On the origin of juggling patterns and tricks

[Varkor]

As of late, I have become increasingly curious as to the origin and history of the vast array of patterns and tricks that are practised in juggling. The more time goes by, the harder it becomes to trace back moves to their original inventor and practitioners, so it would seem the best way to preserve these histories as much as possible is to record them as soon as possible. Some might view this as a pointless activity, but I think it's an interesting and important task.

However, it's very difficult to come by information such as this, and I need help - either with ideas on where to look for such information, or knowledge that you yourselves have on the subject. The best method for tracking down these snippet of history is undoubtedly from jugglers who have been around, and in the community, for longer than I, so I would be very grateful if anyone could point me in the right direction for any pattern, trick or something else along those lines.

[Daniel Siegmund]

I think mills mess was created by Steve Mess and alberts by Lucas Trebla.

Which tricks are you interested in? Get the encyclopeadia of ball juggling, I
don't have one here so I cant check how many referrences are in there but at
least you will have a list of 'common' unique tricks to search for.
I am interested to hear about the origin of the factory trick/

In Luke Wilsons memorial post by Luke Burrage Luke talks about the origin of
the ring on the ear flip to the other side trick.

FYI: If you ever encounter a Japanese Devilstick player who will show you
'daniel trick one' and 'daniel trick two' please know that I invented those in
2008.

--
----== posted via www.jugglehub.com ==----

[Norbi]

Daniel Siegmund wrote:
>alberts by Lucas Trebla.

I can't work out if this is a joke or not.

Anyway, the question is an interesting and very difficult one.
In your research you will probably find the person who POPULARIZED the trick,
but I doubt you will ever find THE person who invented it (whatever "invented"
means).
Things are often found simultaneously by different people around the world,
for example the various theories which make up siteswap.

Another thing which happens is someone FINDS a trick which has previously been
done, but there is no proof, and the new "creator" gets the credit.

Then these days, there is more and more pressure on finding new tricks and
being original, that there are just too many tricks to name them all/find all
the inventors...and at the end of the day who cares? Probably the inventor,
who feels some kind of copyright and can be unhappy when they see someone else
getting credit for something they found.
But whether they just "found" it, or went through a long process to "create"
it, there is a good chance that someone else did the same thing, even
completely independently.
We live in the YouTube era, everyone sees the same videos, everyone is
inspired by the same things, it's more than likely that 2 or more people are
going to follow the same path and come to the same result at the same time.

Sorry I'm going off on one now. Those are some of my thoughts on the
subject...
Basically, good luck.

Norbi

[TK]

On 12/7/2012 11:31 PM, Norbi wrote:
> Daniel Siegmund wrote:
>> alberts by Lucas Trebla.
>
> I can't work out if this is a joke or not.
>
> Anyway, the question is an interesting and very difficult one.
> In your research you will probably find the person who POPULARIZED the trick,
> but I doubt you will ever find THE person who invented it (whatever "invented"
> means).

As usual, well said Norbi.


--
TK ~ aka Terry Kimpling
http://wejuggle2.com/
There is no place for truth on the internet.

[Varkor]

Yes, that's very much what I expect to find too - in most situations there'll be people competing for recognition. However, I'm just as interested in the entire history as I am in the actual inception - so if multiple people think they invented a trick first, I'll just reference them both. The people who popularise the tricks are just as important as the people who actually invent them, so I'm happy to record those sorts of results too. I'm really looking for three things: creation, popularisation and adaptation (or changes over time).
You're right - it's not critically important to know, but it's interesting to know, or at least have some idea, at least in my opinion.
Thanks for your thoughts.

[Varkor]

The EBJ doesn't contain much history/reference to the creators of tricks or patterns - it's more about how one goes about learning them. I have a huge list of moves that I'd like to get more information on, getting more isn't a problem.

Ah, yes, I do remember that. Thanks for reminding me about the ear ring trick.

As to your own inventions: 1) if they're devilstick moves, I'm not really interested - I'm limiting my investigation to purely juggling, and 2) I'm only doing moves that are at least fairly popular or common - otherwise the list would be endless.

Thanks for your comments though.

[Warren]

Best post on rec.juggling in forever! Steve Mess and Lucas Trebla!! :-)

Happy Juggling!

cheers - the other Warren :-)

[Daniel Siegmund]

> >
> > ----== posted via www.jugglehub.com ==----
>
> Best post on rec.juggling in forever! Steve Mess and Lucas Trebla!! :-)
>
> Happy Juggling!
>
> cheers - the other Warren :-)
>

Thank you :). Speaking of treblas, somebody told me that they were impossible
with balls, so I made a video of this trick.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2XyrP-fsDk

[pumpkineater23]

Varkor wrote:
> As of late, I have become increasingly curious as to the origin and history=
> of the vast array of patterns and tricks that are practised in juggling. T=
> he more time goes by, the harder it becomes to trace back moves to their or=
> iginal inventor and practitioners, so it would seem the best way to preserv=
> e these histories as much as possible is to record them as soon as possible=
> . Some might view this as a pointless activity, but I think it's an interes=
> ting and important task.
>
> However, it's very difficult to come by information such as this, and I nee=
> d help - either with ideas on where to look for such information, or knowle=
> dge that you yourselves have on the subject. The best method for tracking d=
> own these snippet of history is undoubtedly from jugglers who have been aro=
> und, and in the community, for longer than I, so I would be very grateful i=
> f anyone could point me in the right direction for any pattern, trick or so=
> mething else along those lines.
>

I've often wondered that too, ground breaking creation is such an interesting
side of juggling. When I started juggling there didn't seem to be a fraction
of the amount of 3b tricks and patterns that there are now. Many common box
variations are fairly recent I think, looking back at my late 80s early 90's
IJA VHS videos, the bits that make up the routines seem so old, especially
over the last few years. I would be really interested to know the origins of
the (incredibly adaptable) reverse slam. It seems such an obvious next step
from the regular slam but I don't recall seeing it in any of those old videos
or perhaps I have that wrong. Also the shower behind neck - again it seems
obvious and I imagine it's quite old (rolling three large balls behind the
neck has been around for a while I believe) but I hadn't seen it thrown before
until quite a recent Yuri video. I suppose that nowadays with online video
it's fairly easy to pin down the roots and the various directions of new
stuff.

[paulk...@att.net]

Hi Varkor

I invented a number notation system called quantum juggling in 1981 that allowed me to create hundreds, if not thousands of patterns.

[DavidCain]

I came up with (6x,4)in the late 80s before I ever saw anyone do it. Jon Stadler had come up with a four ball trick that was a three ball cascade with an extra ball going straight up and down on one side. I decided to figure out how to do it with an extra ball on both sides and came up with (6x,4). This was long before I knew what siteswaps were. It was pretty sloppy, but I was able to do it. The first person I ever saw do it after that was Joey Cousin.
David Cain

[DavidCain]

On Sunday, December 9, 2012 2:21:36 PM UTC-5, DavidCain wrote:
> I came up with (6x,4)in the late 80s before I ever saw anyone do it. Jon Stadler had come up with a four ball trick that was a three ball cascade with an extra ball going straight up and down on one side. I decided to figure out how to do it with an extra ball on both sides and came up with (6x,4). This was long before I knew what siteswaps were. It was pretty sloppy, but I was able to do it. The first person I ever saw do it after that was Joey Cousin.
>
> David Cain

I've read elsewhere that Mike Day invented it. Don't know what year he did it.

[Varkor]

It's always worthwhile to challenge what people say is impossible. I've seen body throws with balls before, but not reverse ones.

[Varkor]

On Sunday, 9 December 2012 16:00:51 UTC, paulk...@att.net wrote:
> Hi Varkor
>
>
>
> I invented a number notation system called quantum juggling in 1981 that allowed me to create hundreds, if not thousands of patterns.

Ah yes, I'm not sure quite how to tackle juggling notations such as quantum juggling/siteswap yet. It's clearly possible to invent an unlimited number of juggling patterns, but that quality will make it impossible to verify and track all the new patterns being invented. I think the best method would be to try to find the people who came up with some of the most popular patterns (although I imagine that'll be quite hard too).

[Jay Linn]

... but you could start collecting data *about* the invention of
notations.

Paul Klimek, Jack Kalvan, Colin E. Wright, and others whose names I have
forgotten have all had their part to play.

--
Jay Linn

C'mon Engerland lager football oi rah!

[Varkor]

On Sunday, 9 December 2012 19:21:36 UTC, DavidCain wrote:
> I came up with (6x,4)in the late 80s before I ever saw anyone do it. Jon Stadler had come up with a four ball trick that was a three ball cascade with an extra ball going straight up and down on one side. I decided to figure out how to do it with an extra ball on both sides and came up with (6x,4). This was long before I knew what siteswaps were. It was pretty sloppy, but I was able to do it. The first person I ever saw do it after that was Joey Cousin.
>
> David Cain

That's very interesting - I had always assumed that such a trick that seems (at least to me) quite conceptually unique would only have been invented after the creation of siteswap. That certainly gives me a different take on things. Thank you for that - I'll be sure to mention it.

It would be interesting to see what Mike Day says about it - it's entirely possible that the pattern could have been come up with at different unconnected points, although with such an original pattern as (6x,4)* it seems slightly unlikely. I think it would seem more likely that someone had seen him doing it, and had not seen it anywhere else, causing them to believe he invented it. Pure speculation at this point though, of course.

[Varkor]

Yes, I certainly will. It seems to be more well-documented than specific tricks or patterns though, so I don't think I'll have as much trouble with it - which is why I created a topic for that purpose and not juggling notations. Thanks for pointing it out.

[Daniel Siegmund]

>
> ... but you could start collecting data *about* the invention of
> notations.
>

So were siteswaps invented, or discovered??
Tam tam tam.....

[DavidCain]

On Sunday, December 9, 2012 4:31:22 PM UTC-5, Varkor wrote:

> It would be interesting to see what Mike Day says about it - it's entirely possible that the pattern could have been come up with at different unconnected points, although with such an original pattern as (6x,4)* it seems slightly unlikely. I think it would seem more likely that someone had seen him doing it, and had not seen it anywhere else, causing them to believe he invented it. Pure speculation at this point though, of course.
<

I just spoke to Mike about it. Here's what he said. "I stumbled upon it by accident as a result of trying to do 726. Instead of managing 726, I found I couldn't prevent the timing adjusting itself towards being a synchronous pattern, which later turned out to be (6x,4) - but it didn't have a name at that time. I recall trying 726 at EJC10; then I remember showing (6x,4) to some juggling friends at BJC4. So the answer must be sometime between 1987 and 1991."

David Cain

[Varkor]

Between 1981 and 1985.

[Varkor]

That's very interesting too - thank you for asking him! It's interesting to see how a pattern could be independently discovered from different roots. The timing is very similar to the sort of period you came up with it too - it seems so unlikely that something like that would be invented independently at very similar times, but it does seem to be somewhat of a recurring theme with juggling...
Thank you very much!

[Little Paul]

On 2012-12-08, Norbi <nor...@gmail.com.nospam.com> wrote:
> Daniel Siegmund wrote:
>>alberts by Lucas Trebla.
>
> I can't work out if this is a joke or not.

Joke or not, it's the funniest thing I've read on here in ages.

> Anyway, the question is an interesting and very difficult one.
> In your research you will probably find the person who POPULARIZED the trick,
> but I doubt you will ever find THE person who invented it (whatever "invented"
> means).

I think the problem with a lot of "named" tricks is that either people don't
know who invented it, that person isn't around to ask, or if they are around
wouldn't be able to put a date on it anyway as it was over 20 years ago and
they can't remember what they did yesterday.

Never mind that (apart from comparatively few examples) any juggling trick
with a name has probably had several names. Working out who called it what
and in what order is going to be a monumental task - and even then you will
probably only get to "who named it X" with no way of working out who came
first.

For years I thought "slapbacks" with clubs were invented by Jay Gilligan and
Luke Wilson (independantly of eachother) Yet a few years ago this video
turned up:

http://juggling.tv/1857

That contains slapbacks with clubs, and predates the term "slapbacks" by
about 20-30 years. I very much doubt the Alegria brothers invented the trick
either.

> Things are often found simultaneously by different people around the world,
> for example the various theories which make up siteswap.

What I find interesting, is that some times a trick is discovered by several
people around the world - at pretty much the same time.

> Another thing which happens is someone FINDS a trick which has previously been
> done, but there is no proof, and the new "creator" gets the credit.

I think it's more "rediscovery" than "learn it from some obscure person and
then popularise it"

A lot of tricks are a natural extension of a previous trick, so if several
people learn that base trick and then "explore" around it, you'll rediscover
things which have already been done.

In days gone by, when communication between jugglers was sparse - this led
to several people "inventing" tricks, giving them a name and sharing them
amongst their local jugglers.

The lack of mixing beyond the local scene is what led to tricks having multiple
names - it was only when someone teaches a trick at a national/international
festival, or published it in a book/video that names spread beyond the local
loop.

This effect has been diminished in some ways by the internet (as it's a lot
easier to spread the name of a trick than it was 30 years ago)

> Then these days, there is more and more pressure on finding new tricks and
> being original, that there are just too many tricks to name them all/find all
> the inventors...and at the end of the day who cares? Probably the inventor,
> who feels some kind of copyright and can be unhappy when they see someone else
> getting credit for something they found.

Someone once used the word "uncovered" and I quite like it. All the tricks
and all the patterns are already there. All you have to do is uncover them.

Some times the tricks get covered up again by time/national boundaries and
fall into obscurity, but sooner or later someone will turn up to uncover
them again.

> But whether they just "found" it, or went through a long process to "create"
> it, there is a good chance that someone else did the same thing, even
> completely independently.

Yup!

One thing I found back when Mike and I were building trickswithhats.org was
that for a lot of the hat tricks - they had been around for a *long* time
but no one had ever named them.

The tricks were passed on in person at festivals/workshops but were always
refered to as "that one where you do that thing with the wotsit at the end"

We're responsible for naming a lot of the tricks on that site. We can't
claim to have invented many of them (I'm pretty sure "meet the feet" was
original and 100% invented by The Void, but prior art may very well exist!)

We were just the first to document them with those names.

Now, if that applies to hats - it almost certainly applies to *all* juggling.

> We live in the YouTube era, everyone sees the same videos, everyone is
> inspired by the same things, it's more than likely that 2 or more people are
> going to follow the same path and come to the same result at the same time.

This.

However, if someone is on a quest to discover "new" tricks I would very much
like to emphasise the "journey" rather than the "destination".

To me, it doesn't matter so much if the trick you end up at is unique and
you truly are the first person to do it - what matters is that you discovered
it on your own.

-Paul
--
http://paulseward.com

[Daniel Siegmund]

> >
> >
> > So were siteswaps invented, or discovered??
> >
> > Tam tam tam.....
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > ----== posted via www.jugglehub.com ==----
>
> Between 1981 and 1985.
>

I know, but invented or discovered? :p

[Varkor]

Oh, sorry. For some reason my mind inserted a "when" in your question. Easy mistake to make... :P

I don't believe you can discover something that does not exist yet. It's like asking whether mathematics was invented or discovered. It's a purely human concept, so it was invented, but the things it describes are much more theoretical than literal, so it's hard to describe in such terms. I think "invented" is still the best word for it.

[Varkor]

Yes, from what I've seen so far that certainly seems to be the case. I'm not sure I'd expect anything else - although juggling has been practised for many years now, it's not as well documented as it could be. I think the best idea is to try to collate as much information on each trick as possible, no matter whether its "true origin" is discovered or not - it's practicably impossible to definitively prove that a trick or pattern was never practised before a certain time. What we can do, however, it set upper bounds on the dates, which should give a rough indication of the time periods (hopefully). When new information is uncovered, those bounds can be updated. My aim would be to have all the (useful and interesting) knowledge that's available about these moves at this point in time. That way, no more will be lost to the passage of time. Although much information is undoubtedly already lost, I think that there's a good deal out there ready to be recorded.

[Little Paul]

On 2012-12-10, Varkor <theva...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I don't believe you can discover something that does not exist yet. It's
> like asking whether mathematics was invented or discovered. It's a purely
> human concept, so it was invented, but the things it describes are much
> more theoretical than literal, so it's hard to describe in such terms.
> I think "invented" is still the best word for it.

Oh this is a good one! I can go round in circles with this for *ages* :)

My current thinking is that siteswap as a notation/technique was "invented",
but that any patterns it describes (or rather, patterns it was used to
derive) are "discovered"

Mind you, I would say the chisel was invented, so was the dovetail joint,
but I don't think that bookcases were so much invented as evolved. Bookcases
certainly weren't "discovered" - which rather contradicts my first paragraph!

-Paul
--
http://paulseward.com

[Tobias]

On 10.12.2012 17:48, Little Paul wrote:
> I can go round in circles with this for *ages* :)

Allow me to assist.

> My current thinking is that siteswap as a notation/technique was "invented",
> but that any patterns it describes (or rather, patterns it was used to
> derive) are "discovered"

You cannot invent truth, only discover it. Like a mathematical theorem,
siteswap was out there to be discovered -- it does resemble a
mathematical topic in many ways, including sudden and simultaneous
grwoth contributed to by several minds. Many thus describable patterns
were already being done, smart people discovered there was a nice
unified description for a whole bunch of them.

> Mind you, I would say the chisel was invented, so was the dovetail joint,
> but I don't think that bookcases were so much invented as evolved. Bookcases
> certainly weren't "discovered" - which rather contradicts my first paragraph!

The chisel has evolved with many intermediate steps from "a sharp hard
rock I happened to find" to "a mass-produced tool from composite materials".
I think the two ends* of that story may be further apart than things
which have been labelled "bookcase".


--
Tobias

*...one of which is still in motion. The other one isn't, but our
conception of that may be as facts are /discovered/.

[paulk...@att.net]

Quantum Juggling was invented in 1981 and everyone still uses it. Siteswaps was invented around 1984 or 1985, and by 1986 it was defunct.

Paul

[Varkor]

On Friday, 14 December 2012 15:33:56 UTC, paulk...@att.net wrote:
> Quantum Juggling was invented in 1981 and everyone still uses it. Siteswaps was invented around 1984 or 1985, and by 1986 it was defunct.
>
>
>
> Paul

That's an interesting statement, considering almost everyone uses the term siteswap over quatum juggling now. What's the difference, and why do you think quantum juggling prevailed?

[paulk...@att.net]

Quantum juggling uses numbers, and siteswaps does not. I have not herd one single person use siteswaps in twenty seven years. I also invented Quantum juggling many years before siteswaps.

Paul

[brucet...@gmail.com]

Siteswaps uses the concept that every distinct permutation implies a distinct juggling trick at each different possible number of objects. This concept was and remains valid irrespective of any notation. Anyone who grasps the concept instantly grasps the infinity of tricks suddenly implied by the connection between permutations and tricks, and knowing how many permutations of even a few objects grows factorially with the number of sites one swaps amongst (trick length) and what the maximum delay allowed is (e.g. throw height over the basic pattern).

I can't say for sure whether jugglers today think more in terms of atoms being in different quantum states, which anyway is a slightly incorrect analogy, or in terms of permuting the objects into different locations in space-time than they would have otherwise occupied, or in landing order, a special but useful case of the latter, but I wouldn't be surprised if more than a few use the latter, notwithstanding your assertion to the contrary. I also wouldn't be surprised if some jugglers did the tricks without thinking of either interpretation at all.

The modern use of "ground-state" and "excited-state" tricks certainly implies some heritage to quantum juggling concept, while the popularity of certain types of tricks e.g. the freeze-frame implies some heritage to the concept of permutations (namely, reversing the landing order of all objects presently being juggled).

Your dismissal and denigration of siteswaps seems a bit hasty.

-boppo

[paulk...@att.net]

I rest my case.

Paul

[Daniel Shultz]

Could you please explain this. You've totally lost me.

[paulk...@att.net]

Hi Daniel
I'll explain, but where did I lose you?
Paul

[paulk...@att.net]

Something strange happened to my message. I'll try again,

[Daniel Shultz]

Thanks Paul,

"Quantum juggling uses numbers, and siteswaps does not."

How is this possible? I would guess that it's my lack of understanding in the
origin of QJ vs S. Was the siteswap just an extension of the quantum juggling
pattern? I'm not sure how to look at this sentence. Siteswap has for me been
flooded with the use of numbers.

"I have not herd one single person use siteswaps in twenty seven years."

Does this mean that 97531 or 441 etc... are not siteswaps?

"I also invented Quantum juggling many years before siteswaps."

I don't doubt this. This is a whole discussion in itself.

cheers,
Daniel

[paulk...@att.net]

Hi Daniel, thank You for your interest. Sorry about the slow response, I'm not connected to the internet so my response may take a while.

It is possible to create new patterns by drawing a timeline and swapping the landing positions. I think the reason Bruce and others did not notice the numbers because they drew a top view timeline and not a side view timeline. In any good modeling system, it is good to simplify things much as possible. I eliminated the hand motions by looking at the juggler from the side view and the moment of discovery happened when I just looked at it and saw the cycles take shape. I then added the flight time to the holding time and noticed that it was an integral multiple of the time between throws. I did this in 1981 and five yeas latter in 1986 when I met Bruce, I let him explain his system first. I wanted to make sure I hear his system before for I told him mine. He said the word "swap" many times and did some kind of hand motions to indicate what landings to swap. He did not use any numbers. Then I told him about my number system and I could sense a big bubble bursting in his head. I felt kind of sorry for him until I met Nick and Anthony Gatto in the gym an hour or two latter. I've been wanting to met and tell Anthony about my number system for years. When I told him, he said some other guy just told him the same thing. So I have been kind of pissed at Bruce ever sense.

More latter.

Paul

[er...@erikaberg.com]

Paul, I am interested to know what you call a string of numbers that represent a pattern in Quantum Juggling. In the juggling community it is known (as you probably know) as "a site swap". For an example 531 is a site swap. What would you call it?

/Erik

[paulk...@att.net]

I would call it a pattern. State or sequence also works for me.

Paul

[Varkor]

I'm definitely going to attribute the earliest invention of the notation system as we know it today to you - there's little doubt you did come up with it before anyone else, actually using numbers rather than diagrams. However, I am also going to refer to the system as "Siteswap". I realise it's not what you would like it to be called, but the name has stuck - although the original conception of Siteswap did use graphs, it is now the name by which almost everyone describes the notation - to use another would alienate a large number of people, I feel.

I know it must feel frustrating for people not to use the name "Quantum Juggling", but as long as you are credited with its invention, I don't think you should let it bother you. Just my thoughts.

[paulk...@att.net]

Hi Varkor
Thank you very much for saying that. I have been hoping someone would say that for a long time.

Paul

[er...@erikaberg.com]

I have, since I saw the "Siteswap DVD" always referred to you, Paul Klimek as the inventor.

In the community these numbers are now known as site swap, which seems to be a word that sticks to peoples mind, and atleast in my mouth, flows well. Sure it is also a matter of what one gets used to.
It bothers me though that it is not a name that refers to the origin of the idea and I would really appreciate it if the terminology we use in juggling also refers to the true origin and that credit is where it is due. If there was a way to change our current set of vocabulary for "site swap" I would make the effort and change the words I use.

The idea to use numbers, rather then graphs is genius, and were there a Nobel Prize for juggling, it would be for Paul Klimek :)

[paulk...@att.net]

Thank You, Thank You, my fellow jugglers... no really, thank you. Just trying to get the history straight.

Paul

[brucet...@gmail.com]

Aha! So the reason for the denigration is finally revealed.

If it makes you feel any better, Anthony blew me off too. He already had enough of his own ideas about how to do tricks that he wasn't especially interested in hearing anything from me.

If I could go back in time, I certainly would have let you get blown off by Anthony by the reason of lack of interest, rather than lack of precedent, if it would have spared your feelings.

As a point of interest, he refers to tricks such as 11 6 6 6 6 not as siteswaps, not as quantum juggling, and not as Cambridge notation. Nope, he calls them "that high-low deal."

:(

Now, as for the notation itself.

I actually did use characters, but I was perhaps too smart by half, and wanted to apply the tricks to clubs. For some reason, what stuck in my head was number of spins, and natural spins at that. So doubles that crossed were 2s, and those that didn't were d's. "H" was hold. 32th (triple crossing, double crossing, triple to same side, hold) was my symbol for what is now known as 7562, one of the first tricks I ever learned - and that with clubs. I think I did mention them, but you mentioned early in our conversation, perhaps earlier than you recall, your numbering scheme, which I immediately understood, and, also, instantly recognizing them as superior, immediately adopted. So I didn't mention my symbols again, which might have left you with the impression that I only had weaves on paper to work with, which I didn't. Left to my own devices I probably would have eventually figured the correct numbers out, but I met you before that happened.

For whatever it's worth, Colin Wright also missed the "correct" numbers - by 1. So he came a lot closer than I did. He wrote a letter to the editor to Juggler's World talking about how many beats a throw takes to return. In my Juggler's World article, I mentioned that you could just add 1 to his numbers, to get the "correct" numbers - his "five beat throw" was what is now known as a 6. But, even without the correction, his scheme too amounted to a notation sufficient to write down any trick. (Although I don't know what Colin would have called a 0. Probably, thinking about that problem would have led him to think of the correct answer.) I called the 0 an e, for empty, although at the time I wasn't much interested in tricks that had them.

To be clear, the numbers are just a notation - just a way of writing the trick down. Irrespective of how the tricks are written down (i.e. the notation), the tricks (with balls up in the air) are the same. As an added bonus, the correct notation - your notation - also comes with mathematical results for free - the average of the numbers is how many objects you need, if a throw m places after an n throw has the value n-m, they will collide, etc. But it's still just a notation. It doesn't, in and of itself, tell you how to create any trick - only how to write it down, how to do it (if you know what the throws mean) and how to test whether it is or isn't valid. But not how to come up with new tricks, except by trial and error.

I confess that I have not studied either Quantum Juggling nor Cambridge Notation in great, historical detail. I am aware that the Quantum Juggling interpretation was crafted in analogy to atoms, with a nucleus (the juggler) surrounded by great clouds of electrons (e.g. balls), each in a specific quantum level. How many balls you have corresponds to your atomic number - e.g. lithium is 3, boron is 5. Etc. Electrons could go up, or down, quantum levels (which is usually accompanied by the absorption or emission of light), but, so too could the balls go up or down. Some tricks involved "the ground state" in which all balls were at their lowest possible level of excitation. (That is, they all have the same excitation, which is the lowest, e.g. "5" even though other tricks entail throws less than 5.) Actually the way quantum mechanics works is sort of unlike the way juggling works, and furthermore, the analogy has some shortfalls, which I have mentioned in the past and won't repeat here. But "ground-state tricks" are those which visit this state, "excited state" tricks do not. The analogy can easily be extended to polyatomics,i.e. molecules, as in passing patterns, although I don't know if this connection was ever officially made. But I don't know of, and have never been made aware of, any systematic way to go from atomic transitions, or the quantum interpretation generally, to lists of actual tricks. Seeing a few tricks might give one hints that there are vast arrays of as-yet-undiscovered tricks out there, without, however, spelling them out or even giving any clue how to proceed in finding them systematically.

I am also unaware of Colin's scheme being synthetic, as opposed to descriptive. Actually, the name "Cambridge Notation" suggests as much: it is a notation, it starts, and perhaps, stops, as a way to describe tricks. If it was ever more than this, I have never heard about it.

In contrast, I submit that site swapping goes beyond those. By connecting the idea of permutations to juggling tricks, one rapidly arrives at a one-to-one map between the two. There is a deterministic way to generate permutations of any desired length. The number of such permutations can be asserted in a formula. Each and every one corresponds to a distinct trick, additionally distinct at each different number of objects. Except for rotations - which mathematicians already know about and have rules and formulas for. (Ring permutations.) Knowing the site-swap interpretation immediately gives one not only a sense of just how many tricks there are, but also, how to find each and every one of them. It is a synthetic scheme - it tells how to make them. Right off the bat.

The title of the thread is: "on the origin of juggling patterns and tricks." I think more jugglers today can trace the tricks (not how they write them down, but the tricks themselves) to siteswaps, as a result of its synthetic utility. As well as to the following, regarding a precedence of another sort.

There is the "first to invent" and also the "first to publish." An idea is not useful to other people until they find out about it. Consequently, many circles express gratitude for the utility gained by affording some deference to the first to publish, even when said author is not also the first-to-invent. It took some work - and taking some flak - to spread the idea on JUGGLEN and then r.j., and write the papers. There was plenty of time for anyone to have done it. (The Physics Teacher, 1987; Juggler's World, 1991, years after either of our discoveries.) But tables of tricks, the site-swapping interpretation generally, and later, Jack Boyce's (and other's) excellent trick generation programs and animators, quite possibly planted a lot more seeds, and originated a lot more tricks, in the juggling public than quantum juggling did, even with its multi-year head start.

But, come to think of it, I went out of my way, both in The Physics Teacher and Juggler's World, but also on r.j. as well as in interviews and even conversations, to assign invention of the "correct" notation to you. It would have been easy enough to have conveniently overlooked doing so, but I didn't. And I wouldn't.

Hopefully, knowledge of that might bring you to at least partially forgive me for, back in 1986, having made Anthony Gatto blow you off for entirely the wrong reason.

-boppo

[paulk...@att.net]

Anthony was very polite and listened to what I had to say. After I was done he said “That's neat”. I was upset because you started pretending that you invented my number system. At the time I was still trying to tell the masses, and was hoping Anthony could help me out. I still can not figure out why you think it's ok to rename someones invention.

Paul

[Sean Gandini]

Hello all

Erik mentioned to me that this interesting discussion was going and i have read most of it with interest.

If i may add my two cents to this discussion. I am sorry to hear Paul and Boppo quarreling since you have both contributed a lot to our enjoyment of juggling and new patterns.

A lot of the history of numerical notation was covered in the extensive interviews in our siteswaps DVDs. However there still seem to be many widespread misunderstandings on the origins of the numerical notation. History is such a subjective and ever changing subject and it is interesting to me that even in something so specialised as juggling parallel interpretations of the same event are constantly arising.

Paul Klimek and Don Hatch were historically the first to use digits in a maner similar to what we now refer to as Siteswaps. Paul Klimek frequently gets forgotten and Don Hatch never gets mentioned!
Here is Don Hatch's web page which has not to my knowledge been updated in quite a few years, there are rather wonderful hypebollic tesselations, which could lead into some interesting discussion about circular diagrams of juggling patterns, but i digress...
http://www.plunk.org/~hatch/

Regretfully Don Hatch refused to be interviewed for the DVD but he confirmed to me via email that he indeed came up with the "numbers" at a similar time to Paul. Paul also remembers this.

The Cambridge trio came up with the numbers independently a couple of years later. It seems irrelevant to me that their system was the same as Siteswaps but removed by one digit. The Cambridge trio, Mike Day, Colin Wright et Adam Chalcraft also frequently get misrepresented, with Mike and Colin getting sometimes credit alone and Adam frequently left out.

Bruce Tienman erroneously gets credited for their invention when in fact he was a great populariser and theoriser. He did in indeed come up with a diagramatic understanding of patterns as did numerous other people as can be seen in the well researched article by Arthur Lewbell:
https://www2.bc.edu/~lewbel/jugweb/acadjug/acadjug9394.pdf

Now if only someone had the energy and patience to update the many erroneous wiki-style pages...

What seems indubitable to me is that the time was right for their discovery which would explain why they were found in various locations at the same time. It also seems indubitable to me that they are as Paul Erdos would have said from the book. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Paul_Erd%C5%91s

happy new year to all of you

Sean G

[Varkor]

I've just watched through the interviews on the Siteswaps DVD and found them very interesting - definitely the best part of the DVDs in my opinion.
I had not heard of Don Hatch before, but I've tried to contact him, to see if he'll give any information about his conception of the idea (although if he refused to be interviewed, I'm dubious he'll give much information) - did you use the email address on the site?

Thank you for sharing that article - it's very interesting - I'm surprised there are so many variations on the ladder diagram.

It does make one wonder if there are any other elegant solutions to a juggling notation that make sense mathematically and logically, but in different ways...

Thank you for giving your thoughts!

[brucet...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, December 29, 2012 11:40:59 AM UTC-7, Sean Gandini wrote:
> Hello all

> If i may add my two cents to this discussion. I am sorry to hear Paul and Boppo quarreling since you have both contributed a lot to our enjoyment of juggling and new patterns.

I agree, but I admit to feeling a need to correct misunderstandings.

> Paul Klimek and Don Hatch were historically the first to use digits in a maner similar to what we now refer to as Siteswaps. Paul Klimek frequently gets forgotten

I plead innocent to this particular charge (in the event it is being lodged against me).

>and Don Hatch never gets mentioned!

Guilty here, though.

> Bruce Tienman erroneously gets credited for their invention

Psst - That's "T i e m a n n"

I have to take issue with this.

Let me first be clear to separate the notation from the tricks themselves.

With respect to the notation, while I did not invent the numerical notation as it is presently understood, I did invent two notations: the alphanumeric symbols described above, and the written weave. And if the Cambridge Notation can be let to slide, what about hieroglyphics?

But more importantly, with respect to the tricks themselves - I did invent "the tricks." Namely, I postulated an infinite set of tricks to exist, invented an algorithm for deterministically finding all of them within given user-specified constraints (permutations = tricks), and also invented an interpretation that connected the algorithm to the tricks themselves ("swapping" which balls are in which "sites" in space-time), the latter which implied their name to be "site-swaps".

So to say "Bruce [Tiemann] erroneously gets credited for their invention" is at least partially in error, if not completely in error, depending on what exactly "their" is referring to. I didn't have "the correct" notation[1], but I had two other notations, and, more importantly, I had the tricks, and a scheme for generating them, and the name.

>when in fact he was a great populariser and theoriser.

I believe this statement minimizes what I did invent.

It implies that if I hadn't met Paul, there would be little for me to theorize about, popularize, or even understand; It implies that *Paul* invented them, and I merely *popularized* them and theorized about them, once they had been given to me. Not true. (How differently would this statement have to be written, if in fact Paul had taught me everything, from zero, in 1986, and then I set myself up to popularize them and theorize about them, afterwards? No differently, I contend.)

>He did in indeed come up with a diagramatic understanding of patterns as did numerous other people as can be seen in the well researched article by Arthur Lewbell:

... among other things, described above, but especially including the tricks themselves.

-boppo

[1] I can't resist writing about an irony here. My original symbols were alphanumeric, but I immediately discarded them upon learning the superior "correct" notation, the numbers. But today, I am almost alone in the world in ... wait for it ... advocating numerical(!) symbols to be used, instead of alphanumerical ones!! E.g. 13 11 9 7 5 3 1 instead of DB97531. Go figure!! There's got to be some sort of grand moral lesson, or Greek tragedy, or something in here somewhere, but I sure as heck can't figure out what it could possibly be.

[paulk...@att.net]

Boppo, boppoo, boppooo are you claiming that you used DB97531 before you met me?

[brucet...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, December 29, 2012 4:18:05 PM UTC-7, paulk...@att.net wrote:
> Boppo, boppoo, boppooo are you claiming that you used DB97531 before you met me?

No, not at all. Sheesh! I'm claiming that recently, not a long time ago, I'm on a (practically) one-person crusade to convince the world to use "13 11 9 7 5 3 1" instead of DB97531, as almost everyone now uses.

For example, some of that crusade is evident in the January, 2010 thread entitled "When your siteswap patterns go above z," although there are dozens if not hundreds of threads in which I take potshots at the use of letters to denote throw values (as opposed to "x" to mean crossing in synch patterns, with which I concur).

In other words, I'm trying to get everyone to use *your* original notation, as presented to me in 1986. Namely, to use *numbers* to denote individual throws, with number = landing delay.

But, as a matter of irony, and perhaps your point of confusion, is that my original notation, the one I abandoned upon meeting you, was *also* alphanumeric, although, different from the DB97531 notation now universally used.

So I have gone from using alphanumeric symbols, to using numerical ones, to trying to convince the world to use numerical symbols - and not alphanumeric ones. (!!)

There has to be some sort of cosmic joke there. Undoubtably on me.

Wait, wait. I think I get it - don't tell me - *YOU* use letters too?

Aaaaauuuuuughhhhhh!

-boppo

[sean.g...@gmail.com]

Hello Bruce

thank you for your reply. I am very sorry that you read my notes as an accusation to you, they were not meant as such, they were meant as an attempt at clarification.
I am aware that you have always credited Paul and indeed do so in the DVD interview which you were kind enough to give us. I wanted to point out that most of the histories of the invention of siteswaps, and by this i mean the first uses of the numbers, credit the wrong people!

I do not wish to enter the siteswap/quantum juggling debate. I fear much as many of us prefer the term Quantum juggling the term siteswap is now globally accepted.

I have no doubt that you created lots of tricks, the point i am trying to make is that siteswaps as they are commonly known ie lists of numbers to represent juggling patterns, were first used and indeed generated by Paul Klimek and perhaps by Don Hatch in 1981/82, a couple of years before anybody else was using numbers. If i understand correctly you were not using numbers until you met Paul, i have no doubt you would have found the numbers but it is hard not to put Paul in the equation if you will forgive the pun! If we follow your reasoning that you were about to find the numbers because you had the diagrams we could apply it to the 5 or 6 other people who were using similar diagrams.

In terms of your objection to being a populariser and theoretician (which to me seems like a good thing!), if i may quote you :

" I postulated an infinite set of tricks to exist, invented an algorithm for deterministically finding all of them within given user-specified constraints (permutations = tricks), and also invented an interpretation that connected the algorithm to the tricks themselves ("swapping" which balls are in which "sites" in space-time), the latter which implied their name to be "site-swaps".

This to me is bringing in the theory! Paul already had the long lists of patterns! In my mind going from a long list of patterns to proving that there are an infinitely many is a theoretical leap!

Ultimately it is probably is irrelevant who first came up with them, perhaps what is interesting is how much they have spread and all the wonderful variations from all corners of the world which have appeared over the last few years.

I don't know how important the veracity of these events is the in the general scheme of things but since a lot is often written about the origins of Siteswaps i thought it interesting to give my perspective.

yours respectfully

Sean G

On Friday, December 7, 2012 6:28:36 PM UTC, Varkor wrote:
> As of late, I have become increasingly curious as to the origin and history of the vast array of patterns and tricks that are practised in juggling. The more time goes by, the harder it becomes to trace back moves to their original inventor and practitioners, so it would seem the best way to preserve these histories as much as possible is to record them as soon as possible. Some might view this as a pointless activity, but I think it's an interesting and important task.
>
>
>
> However, it's very difficult to come by information such as this, and I need help - either with ideas on where to look for such information, or knowledge that you yourselves have on the subject. The best method for tracking down these snippet of history is undoubtedly from jugglers who have been around, and in the community, for longer than I, so I would be very grateful if anyone could point me in the right direction for any pattern, trick or something else along those lines.

[sean.g...@gmail.com]

Hello Varkor

i think i agree with you on the interviews being the most interesting part of the DVDs!

I look forwards to hearing if you find out more about Don Hatch i know very little about him and what he did. He had originally agreed to the inteview and then felt camera shy. I can understand that.

In terms of elegant solutions my instinct is that Vanilla siteswaps is as simple as it gets. However i can imagine something more elegant for synchronous, MHN etc

time will tell indubitably

thanks for thoughts

Sean G

[paulk...@att.net]

Hi Sean

I would like to say a few things about Don He is a really cool guy and I enjoyed meeting him. I was introduced to Don by a friend who said that he also invented the numbers. I can not remember when I first met him but I remember thinking that both of use were six ball jugglers so that makes it around 1987. I think Don said it was earlier than that, and he is probably right because maybe that was the second time I've met him. But I do remember clearly that he was the first person I've met that used and completely understood the same number system. We were at the same skill level so it was like we could say any pattern and both of us could do it. On the first day of inventing the numbers in 1981 I came up with a algorithm to crank out all the permutations, but I did not have a computer then so I figured out all the permutations up to five throws using my notation. There are hundred of six throw patterns and most of them suck so I didn't bother discovering them all. It is better to design them then to sort through them all. One day Don gave me a long computer printout of all permutations up to seven throws. I used it for years, and still have it's tattered remains in storage. I have been telling everyone for years that he was someone that also invented the numbers at the same time and place. It was not until a few years ago, that a juggling friend of mine said that it is unlikely that two people invented the same thing at the same time and maybe he heard about it subconsciously. Well that got me thinking. For one thing, we are talking about after thousands of years of juggling history, two people with the same skill level inventing the same exact number system within months and within a mile of each other. Not years, thousands of miles, and a different system as in the case of Boppo and I. Soon after I invented my system I would hangout at the computer center at UCSC to try to find someone who could write a program for me to create a long list of patterns. I gave up after asking a couple of students because it wasn't that important to me, and it was easy to create the patterns with my notation and graph paper. So now I'm wondering if he overheard my conversation with them. Any how, If it is true that he invented it on his own, that would be a truly amazing coincidence. I saw Don a couple of years ago again, and asked him when he invented the numbers and said “Yea - I was playing around with those numbers in 1981”. That was the last thing I heard him say and it kind of left hanging because you can interpret that in different ways. If there is anyone else who invented the same number system, I would say it was Don. I would like to know how he invented it, and what his notation looks like.

Paul

[Daniel Siegmund]

Sean, if you'd ever quit juggling (which I hope you don't, I love your work) I
have some advice: Go into politics! I'd vote for you :)

Greetings from the Netherlands

[brucet...@gmail.com]

I am not objecting to being characterized as a popularizer and a theoretician in any way. I would just like to ensure accuracy in what errors are being corrected. Here is the objected-to part: "Bruce [Tiemann] erroneously gets credited for their invention when in fact he was a great populariser and theoriser. […] Now if only someone had the energy and patience to update the many erroneous wiki-style pages... "

What exactly is "their invention" referring to? The sentence is not clear, and therefore depending on what the reader infers, it may or may not be misleading. Later, you clarify that, by this, you mean the numerical notation, but not the tricks. Insofar as that is understood by those who exert the effort to correct the errors, I have no issue with their corrections, as I did not invent that particular notation. But not everyone is primarily interested in the notation, and therefore necessarily reads the sentence to mean exactly that. (Note that the thread topic regards "patterns and tricks" as opposed to "notations.") For those who might read "their invention" to mean the tricks, I seek to not be edited out of that interpretation too. Because with respect to the tricks, I don't claim precedence, but I do claim independent invention (along with others).

-boppo

[Peter Bone]

paulk...@att.net wrote:
> On Saturday, December 29, 2012 5:31:52 PM UTC-8, sean.g...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Hello Varkor=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > i think i agree with you on the interviews being the most interesting par=
> t of the DVDs!=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > I look forwards to hearing if you find out more about Don Hatch i know ve=
> ry little about him and what he did. He had originally agreed to the intevi=
> ew and then felt camera shy. I can understand that.=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > In terms of elegant solutions my instinct is that Vanilla siteswaps is as=
> simple as it gets. However i can imagine something more elegant for synchr=
> onous, MHN etc
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > time will tell indubitably
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > thanks for thoughts
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > Sean G
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > =20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > >=20
> >=20
> > >=20
> >=20
> > > Thank you for sharing that article - it's very interesting - I'm surpri=

> sed there are so many variations on the ladder diagram.

> >=20
> > >=20
> >=20
> > >=20
> >=20
> > >=20
> >=20
> > > It does make one wonder if there are any other elegant solutions to a j=
> uggling notation that make sense mathematically and logically, but in diffe=
> rent ways...
> >=20
> > >=20
> >=20
> > >=20
> >=20
> > >=20
> >=20

> > > Thank you for giving your thoughts!
>
> Hi Sean
>

> I would like to say a few things about Don He is a really cool guy and I e=
> njoyed meeting him. I was introduced to Don by a friend who said that he al=
> so invented the numbers. I can not remember when I first met him but I reme=
> mber thinking that both of use were six ball jugglers so that makes it arou=
> nd 1987. I think Don said it was earlier than that, and he is probably righ=
> t because maybe that was the second time I've met him. But I do remember cl=
> early that he was the first person I've met that used and completely unders=
> tood the same number system. We were at the same skill level so it was lik=
> e we could say any pattern and both of us could do it. On the first day of =
> inventing the numbers in 1981 I came up with a algorithm to crank out all t=
> he permutations, but I did not have a computer then so I figured out all th=
> e permutations up to five throws using my notation. There are hundred of si=
> x throw patterns and most of them suck so I didn't bother discovering them =
> all. It is better to design them then to sort through them all. One day Don=
> gave me a long computer printout of all permutations up to seven throws. I=
> used it for years, and still have it's tattered remains in storage. I have=
> been telling everyone for years that he was someone that also invented the=
> numbers at the same time and place. It was not until a few years ago, that=
> a juggling friend of mine said that it is unlikely that two people invente=
> d the same thing at the same time and maybe he heard about it subconsciousl=
> y. Well that got me thinking. For one thing, we are talking about after tho=
> usands of years of juggling history, two people with the same skill level i=
> nventing the same exact number system within months and within a mile of ea=
> ch other. Not years, thousands of miles, and a different system as in the c=
> ase of Boppo and I. Soon after I invented my system I would hangout at the =
> computer center at UCSC to try to find someone who could write a program fo=
> r me to create a long list of patterns. I gave up after asking a couple of =
> students because it wasn't that important to me, and it was easy to create =
> the patterns with my notation and graph paper. So now I'm wondering if he o=
> verheard my conversation with them. Any how, If it is true that he invented=
> it on his own, that would be a truly amazing coincidence. I saw Don a coup=
> le of years ago again, and asked him when he invented the numbers and said =
> =93Yea - I was playing around with those numbers in 1981=94. That was the l=
> ast thing I heard him say and it kind of left hanging because you can inter=
> pret that in different ways. If there is anyone else who invented the same =
> number system, I would say it was Don. I would like to know how he invented=

> it, and what his notation looks like.
>
> Paul

Interesting to hear about Don Hatch. I don't remember hearing about him
either.

I don't agree that it would be a huge coincidence for two people to
independently come up with the same system and notation. As Sean said, the
system and notation is straight out of the book. It is the simplest notation
for writing any juggling pattern based on throwing to different heights to
change the order that the balls are caught in. It's therefore logical that
anyone working on notating these kind of juggling patterns for long enough to
make them as simple and useful as possible would eventually arrive at the same
notation. I'm sure that if the Cambridge group had more time working
independently, they would have added 1 to each number so that gaps could be
represented and so that averages work.

As for coming up with the notation at the same time, that is more of a
coincidence but I don't think it's very unlikely. Around the early 1980s
computers were becoming more widespread by everyone and I think people started
thinking about things in terms of something that could be easily represented
and generated by a computer. Diagrams were out and numbers were in. This is
complete hypothesis and I'm not speaking from personal experience as I was
only 1 at the time.

[Jack Kalvan]

Paul, Boppo, and Sean,
I just checked into rec.juggling for the first time in months and was pleased to find this very interesting discussion.
Someone mentioned me as having a part in the invention of site swaps. I just want to mention I had absolutely nothing to do with it. Paul showed me quantum juggling in 1986.

But while I'm here, I'll attempt to take credit for a few somewhat popular tricks which I think I invented (correct me if I'm wrong)...
siteswaps like 441 with the 1 passed up the back
balancing a ring on the head, rolling it back to a kick into juggling
balancing a club while juggling 3, then let it fall back and kick it into 4
6 clubs in the crossing triple/double pattern
duo tricks (invented with Rick Rubenstein):
4 club walk-around
7 clubs side by side (passing over the top from outside to inside)
that side by side 5 ball machine trick that the Gandinis did :-)

... and of course I invented hundreds of other tricks that other jugglers have not yet seen the wisdom of imitating.

[sean.g...@gmail.com]

Hello Jack good to hear from you. yes yes yes we stole the side to side machine from you! Thanks, we still use it, in fact more and more! I hope you don't miss it, we have some super funky variations on it if you ever want some. If fact i think we also took the 4 club walk around! Sean G

[sean.g...@gmail.com]

Hello Bruce

Sorry for late reply i have been absent from this sporadically active rec land. I agree with what you say above. I think i do fixate on the numbers as being what is generally called siteswaps.

the invention of the tricks is a whole other matter and discussion. All the best to you Sean G

[sean.g...@gmail.com]

Peter i like the idea that you were 1 at the time and therefore extremely unlikely to also have come up with the numbers...Sean G