certain extent. (I mean no disrespect to anyone who has managed
to flash 11).
> And as for the general public...
> before this competition I had trouble distinguishing high numbers too. Now
> I don't.
Point taken.
> > Maybe the rules were defined by a group of people who are better at
> flashing than juggling?
>
> You know, it came up this year that with 9 balls, 9 throws and 9 catches is
> harder than 18 throws and 9 catches. With high numbers, flashes are maybe
> harder than timed duration. Catching 5 balls or rings or 4 clubs in your
> weak hand (assuming you start with 5/5/4 in your strong hand) is tricky.
> And under a 50' ceiling, if you throw everything high and just walk away,
> you still get 2.5 seconds or so before the first object hits the ground and
> stops the clock. Hell, I could do that, and I can't run 5 yet.
If 5 throws and zero catches counts for anything, then there is something
seriously wrong with your rules.
We all agree that dropping is ugly - so why not design a competition that
minimises drops? Competitors could attempt a certain number of balls -
however if they fail to collect them all their attempt doesn't count. Each
competitor then has a certain number of attempts - how many they decide to
juggle is up to them.
However, soes anyone honestly think that juggling will make it to the
Olympics?
luke burrage
>> pretty patterns and dropped ugly patterns.
>
>Really?
>
>Most of the 11 ball flashes I have seen have been quite untidy, relying on
>luck to a certain extent. (I mean no disrespect to anyone who has managed
>to flash 11).
No disrespect received. The extent of luck involved in my own flashing of 11
balls is very high. I'll catch it on camera one day and you'll see how messy I
can make it.
>However, soes anyone honestly think that juggling will make it to the
>Olympics?
>
You mean as an event or just in the opening show?
Well, somebody might, but at the current progress people are making on it, I
don't. It would be amusing though, I might even enter. I wouldn't mind a walk
round a stadium.
Lukas
--
email - lu...@juggler.net
luke burrage's thing on the net - http://www.lukeburrage.co.uk
the definitive juggling FAQ - http://www.jugglingdb.com/faq/
Alan Morgan
Colin E. <webm...@jugglingdb.com.nospam> wrote:
>Scott,
>
>> > This sounds like a very dull competition. Which looks better to the
>> > lay-person ... a 2 second spasm as 9 small limp beanbags are hurled into
>> > the air in an untidy mess, or a long run of 7 _balls_ with good form? We
>> > all know that the general public finds it hard to discriminate between the
>> > higher numbers.
>> Interesting point. Last year, Sam Hartford ran 5 balls for 48 minutes and,
>> um, something seconds, and THAT bored the crowd. Very impressive to set a
>> world record and all, but after the first few minutes... The runs the crowd
>> thought were coolest this year were around 10 seconds, like 100-meter
>> sprints.
>
>I wholeheartedly agree that the other extreme is just as boring. You need
>to pitch it somewhere in-between a 2 second spasm and a 40 minute
>yawn-fest!
>
>> As for the untidy mess... nobody caught a 9-ball untidy mess. They caught
>> pretty patterns and dropped ugly patterns.
>
>Really?
>
>Most of the 11 ball flashes I have seen have been quite untidy, relying on
>luck to a certain extent. (I mean no disrespect to anyone who has managed
>to flash 11).
Bruce Sarafian has done what I would consider to be clean flashes of 11.
That doesn't mean that he doesn't rely on luck to some extent.
Alan
--
Defendit numerus
juggler
Do you have any members / activities outside north america ?
If not , do you have any plans to do so?
Just wondering.
Garth
--
The Jolly Juggler ... South Africa's only Juggling Supplier
Phone +27 11 462 1700 Fax +27 11 4622233 Mobile 0824546843
email flat...@iafrica.com
"Alan Morgan" <amo...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
news:a3sdhc$o15$1...@usenet.Stanford.EDU...
Sweavo
and,
> um, something seconds, and THAT bored the crowd. Very impressive to set a
> world record and all, but after the first few minutes... The runs the
crowd
> thought were coolest this year were around 10 seconds, like 100-meter
> sprints.
This is something most british MCs appreciate instinctively. Coupled with
the British's unnerving ability not to need to feel like they've achieved
anything, it leads to some good games sessions from the spectators' point of
view. If the five ball endurance starts going more than about 20 seconds,
we will normally have the contenders standing on one leg faster than a
desperate 6-year old boy in a truck-stop urinal after 4 hours of motorway
drinking sunny D on ice out of a cold steel bucket on his lap in wet
clothes. More than a couple of minutes and never mind the MC, the crowd
will be throwing stuff.
You can't help wondering whether they're applauding the winner for keeping
going so long, or themselves for having finally put them off!
--
"See you can tell he's a juggler. They wear T-shirts you know"
- heard at a party
Scott Kurland, RMT
> > > lay-person ... a 2 second spasm as 9 small limp beanbags are hurled
into
> > > the air in an untidy mess, or a long run of 7 _balls_ with good form?
We
> > > all know that the general public finds it hard to discriminate between
the
> > > higher numbers.
> > Interesting point. Last year, Sam Hartford ran 5 balls for 48 minutes
and,
> > um, something seconds, and THAT bored the crowd. Very impressive to set
a
> > world record and all, but after the first few minutes... The runs the
crowd
> > thought were coolest this year were around 10 seconds, like 100-meter
> > sprints.
>
> I wholeheartedly agree that the other extreme is just as boring. You need
> to pitch it somewhere in-between a 2 second spasm and a 40 minute
> yawn-fest!
>
> > As for the untidy mess... nobody caught a 9-ball untidy mess. They
caught
> > pretty patterns and dropped ugly patterns.
>
> Really?
Really.
>
> Most of the 11 ball flashes I have seen have been quite untidy, relying on
> luck to a certain extent. (I mean no disrespect to anyone who has managed
> to flash 11).
I've never seen one. I'll take your word for it. Certainly both Sam and
Scott failed to flash ten in the sports competition, and either of them can
do it given, say, an hour, instead of 3 minutes.
>
> > And as for the general public...
> > before this competition I had trouble distinguishing high numbers too.
Now
> > I don't.
>
> Point taken.
>
> > > Maybe the rules were defined by a group of people who are better at
> > flashing than juggling?
> >
> > You know, it came up this year that with 9 balls, 9 throws and 9 catches
is
> > harder than 18 throws and 9 catches. With high numbers, flashes are
maybe
> > harder than timed duration. Catching 5 balls or rings or 4 clubs in
your
> > weak hand (assuming you start with 5/5/4 in your strong hand) is tricky.
> > And under a 50' ceiling, if you throw everything high and just walk
away,
> > you still get 2.5 seconds or so before the first object hits the ground
and
> > stops the clock. Hell, I could do that, and I can't run 5 yet.
>
> If 5 throws and zero catches counts for anything, then there is something
> seriously wrong with your rules.
If you have to flash first, following by timed duration is not a problem.
If timed duration was the only event, THAT would be a problem.
>
> We all agree that dropping is ugly - so why not design a competition that
> minimizes drops? Competitors could attempt a certain number of balls -
> however if they fail to collect them all their attempt doesn't count. Each
> competitor then has a certain number of attempts - how many they decide to
> juggle is up to them.
Sounds like the flash rounds to me.
>
> However, does anyone honestly think that juggling will make it to the
> Olympics?
I think it's a long shot. Even if it doesn't make it to the Olympics,
though, I like the variety the ISJF supplies - more competitions/events are
a Good Thing.
Colin E.
> > If 5 throws and zero catches counts for anything, then there is something
> > seriously wrong with your rules.
>
> If you have to flash first, following by timed duration is not a problem.
> If timed duration was the only event, THAT would be a problem.
I see your point - however, if the rules stipulate that you have to juggle
a pattern rather than flash it (i.e. anything less than a qualifying run
is not counted) this no longer becomes a problem.
> > We all agree that dropping is ugly - so why not design a competition that
> > minimizes drops? Competitors could attempt a certain number of balls -
> > however if they fail to collect them all their attempt doesn't count. Each
> > competitor then has a certain number of attempts - how many they decide to
> > juggle is up to them.
>
> Sounds like the flash rounds to me.
Again - not if you stipulate that they must at least qualify.
I have nothing against flashing in general - it's just that I like
watching jugglers who have really good patterns. In general, you have to
have a tidier pattern to be able to qualify it. Therefore, if the
competition only counts qualifying runs and above, this should ensure that
the patterns look much better - which can only be a good thing?
> > However, does anyone honestly think that juggling will make it to the
> > Olympics?
>
> I think it's a long shot. Even if it doesn't make it to the Olympics,
> though, I like the variety the ISJF supplies - more competitions/events are
> a Good Thing.
I agree. I think that even though the Brit Jugglers seem to pride
themselves on being non-competitive, a well organised numbers juggling
competition would take off in this country. I would certainly find it
entertaining and want to watch one, and I am sure there would be many
others like myself.
Scott Kurland, RMT
> [...]
> > Basically a flash competition, yeah - 9-ball flash beats an 8-ball run
of
> > any length. Timed duration is important, NOT counting catches, if, like
in
> > Austin, two people (for example) both flash 9.
>
> Surely you mean "International Sport Flashing Federation."
Heh. In my humble opinion (yeah, right) juggling events could mirror sprint
events nicely: 7-ball endurance, 8-ball endurance... N-ball endurance...
rings... clubs. Flash makes a FINE pre-qual round, though.
The jargon is a little annoying: cycle equals flash, full cycle equals
qualifying run, complete cycle equals 3n throws and catches of n objects. I
agree flash is ambiguous and cycle is not, but 'full' and 'complete' deeply,
egregiously suck, whereas, say, 'double' and 'triple' cycle make intuitive
sense, and lend themselves to further extensions (quadruple, quintuple...).
What comes next: full, complete...?
The argument for timed duration instead of counting catches makes a little
sense, but time is analog and subjective (at least the way it's done now,
judges handling stopwatches) and catches are digital and objective, so I
prefer catch-counting. Hard to imagine hardware to make timing precise,
since a timed run ends when an object hits the floor OR when the juggler
catches the last throw (whichever comes first). The argument that the
audience can follow the action more readily with timed stuff would apply if,
say, the jugglers started simultaneously, but no one's going to note .01
second differences in serial runs: even a nerd with a stopwatch on his wrist
(cough) wouldn't necessarily start and stop simultaneously with the official
timers, whereas counting catches... ISJF deals, a little, with the
subjective issue by using three timers. Speaking as the timer who recorded
everything in the prelims, often our times differed significantly.
>
> Sheesh. I imagine the ISJF would be the organization started by that guy
> who tried sixty-seven times and failed to demonstrate a fourteen-ring
> flash?
Yep.
>
> > TOC lists definitions, qual rounds, rules, and code of conduct.
>
> "Code of conduct"? Is this beauty available on the web anywhere? If not,
> can someone post it? (The whole thing, I mean.)
I talked to Albert this afternoon and he politely refused me permission to
post the rulebook on rec.juggling, sorry. www.isjf.com should be up
sometime in June. He said anyone with questions and/or comments could email
him at ISJFDi...@aol.com, though he won't be catching up on his email
until around the second week of March.
Scott Kurland, RMT
> Scott Kurland, RMT wrote:
> > > If 5 throws and zero catches counts for anything, then there is
something
> > > seriously wrong with your rules.
> >
> > If you have to flash first, following by timed duration is not a
problem.
> > If timed duration was the only event, THAT would be a problem.
>
> I see your point - however, if the rules stipulate that you have to juggle
> a pattern rather than flash it (i.e. anything less than a qualifying run
> is not counted) this no longer becomes a problem.
True, not a problem either way.
>
> > > We all agree that dropping is ugly - so why not design a competition
that
> > > minimizes drops? Competitors could attempt a certain number of balls -
> > > however if they fail to collect them all their attempt doesn't count.
Each
> > > competitor then has a certain number of attempts - how many they
decide to
> > > juggle is up to them.
> >
> > Sounds like the flash rounds to me.
>
> Again - not if you stipulate that they must at least qualify.
Any given competitor would drop more attempted qualifying runs than flashes.
>
> I have nothing against flashing in general - it's just that I like
> watching jugglers who have really good patterns. In general, you have to
> have a tidier pattern to be able to qualify it. Therefore, if the
> competition only counts qualifying runs and above, this should ensure that
> the patterns look much better - which can only be a good thing?
It ensures no such thing - it doesn't make the jugglers magically better.
Consider Sam Hartford's case: his 6-, 7-, and 8- ball flashes were very
pretty. He kept going, of course, and his 9-ball flash was a little ragged
and his 10-ball attempts didn't go at all. If he had to qualify instead of
flash, would the raggedness have shown up earlier or later? One thing the
ISJF (and IJA) competition structure ensures is that you WILL see pretty
flashes (or qualifying runs), because everyone has to flash (or qualify) 6
before 7 before... so the guys who stall out and get ragged around 10 will
be flashing 6 at the beginning of the competition.
>
> > > However, does anyone honestly think that juggling will make it to the
> > > Olympics?
> >
> > I think it's a long shot. Even if it doesn't make it to the Olympics,
> > though, I like the variety the ISJF supplies - more competitions/events
are
> > a Good Thing.
>
> I agree. I think that even though the Brit Jugglers seem to pride
> themselves on being non-competitive, a well organized numbers juggling
> competition would take off in this country. I would certainly find it
> entertaining and want to watch one, and I am sure there would be many
> others like myself.
It was hard - timing and judging ate about half my jugglefest. It was
worthwhile and fun and I'd probably do it again, but it could use a little
streamlining. Allowing competitors to pass rounds springs to mind - there
was no reason for Sam Hartford or Scott Sorenson to juggle 6 or 7 balls or
rings, or 5 clubs. Except, of course, the aforementioned fondness for
pretty patterns. Sigh....
lukas
> I talked to Albert this afternoon and he politely refused me permission to
> post the rulebook on rec.juggling, sorry. www.isjf.com should be up
> sometime in June. He said anyone with questions and/or comments could email
> him at ISJFDi...@aol.com, though he won't be catching up on his email
> until around the second week of March.
>
Actually, I'm not supposed to tell anyone this, especially not here on
rec.juggling, but Albert Lucas asked me to host the ISJF website. You can
find the first draught here:
Lukas
Greg Phillips
> Greg Phillips wrote:
> >
> > Sheesh. I imagine the ISJF would be the organization started by that guy
> > who tried sixty-seven times and failed to demonstrate a fourteen-ring
> > flash?
>
> Yep.
Any idea whether he ever got the IJA Board to support the ISJF? I know
he was talking about a proposal at one point last year. There's mention
that the board would entertain such a proposal in the July 26, 2001
meeting minutes at http://www.juggle.org/business/minutes/ but I haven't
seen anything since.
> > > TOC lists definitions, qual rounds, rules, and code of conduct.
> >
> > "Code of conduct"? Is this beauty available on the web anywhere? If not,
> > can someone post it? (The whole thing, I mean.)
>
> I talked to Albert this afternoon and he politely refused me permission to
> post the rulebook on rec.juggling, sorry.
Way to go Albert! That's exactly how you get buy-in from the juggling
community. Keep everything a deep dark secret.
> www.isjf.com should be up
> sometime in June. He said anyone with questions and/or comments could email
> him at ISJFDi...@aol.com, though he won't be catching up on his email
> until around the second week of March.
I'll look forward to seeing that web site (cough). From the Jan/Feb 2000
issue of Juggle Magazine, in an article by Ben Schoenberg & Katje Sabin,
regarding Albert Lucas: "And in March, he plans to launch a web site."
Two years later and still counting.
Greg
Scott Kurland, RMT
> he was talking about a proposal at one point last year. There's mention
> that the board would entertain such a proposal in the July 26, 2001
> meeting minutes at http://www.juggle.org/business/minutes/ but I haven't
> seen anything since.
>
board is not high.
Actually, this is usenet, what the hell: I hope he stays as far away from
that bunch of lying incompetents as possible. They'd fuck up a square knot
then blame the string.
> > > > TOC lists definitions, qual rounds, rules, and code of conduct.
> > >
> > > "Code of conduct"? Is this beauty available on the web anywhere? If
not,
> > > can someone post it? (The whole thing, I mean.)
> >
> > I talked to Albert this afternoon and he politely refused me permission
to
> > post the rulebook on rec.juggling, sorry.
>
> Way to go Albert! That's exactly how you get buy-in from the juggling
> community. Keep everything a deep dark secret.
Irked me too. I inferred from our conversation that he more or less takes
the juggling community for granted, and is busy courting the Olympic
community, which, if you think about it, is probably the correct strategy
for the stated goal of getting juggling into the Olympics. Certainly if I
had that kind of talent I'd put up with almost any level of shit for a
chance to compete in the Olympics, and even in the Real World I'd love to
see juggling in the Olympics.
I still think the structure could use some thinking through, like treating
balls as one event instead of seven, and using timers instead of counting
catches. If nothing else, my way jugglers get 20 medals or so instead of 4.
>
> > www.isjf.com should be up
> > sometime in June. He said anyone with questions and/or comments could
email
> > him at ISJFDi...@aol.com, though he won't be catching up on his email
> > until around the second week of March.
>
> I'll look forward to seeing that web site (cough). From the Jan/Feb 2000
> issue of Juggle Magazine, in an article by Ben Schoenberg & Katje Sabin,
> regarding Albert Lucas: "And in March, he plans to launch a web site."
> Two years later and still counting.
Crap.
Todd Strong
>Any idea whether he ever got the IJA Board to support the ISJF? I know
>he was talking about a proposal at one point last year. There's mention
>that the board would entertain such a proposal in the July 26, 2001
>meeting minutes at http://www.juggle.org/business/minutes/ but I haven't
>seen anything since.
Greg
Todd Strong
http://members.nbci.com/dicestacker
Has information on dice stacking, devil sticks, diabolos, ball juggling
patterns, and some other stuff.
Martin Frost me at stanford edu
> Scott Kurland wrote:
> > Greg Phillips wrote:
> > >
> > > Sheesh. I imagine the ISJF would be the organization started by that guy
> > > who tried sixty-seven times and failed to demonstrate a fourteen-ring
> > > flash?
> >
> > Yep.
>
> Any idea whether he ever got the IJA Board to support the ISJF? I know
> he was talking about a proposal at one point last year. There's mention
> that the board would entertain such a proposal in the July 26, 2001
> meeting minutes at http://www.juggle.org/business/minutes/ but I haven't
> seen anything since.
Nothing has been presented to the IJA board since then, although I
thought something would be presented long before this.
Martin
Greg Phillips
> I hope not. I'd prefer not to offend anyone, but my opinion of the IJA
> board is not high.
>
> Actually, this is usenet, what the hell: I hope he stays as far away from
> that bunch of lying incompetents as possible. They'd fuck up a square knot
> then blame the string.
?!? Are we talking about the same people? Well, let's just say that I've
spoken with most of the current board, face to face, on one occasion or
another, and that's just about exactly the opposite of my impression.
Their recent work trying to turn the IJA around doesn't particularly
smack of a bunch of lying incompetents either.
However, I was talking about Albert's apparent desire, as of some point
last summer, to have the ISJF sanctioned by or affiliated with the IJA.
Apparently he either never got around to submitting a formal proposal or
has since changed his mind. Whatever.
> Irked me too. I inferred from our conversation that he more or less takes
> the juggling community for granted
You can say that two times.
> and is busy courting the Olympic
> community, which, if you think about it, is probably the correct strategy
> for the stated goal of getting juggling into the Olympics.
Actually, the "correct strategy" would almost certainly involve getting
lots of people from the juggling community interested in the "sports
juggling movement" and busy running local events. Because without that,
you have nothing --- for a sport to be *considered* for a slot in the
summer games it must be "widely practised" in seventy-five countries on
four continents.
Which juggling-as-a-serious-sport certainly ain't.
FWIW, I tried organising a numbers competition using the IJA rules at
last fall's Kingston Juggle Fest. We had exactly one competitor sign up,
so we scrapped the competition, declared Eric Soulard numbers king, and
went back to enjoying ourselves. By and large the juggling community
(the one Lucas seems to assume is behind him) just isn't interested.
Greg
Scott Kurland, RMT
> > board is not high.
> >
> > Actually, this is usenet, what the hell: I hope he stays as far away
from
> > that bunch of lying incompetents as possible. They'd fuck up a square
knot
> > then blame the string.
>
> ?!? Are we talking about the same people? Well, let's just say that I've
> spoken with most of the current board, face to face, on one occasion or
> another, and that's just about exactly the opposite of my impression.
> Their recent work trying to turn the IJA around doesn't particularly
> smack of a bunch of lying incompetents either.
Nope, not necessarily. When I was interested in joining the IJA, years ago,
they were in the midst of canceling life memberships without returning fees.
Struck me as dishonest, incompetent, cowardly... not the sort of people I
wanted to send money. For all I know, the current board is honest, though
their website maintenance and non-presence at major juggling fests and lack
of real international presence argue against competence strongly.
>
> However, I was talking about Albert's apparent desire, as of some point
> last summer, to have the ISJF sanctioned by or affiliated with the IJA.
> Apparently he either never got around to submitting a formal proposal or
> has since changed his mind. Whatever.
Dunno.
>
> > Irked me too. I inferred from our conversation that he more or less
takes
> > the juggling community for granted
>
> You can say that two times.
>
> > and is busy courting the Olympic
> > community, which, if you think about it, is probably the correct
strategy
> > for the stated goal of getting juggling into the Olympics.
>
> Actually, the "correct strategy" would almost certainly involve getting
> lots of people from the juggling community interested in the "sports
> juggling movement" and busy running local events. Because without that,
> you have nothing --- for a sport to be *considered* for a slot in the
> summer games it must be "widely practiced" in seventy-five countries on
> four continents.
>
> Which juggling-as-a-serious-sport certainly ain't.
Juggling certainly is, dunno how 'serious' it has to be.
>
> FWIW, I tried organizing a numbers competition using the IJA rules at
> last fall's Kingston Juggle Fest. We had exactly one competitor sign up,
> so we scrapped the competition, declared Eric Soulard numbers king, and
> went back to enjoying ourselves. By and large the juggling community
> (the one Lucas seems to assume is behind him) just isn't interested.
We had plenty of competitions at Austin Jugglefest, not just the ISJF stuff.
Peter Blanchard
> > > I hope not. I'd prefer not to offend anyone, but my opinion of the IJA
> > > board is not high.
> > >
> > > Actually, this is usenet, what the hell: I hope he stays as far away
> from
> knot
> > > then blame the string.
> >
> > ?!? Are we talking about the same people? Well, let's just say that I've
> > spoken with most of the current board, face to face, on one occasion or
> > another, and that's just about exactly the opposite of my impression.
> > Their recent work trying to turn the IJA around doesn't particularly
> > smack of a bunch of lying incompetents either.
>
> Nope, not necessarily. When I was interested in joining the IJA, years ago,
> they were in the midst of canceling life memberships without returning fees.
> Struck me as dishonest, incompetent, cowardly... not the sort of people I
> wanted to send money. For all I know, the current board is honest, though
> their website maintenance and non-presence at major juggling fests and lack
> of real international presence argue against competence strongly.
So Scott,
Let's see, you're saying the current board are lying incompetents
because years ago another board struggled trying to fix the problems
created by a different board? Now you say the current board may be
honest, but you don't like the website, and they don't show up at
major festivals?
Do you mean they didn't show up at your festival? I saw a board
member at the last major festival (Madfest) I attended, and I may be
mistaken, but I think I saw a board member at the one before that
(Davenport). I know a board member will be at the next fest I attend
(Mondo). One board member (in addition to working hard for the IJA)
very recently organized a major festival (Damento) and I'm pretty sure
there were multiple board members in attendence. Almost certainly
that same weekend, another board member was attending another major
festival (Atlanta).
The volunteerism of the current board is staggering.
Collectively they've produced very many fine articles in Juggle and
Juggler's World, organized numerous festivals, organized and run many
succesful juggling competitions, over seen IJA elections, presented
workshops... it goes on and on, and that's all *outside* their duties
with the IJA board.
As for the website, I think it's improved dramatically in the
recent past, and given the amount of work involved (especially
considering the level of compensation) in being a board member, I
think the website is much better than one might expect. It's just
about everthing I want from the IJA website.
Liers? No. Incompetent? No. Absent from major festivals? No. The
best board we've had in a long time? Yes!
Peter Blanchard
Jay Linn
<snip>
>I agree. I think that even though the Brit Jugglers seem to pride
>themselves on being non-competitive ...
A good enough point, though from my (not-at-all-objective) side
of the pond it seems more like terminal indiffererence to
competitiveness, rather than pride. British diffidence?
Does anybody remember the fuss that was kicked up last Olympics
when a couple of the snowboarders tested positive for cannabinoids?
Gasp! Surely not. I think they were let off after they claimed that
there was unavoidable passive use of spliff in their sport.
Which all goes to prove that people do seem inclined to talk a
lot of jargon-laden mumbo-jumbo bollocks when they get serious about
what is fairly widely regarded as a recreation first, and a sport
second.
Can you imagine the number of positive tests if many of the
Brits got involved? Now *that* would be numbers :-)
--
Jay Linn.
Supinely offering himself up for a slapped head in return for the
"bollocks" remark.
Scott Kurland, RMT
ago,
> > they were in the midst of canceling life memberships without returning
fees.
> > Struck me as dishonest, incompetent, cowardly... not the sort of people
I
> > wanted to send money. For all I know, the current board is honest,
though
> > their website maintenance and non-presence at major juggling fests and
lack
> > of real international presence argue against competence strongly.
>
> member at the last major festival (Madfest) I attended, and I may be
> mistaken, but I think I saw a board member at the one before that
> (Davenport). I know a board member will be at the next fest I attend
> (Mondo). One board member (in addition to working hard for the IJA)
> very recently organized a major festival (Damento) and I'm pretty sure
> that same weekend, another board member was attending another major
> festival (Atlanta).
Yep.
>
> The volunteerism of the current board is staggering.
> Collectively they've produced very many fine articles in Juggle and
> Juggler's World, organized numerous festivals, organized and run many
> successful juggling competitions, over seen IJA elections, presented
> workshops... it goes on and on, and that's all *outside* their duties
> with the IJA board.
Jeez, I wonder what their board duties entail, if all of the above,
including *overseeing IJA elections*, is outside them.
>
> As for the website, I think it's improved dramatically in the
> recent past, and given the amount of work involved (especially
> considering the level of compensation) in being a board member, I
> think the website is much better than one might expect. It's just
> about everything I want from the IJA website.
Meetings minutes, canceled fests... ooh, they're offering life memberships
again! How, um, exciting.
> Liars? No. Incompetent? No. Absent from major festivals? No. The
> best board we've had in a long time? Yes!
>
> Peter Blanchard
Who's 'we'? Absent from some major festivals? Yes.
That said, mea culpa: my complaint re: website maintenance was directed at
www.juggling.org, not www.juggle.org. Sorry.
Sweavo
> lot of jargon-laden mumbo-jumbo bollocks when they get serious about
> what is fairly widely regarded as a recreation first, and a sport
> second.
>
> Can you imagine the number of positive tests if many of the
> Brits got involved? Now *that* would be numbers :-)
>
I didn't realise Theaky's was outlawed at the olympics?
Peter Blanchard
[snip]
> I hope not. I'd prefer not to offend anyone, but my opinion of the IJA
> board is not high.
>
> Actually, this is usenet, what the hell: I hope he stays as far away from
> that bunch of lying incompetents as possible. They'd fuck up a square knot
> then blame the string.
"Scott Kurland, RMT" <skur...@juggler.net> wrote in message news:<u5uj15m...@corp.supernews.com>...
[snip]
>
> International Sport Juggling Federation. Hang on a sec....
>
> Got my 2K2 competition rules right here. ISJF mission statement is to get
> juggling back into the Olympics. (Yes, back; club juggling used to be an
> optional event in club swinging, which was part of gymnastics. Cool, neh?)
>
[snip]
>
> TOC lists definitions, qual rounds, rules, and code of conduct.
[snip]
"Scott Kurland, RMT" <skur...@juggler.net> wrote in message news:<u5rmeol...@corp.supernews.com>...
[snip]
> I timed the ISJF prelims and wound up judging the finals - Wiz had to split
> early - and it was a good time, very entertaining, though the crowd seemed
> to appreciate the 20-second 6-balls runs a lot more than the 5-second 9-ball
> run....
[snip]
Is there anything in that 'code of conduct' about advocacy by
officials, public comment or conduct of officials representing the
sport? While I won't take the time to research the details, I'm
pretty sure most sports organizations tell their officials *not* to
act as spokespersons for the sport or make public comment in any way.
When was the last time you heard an official of any sport shooting
their mouth off? At the very least one would expect a statement along
the lines of "speaking only for myself and not for the I(insert a
sport here)F."
Speaking only for myself and not for the IJA, ISJF, IOC, NFL, PGA,
FIDE, FIG, FIFA, etc.
Peter Blanchard
Peter Blanchard
[snip]
> > The volunteerism of the current board is staggering.
> > Collectively they've produced very many fine articles in Juggle and
> > Juggler's World, organized numerous festivals, organized and run many
> > successful juggling competitions, over seen IJA elections, presented
> > workshops... it goes on and on, and that's all *outside* their duties
> > with the IJA board.
>
> Jeez, I wonder what their board duties entail, if all of the above,
> including *overseeing IJA elections*, is outside them.
Sorry, I didn't mean to say anything about what their duties are. All
the instances I was thinking of when I wrote the above refer to
current board members working for the juggling community at large
outside their roles as IJA
board members. In particular, at least one board member volunteered
time (hours) witnessing the vote count at a time when he was not a
board member.
[snip]
Peter Blanchard
Scott Kurland, RMT
> [snip]
>
>
> "Scott Kurland, RMT" <skur...@juggler.net> wrote in message
news:<u5rmeol...@corp.supernews.com>...
> [snip]
> > I timed the ISJF prelims and wound up judging the finals - Wiz had to
split
> > early - and it was a good time, very entertaining, though the crowd
seemed
> > to appreciate the 20-second 6-balls runs a lot more than the 5-second
9-ball
> > run....
> [snip]
>
> Is there anything in that 'code of conduct' about advocacy by
> officials, public comment or conduct of officials representing the
> sport? While I won't take the time to research the details, I'm
> pretty sure most sports organizations tell their officials *not* to
> act as spokespersons for the sport or make public comment in any way.
> When was the last time you heard an official of any sport shooting
> their mouth off? At the very least one would expect a statement along
> the lines of "speaking only for myself and not for the I(insert a
> sport here)F."
Nope, code of conduct describes behavior of competing athletes only, at
least in my little handbook.
If you were wondering whether I was speaking for the ISJF....
Martin Frost me at stanford edu
> > Liars? No. Incompetent? No. Absent from major festivals? No. The
> > best board we've had in a long time? Yes!
> >
> > Peter Blanchard
>
> Who's 'we'?
I guess he probably means "we the members of the IJA" or perhaps "we
jugglers". By the way, thanks, Peter.
> Absent from some major festivals? Yes.
I guess IJA board director (and IJA founder) Art Jennings is a bit out
of practice at juggling. Did he miss the Austin fest? The other
current board members are frequently spotted at regional fests,
including fests on that same recent weekend (three of us were at
Damento and one at least at the Ground Hog fest). Oddly enough, we've
all been seen juggling from time to time....
> That said, mea culpa: my complaint re: website maintenance was directed at
> www.juggling.org, not www.juggle.org. Sorry.
Aha. That explains a lot. That was quite a mistake to make, mixing
up the IJA (www.juggle.org) and the completely separate JIS
(www.juggling.org). Thanks for the apology -- I was feeling fairly
insulted by you previously, though I was trying to take it as just one
person's opinion (I was hoping you were just confused, and turns out
you were). Hey, I don't claim to be the world's greatest web person,
but I try to keep the IJA web site up to date and a bit interesting.
Martin
IJA webmaster and board member (only in case you didn't know)
Ray Stern
Colin E. <webm...@jugglingdb.com.nospam> wrote in message
news:a407he$15j8$1...@purple.gradwell.net...
------massive snip-------------
> I agree. I think that even though the Brit Jugglers seem to pride
> themselves on being non-competitive, a well organised numbers juggling
> competition would take off in this country. I would certainly find it
> entertaining and want to watch one, and I am sure there would be many
> others like myself.
>
> Regards,
> Colin E.
Why, Brit Jugglers invented juggling competitions! The first competition
for which I can find a record had King George III as the judge.
----begin quote-----
Our story begins in 1690 with Irish-born Michael Hanneford who toured the
dusty roads of rural England with Wombwell's Menagerie, the first show of
its kind in the British Isles. Each day the athletic Michael put on a
display of horsemanship that included dancing and leaping upon the bare back
of a galloping horse. Word spread about the multi-talented performer so that
he was invited to attend a contest before King George III to determine who
was the greatest juggler in England. He not only juggled off with the Grand
Prize ....
----end quote-----
from http://www.royalhannefordcircus.com/history.htm
King G3 evidently appreciated juggling, but then he always was considered a
few jewels short of having a full crown.
Ray
Sweavo
was born in london but was essentially a kraut so that explains the anomaly
:-)
Thanks for an interesting post!
--
"See you can tell he's a juggler. They wear T-shirts you know"
- heard at a party
> Why, Brit Jugglers invented juggling competitions! The first competition