Numbers News
JAG
Hello Numbers Nuts!
Big news from Pittsburg: Sergei Ignatov never juggled 9 balls.
I know, it's sounds unbelievable, but I asked him myself, and he
said he never worked on it. I asked him again... "you _sure_??"
Yep, no doubt about it, not even a flash. He also never performed
more than a flash of 11 rings. He juggled it in practice, but never
in performance.
I didn't gather as much info as I'd hoped, as some of the stars
didn't show up, and I also spent too much time being a juggler
instead of an investigator. Regardless, I did get some new data,
and I have updated my pages. Here's the link for those interested:
9 ball records (now sorted!)
http://users.deltanet.com/~juggler/9sllab.html
Enjoy!
...JAG
Alex Haynes
On Mon, 18 Aug 1997, JAG wrote:
> Hello Numbers Nuts!
<snip>
>
> Yep, no doubt about it, not even a flash. He also never performed
> more than a flash of 11 rings. He juggled it in practice, but never
> in performance.
I doubt this, he made 22 throws and catches during performance with the
moscow circus, did you ask him yourself?
Alan Morgan
In article <33fb0bd2....@news.deltanet.com>,
JAG <jug...@deltanet.com> wrote:
>Alex Haynes <gua...@uxmail.ust.hk> wrote:
>
>>> He also never performed
>>> more than a flash of 11 rings. He juggled it in practice, but never
>>> in performance.
>>
>>I doubt this, he made 22 throws and catches during performance with the
>>moscow circus, did you ask him yourself?
>
Ahhh, the subjuctive. Good man.
>Were you
>there? Did you count them? Are you such an expert at numbers rings
>juggling that you are sure he was even juggling _eleven_ rings? Even
>the experts can never be certain how many catches were made without
>reviewing the videotape.
As an example: On the St. Louis tape there is a shot of Ignatov doing
"the trick" - he flashes 11 rings on stage. I have heard this
variously reported (by jugglers who, one assumes, know what they are
talking about) as an 11 ring juggle, an 11 ring flash with a pull-down
over the head, and a 12 ring flash. These people are (a) very sure
about what they saw and (b) wrong.
>Anyway, your statement of "fact" is really no more than "rumor", and
>we've got more than enough rumors floating around here already, thank
>you.
To add to the confusion.... does anyone know Ignatov well enough to
know if he could just be being modest? It seems unlikely that in
the presence of such a formidable figure as JAG he would downgrade
his accomplishments, but I have to suggest the possibility.
Alan
----
Nick: Be the club, be the club, be the club. You're not being
the club Anthony.
Anthony: It's hard when you're talking like that.
-- Juggleshack
Edward Jackman
Alex Haynes <gua...@uxmail.ust.hk> wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Aug 1997, JAG wrote:
>
>> Hello Numbers Nuts!
><snip>
>>
>> Yep, no doubt about it, not even a flash. He also never performed
>> more than a flash of 11 rings. He juggled it in practice, but never
>> in performance.
>
>I doubt this, he made 22 throws and catches during performance with the
>moscow circus, did you ask him yourself?
I watched him in person answer the question -- he never did more than
11 throws of 11 rings in a performance. It could be that someone saw
him do a longish run of 9 before going into the flash of 11 and
assumed he was doing 11 the entire time. He also said he juggled
11 longer in practice but wasn't specific and we didn't press him.
Edward
Barry Bakalor
In article <Pine.SUN.3.93.97082...@uststf3.ust.hk>,
Alex Haynes <gua...@uxmail.ust.hk> wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Aug 1997, JAG wrote:
>
>> Hello Numbers Nuts!
><snip>
>>
>> Yep, no doubt about it, not even a flash. He also never performed
>> more than a flash of 11 rings. He juggled it in practice, but never
>> in performance.
>
>I doubt this, he made 22 throws and catches during performance with the
>moscow circus,
What's your source for this information? This has been a frequently
cited rumor, but is not true. If you have any evidence to support it,
please let us know.
> did you ask him yourself?
Yes, I did. I had a nice talk with Ignatov in Pittsburgh. He told me
that he never performed 11 rings for more than 11 throws and catches.
What he did in St. Louis in 1991 was what he did regularly in
performance in his prime, no more, and no less.
He said that he felt he was in best form in the early 70's, before his
tour of the US in 1977. At that time, he usually finished his act with
11 rings, starting nine, pulling 2 off his belt, making a flash of 11
rings and immediately catching them cleanly. He said he did not do
this in every performance during that time, but in most. This was
filmed on several occasions. He was very clear that he never made
more than 11 throws and catches of 11 rings during a performance.
Stories of longer runs are apparently well-meaning exaggerations.
I asked him about what he did in practice at that time. He never
worked on more than 11 rings, as he felt there was no point in working
on a trick he would never perform, and he thought there was no chance
he could get more than 11 rings performable. With 11 rings, he
believed his best runs in practice were "2 times around." When I
asked him to clarify that, it seems he was talking about 22 throws and
catches. He confirmed that such practice sessions were never filmed or
taped, and is certain that there can be no such recording of him doing
more than a flash of 11 rings.
Interestingly, he said that though he was very proud of his doing 11
rings in his act, he was much more proud of his 7 ring routine, which
included 2 half-pirouettes and a full pirouette, all done with all 7
rings in the air, a half shower, and finishing with pancake throws.
He said performing that 7 ring routine every night was his greatest
accomplishment. I asked him if he thought anyone would ever duplicate
that routine. He smiled, and indicated he thought it was unlikely.
Anyone want to try? After hearing this story, I know one person who
is working on it.
barry
--
Barry Bakalor Juggling Information Service
E-mail: j...@juggling.org http://www.juggling.org/
robot: in...@juggling.org ftp.juggling.org:/juggling
Alan Morgan
In article <33FBA2...@uleth.ca>, Niall McKenna <mcke...@uleth.ca> wrote:
>Ever think that these number gurus are just having us on.
He's onto us, boys. Send out the black helicopters, uh,
unicycles and the attack dogs.
Alan
Andrew Conway
In article <Pine.SUN.3.93.97082...@uststf3.ust.hk>,
gua...@uxmail.ust.hk says...
> Go cry to the guy who sent the article in..
> That's "Juggling Large Numbers", Juggler's World, March, 1984.
>
Bzzzzzzt. You lose. No such article in that issue. Though there's a great
article by Jim Kerr on juggling amongst the Inuit.
Wanna try again?
Andrew
Alex Haynes
On Wed, 20 Aug 1997, JAG wrote:
> Facinating. You state 22 throws as if it were a solid fact. Were you
> there? Did you count them? Are you such an expert at numbers rings
> juggling that you are sure he was even juggling _eleven_ rings? Even
> the experts can never be certain how many catches were made without
> reviewing the videotape. Most amateurs trying to count a flash of 11
> rings would count 21 or 22 "catches" which are actually "beats" -
> in other words, 11 throws and then 11 catches. Unless you are trained
> to pay attention to the hands, you will simply stare at this mind
> boggling pattern hanging in the air for about 22 "beats", and thus
> figure it must be 22 "catches".
>
> Anyway, your statement of "fact" is really no more than "rumor", and
> we've got more than enough rumors floating around here already, thank
> you. For your information, I did ask him myself about 9 balls. Barry
> Bakalor asked him about 11 rings. I have no doubt that both Ignatov
> and Barry are completely trustworthy. If you want to doubt anyone,
> doubt me, as I have not been around nearly as long, and people are
> just getting to know me. I myself doubted my ears when he told me
> that he'd NEVER tried 9 balls. Maybe he just meant he'd never
> practiced it seriously. There is a certain communication problem, as
> his english isn't that good. However, he was quite emphatic in saying
> that he'd never done it.
> ...JAG
Alex Haynes
On Thu, 21 Aug 1997, Andrew Conway wrote:
> In article <Pine.SUN.3.93.97082...@uststf3.ust.hk>,
> gua...@uxmail.ust.hk says...
> > Go cry to the guy who sent the article in..
> > That's "Juggling Large Numbers", Juggler's World, March, 1984.
> >
>
> Bzzzzzzt. You lose. No such article in that issue. Though there's a great
> article by Jim Kerr on juggling amongst the Inuit.
>
> Wanna try again?
>
> Andrew
Sorry about that, it's MArch 1982, not 1984..
Just for everyone who missed it the first time, this was found on the
anniversary issue of Jugglers world. Page 35, 2nd paragraph down.
I'll only type the relevant bit. If it's wrong, I don't know why they
printed it...
"It also appears that Sergei Ignatov's record of 11 rings may stand for
quite a while. In his act with the Moscow Circus, Ignatov made 22 throws
with 11 rings and finished by pulling all of them sequentially over his
head! He was said to think 13 rings possible, but we may never see proof
of that from him because of shoulder problems."
>
>
Jack Boyce
So should Ignatov's 11 ring "juggle" be stricken from the record books? I
wasn't there at the convention, but from others I gather that:
a) Nobody ever actually saw him do it. (Maybe his coaches, Alexander and
Violetta Kiss?)
b) His own recollections are somewhat vague as to what his longest runs
were and when they were achieved (could be the language barrier).
Has there ever been a confirmed qualifying run of 11 rings by anyone? A
number of people are listed in the Guinness book -- but now I wonder how
anecdotal these records are. At this point it seems like the real record
may be 10 rings.
It's interesting that Ignatov would choose this point in his career to
"set the record straight", and noble of him I think. He could just as
well choose to not talk about things, and nobody would ever question the
"fact" that he juggled 11 in performance.
I find it notable that the last several years have seen one of the
cherished beliefs of numbers juggling start to topple -- that rings are
easier than balls. The evidence to support this was the records: A
suspect record for 10 balls due to Rastelli (never equalled in 60+ years),
versus what we imagined to be a performable 11 ring juggle by Ignatov and
other Soviets. Any reasonable person looking at these would conclude that
rings give at least a 1-object edge at the higher end.
Now, however, a number of people have qualified with 10 balls, and 11 and
12 have been flashed (11 by several). And now it turns out that nobody
has a confirmed 11 ring juggle. Maybe the conventional wisdom is
changing?
Jack Boyce
jbo...@physics.berkeley.edu
Jack Boyce
In article <MPG.e6f2a59c...@news.sirius.com>,
con...@juggling.org (Andrew Conway) wrote:
>
> I wasn't aware that this number was greater than one. Who apart from
> Bruce Sarafian has qualified ten balls recently?
>
Joey Cousins has, at least according to JAG's page at:
http://users.deltanet.com/~juggler/10balls.html
I will let JAG justify his records listing. Anyone know what Jason
Garfield's longest 10-ball run is?
>
> Secondly, jugglers who have a gym or similar space available whenever
> they to practice (Lucas, Gatto, the Russians) tend to do better with
> rings than balls.
>
The people you mention are also all performers, and for obvious reasons
practice rings more than balls. (For example, it now seems that Ignatov
never practiced numbers w/balls at all, if one uses his definition that
"numbers juggling" is N>8.) Thus we should perhaps not be surprised if
they are better with rings.
In the case of Gatto, his 9 rings never looked any better than his 9 balls
as far as I could tell. Did he ever practice more than 9 balls?
Andrew Conway
In article <5u5091$k3n$1...@nargun.cc.uq.edu.au>, s00...@student.uq.edu.au
says...
> what are the current numbers records, as they don't seem to be accurate
> at the JIS records page.
Speaking for myself, and not the JIS Committee on numbers juggling: The
JIS records page tries to be as accurate and fair as possible. This means
some time is spent validating new records before they get posted... but
there might just be some updates soon ;-) watch this space.
Andrew
tho...@socrates.berkeley.edu
In article <jboyce-2808...@jboyce.hip.berkeley.edu>,
Jack Boyce <jbo...@physics.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>I will let JAG justify his records listing. Anyone know what Jason
>Garfield's longest 10-ball run is?
probably jason garfield does. he's more than qualified it; i've got video
of him with 20 clean catches, just for a qualifying run.
JAG
con...@juggling.org (Andrew Conway) wrote:
I don't know Andrew, it seems to me that the JIS is slower at posting
new records than the IJA board is at releasing financial information.
As to the validity of the records on my pages, there is obviously a
trade-off somewhere. The JIS numbers committee chose to take one
route - that of only accepting records which are unrefutable. I, and
many others have seen a problem with this approach. Obviously many
records are missing from the JIS page.
Thus, to fill the void at the JIS, I have taken a different route.
I have accepted any _reasonable_ claims of personal records. I have
also clearly stated at the top of my page that
"(Records are verified when possible - some are based on hearsay)"
True, this leads to some false claims - even those which none would
dispute. (such as Ignatov listed for 9 balls) But it also gives a
very different perspective on the current status of numbers juggling.
I asked Cindy Marvel in Pittsburgh if she had worked on 9, and she
said she hadn't. But when she heard about my list, she said that she
now had some motivation to work on it. Simply keeping track of
records motivates people to set new ones.
On the topic of Ignatov, I spoke with Ben Schoenberg the other day.
He pulled out his copy of "4000 Years", and found the passage where
it clearly describes, in some detail, a practice session in which
Ignatov juggles 7, then flashes into nine with the help of assistants,
and then the balls are caught in nets. I find it hard to believe
that such a description could be invented, so now I am completely
confused as to where the truth lies. I will simply have to wait
until next year and grill both Karl-Heinz and Ignatov, again. I have
heard that they both plan to be there.
>Your list has question marks by Jason and Ant. I don't know if Ant has even
>flashed ten, let alone qualified. (Remember, he used real balls, not
>beanbags.) Jason, have you qualified ten, yet?
>Sarafian has 22 catches on video, in the process of being recognised by the
>JIS. You list 28. What evidence do you have for this?
As far as 10 ball jugglers - Joey Cousins told me in person that he
had qualified 10 balls. He admitted that he had only done it once,
and did not videotape it. However, based on the attempts I witnessed,
I am inclined to believe him. Bruce Sarafian told me in person that
his personal best was 28 catches. I believe he said this was on
video, as he tapes all his practice sessions now, but it might have
been from before he started taping. Perhaps he just hasn't sent it to
the JIS yet.
thomasl has stated that she has video of a qualifying run from Jason
Garfield. Thus the "20+ ?" notation, as she indicated that this was
not his best run. Anthony Gatto was quoted as saying he had juggled
10 balls "twice around". The consensus I reached from talking to many
numbers jugglers is that this means 20 catches. The "20+ ?" indicates
that it is quite possible the he has made more. Perhaps I should call
Las Vegas information for "Gatto's Landscaping" and quiz him on it?
Finally, Peter Blanchard - who would lie and say they got _19_
catches? This guy placed second in the numbers championships in
Pittsburg. He qualified with 9 early, and worked on 10 for a couple
rounds. I'm not sure what his best with 10 was during the
championships, but it was more than a flash. So yes, I believe he
made 19 catches once.
There. Was that fun? Did you enjoy reading all the evidence?
I'm sitting here yawning as I type it. That's why I chose to
exclude it from my web page. Oh, and I have videotape of me flashing
nine balls, in case anyone cares. Probably not. I know I don't want
to review 79 tapes of people throwing 9 balls, even if we could get
them, which we can't, since 11 of those 79 are deceased. Plus at
least 2 of the 9 ballers I know can't repeat the feat anymore. It
takes too much work to maintain the form required to juggle high
numbers.
...JAG
.sig wants to know if everybody has reserved their copy of the
new edition of "4000 Years of Juggling" from Brian Dube yet.
There are only 500 copies being made, all personally signed by
Karl Heinz. And the price is a steal - $99! So what if some
of the info is bogus? I'm getting it for the pictures! ;)
Andrew Conway
In article <jboyce-2808...@jboyce.hip.berkeley.edu>,
jbo...@physics.berkeley.edu says...
> In article <MPG.e6f2a59c...@news.sirius.com>,
> con...@juggling.org (Andrew Conway) wrote:
>
> >
> > I wasn't aware that this number was greater than one. Who apart from
> > Bruce Sarafian has qualified ten balls recently?
> >
>
> Joey Cousins has, at least according to JAG's page at:
> http://users.deltanet.com/~juggler/10balls.html
>
Yes, I've asked him to do that by e-mail. Since he relies on hearsay
evidence, there are somtimes errors in his listings. JAG, I think your
list would be more useful if you quoted your sources for each record.
> Anyone know what Jason
> Garfield's longest 10-ball run is?
I checked with him. It's 20 catches. Go Jason! However, he's not a good
example for your hypothesis, as his best run with ten rings is also 20
catches. (The latter is not on video yet.)
> > Secondly, jugglers who have a gym or similar space available whenever
> > they to practice (Lucas, Gatto, the Russians) tend to do better with
> > rings than balls.
> >
>
> The people you mention are also all performers, and for obvious reasons
> practice rings more than balls.
I've watched Anthony Gatto in practice and he spent about the same amount
of time on clubs, balls and rings. I have not watched any of the others
in practice. Have you?
> (For example, it now seems that Ignatov
> never practiced numbers w/balls at all, if one uses his definition that
> "numbers juggling" is N>8.) Thus we should perhaps not be surprised if
> they are better with rings.
>
> In the case of Gatto, his 9 rings never looked any better than his 9 balls
> as far as I could tell. Did he ever practice more than 9 balls?
Not that I know of. But we get into the nature/nurture debate here. Maybe
he did not bother practicing ten balls (and Ignatov eight balls) because
it was too hard. Of course, I don't think Ant used beanbags, and he did
not use the Wimpy pattern. (Incidentally, I recently came across a
description of a six ball wimpy pattern in a book on juggling from 1921,
so it is not a new discovery!)
Thinking it over some more, I suspect that it may be easier to launch and
gather a large number of rings, but that balls are easier to throw
accurately. For launching, you can fit many rings in the hand, and extra
rings can be put in the mouth, between the legs, velcroed to the leg or
put in a holster and grabbed easily. Beanbags do not lend themselves to
being launched from anywhere other than the hands. For the gather, hands
fill with beanbags rapidly, whereas you can get a lot of rings in your
hands or over your arms before they start to get full.
Why should ball throwing be easier than ring throwing? I'm not sure, but
I do note that ball numbers patterns are generally lower than patterns
for the same number of rings. Anyone have an explanation for this? A
lower pattern may lead to more accurate throws, though of course they
must be made more frequently. Perhaps rings require a longer dwell time
to bring under control and throw again? This would be an interesting
topic to do some research on.
Andrew
Andrew Conway
Andrew, being my usual abrasive self, and nothing to do with the JIS
committee on anything at all -
Lets cut to the chase here, cos this is getting stale.
In article <34076e8e...@news.deltanet.com>, jug...@deltanet.com
says...
> [...]
> name: catches: source:
> Ignatov 18 "4000 Years of Juggling"
> Gatto 20 "Jugglers World"
> Conway 3 personal claim
> JAG 9 claims he has a video
> Sarafian 22 JIS claims they have a video
>
> What are people reading the list going to conclude about the
> relative reliability of the various sources?
> My guess is, video claims would be judged as best, then
> quotes from the two publications, then personal claims.
>
> The reality of it is, they are all just personal claims,
> therefore they are all equally unreliable.
Nope. You see, the difference is, when somebody claims there is a video,
then somebody else can say, "Cool, show me the video. Here's five bucks
postage and a blank tape." Either the video turns up or it doesn't. Thus,
stuff on video is subject to validation by anyone who cares.
> Any, all, or
> none could be false. Unless you know something about the
> sources, the information is meaningless.
Right. But I do know something about the sources, so it's meaningful to
me (and to a bunch of other jugglenerds, too). I can even tell you whose
personal claims are likely to be valid and whose aren't (you can ignore
mine, for a start) but I ain't gonna do it here.
> Even if you do
> know the source, what does that tell you? Most jugglers know
> something about "Jugglers World", and yet how meaningful
> is it as a source?
For two years now I've been begging Bill Giduz to correct the Lodi
Juggling Festival announcement. Listen folks, JW says "shared job" and
it's supposed to say "shared joy". "SHARED JOY" gottit?
Sorry, I'm just venting. You were saying...
> So, by listing sources, won't I just be making some records
> "appear" more official than others, when really they should
> _all_ be taken with a grain of salt?
I think that a record that has been validated on video by several
disinterested third parties can be taken seriously. Don't you?
Andrew
Dan Mitchell
Andrew Conway <con...@juggling.org> wrote:
>Why should ball throwing be easier than ring throwing? I'm not sure, but
>I do note that ball numbers patterns are generally lower than patterns
>for the same number of rings. Anyone have an explanation for this?
(nothing to do with _ease_ of throwing, more just height).
Erm, perhaps I'm a big idiot, but it seems fairly clearly because the
amount of vertical space a ring takes up is larger than that of a ball.
Take two objects in one hand, standard fountain pattern. Then as one object
passes over the other one, it's got to have enough room to get by.
Thus, with balls, you can do this at the height of a ball. With rings,
it's the height of a ring -- which is greater.
Okay, it's a bit fiddlier than that because you hold a ring halfway down
it's height, rather than at the bottom. The basic idea still seems fairly
sound to me, though.
Or am I just completely confused here? I've juggled balls a _lot_ more than
rings, so I may be missing subtleties of what happens with large numbers
of these things.
On the other hand, I can flash five balls at eye height (seen AllenK flash
_seven_ at that height) -- there's no way it would be physically possible
to fit a five (seven) ring flash into that much vertical space.
I guess, thinking a little harder, this problem may only relate to the
_minimum_ space required for a given pattern, rather than the _optimim_
space; but I still suspect that this difference in vertical extent is
basically the reason for this.
(thus I'd expect club patterns to be about the same height as ring patterns,
because over the course of a single (or double, or whatever) spin, the
vertical amount of room a club needs is about the same as that of a typical
ring. From what I've seen, this is basically true.
-- (bendy) dan
--
To reply, remove SPAMBYEBYE from my address.
Jack Boyce
con...@juggling.org (Andrew Conway) wrote:
> jbo...@physics.berkeley.edu says...
>
> > Anyone know what Jason Garfield's longest 10-ball run is?
>
> I checked with him. It's 20 catches. Go Jason! However, he's not a good
> example for your hypothesis, as his best run with ten rings is also 20
> catches. (The latter is not on video yet.)
Not to nitpick, but I'm not sure why you think this refutes my statement,
which was (in a nutshell) that rings perhaps don't confer the
1-or-so-object advantage at the high end that many assumed in the past.
To the contrary, it seems to me that balls and rings are on more or less
equal footing in 1997. Jason's personal bests with 10 seem to support
this, as do Anthony's with 9.
> I've watched Anthony Gatto in practice and he spent about the same amount
> of time on clubs, balls and rings. I have not watched any of the others
> in practice. Have you?
I've seen Lucas and Ignatov practice/show off at conventions. I've seen
Lucas juggle mostly rings and some clubs, and Ignatov almost all rings.
Of course, the "practicing" that goes on at festivals may not be at all
indicative of their normal regimens, so the usual grain of salt will
apply. It would seem logical for them to concentrate on rings more than
balls, as rings are so much more impressive to Joe Public. I always
wondered why Anthony spent so much time on 9 balls, when he never
performed it (that I knew of).
> Thinking it over some more, I suspect that it may be easier to launch and
> gather a large number of rings, but that balls are easier to throw
> accurately.
I have measured Gatto's throwing accuracy from videotape with both rings
and balls (I have no life), and they are nearly equal for both 7 and 9.
That is to say, his typical angular error on each throw is independent of
prop and also number (at least between 7 and 9). For those who are
interested, his rms angular error is 0.7 degrees, circa 1991 (my best
video).
Ring patterns are considerably higher because there is more hand motion
per catch/throw. Reaching up to grab and throw forces you to slow things
down. So it seems to me that the difficulties are of a different nature:
With rings the challenge is to keep the objects oriented correctly and
within reach as they come down, whereas with balls collisions are more of
an issue (larger cross-section). That's not to say that collisions never
happen with rings, or that it's easy to throw balls that land within reach
all the time. Whatever the difficulties, at this point it seems that
neither prop has the significant advantage for most jugglers.
Edward Jackman
jbo...@physics.berkeley.edu (Jack Boyce) wrote:
>I find it notable that the last several years have seen one of the
>cherished beliefs of numbers juggling start to topple -- that rings are
>easier than balls. The evidence to support this was the records: A
>suspect record for 10 balls due to Rastelli (never equalled in 60+ years),
>versus what we imagined to be a performable 11 ring juggle by Ignatov and
>other Soviets. Any reasonable person looking at these would conclude that
>rings give at least a 1-object edge at the higher end.
>Now, however, a number of people have qualified with 10 balls, and 11 and
>12 have been flashed (11 by several). And now it turns out that nobody
>has a confirmed 11 ring juggle. Maybe the conventional wisdom is
>changing?
Looking at the records may not give the full picture. The long
jump record was shattered by Bob Beamon (sp?) and no one came
close for many years, but during all that time the average mark
by the best jumpers increased. Ignatov, for one, flashed 11 rings
on a regular basis in performance. Has anyone approached that level
of competency with 11 balls -- or even 10?
I've never seen Jason do 10 balls, but I saw him doing 10 rings.
I had been out of the juggling loop for some time when I saw him
so all I can say is it seemed as if his runs were pretty darn
consistant -- like maybe he could flash 'em on demand. I wonder
if he can do 10 balls as well.
Also, I believe that for performance purposes, rings will
continue to have the advantage. For example, my best and
average runs with 7 balls are significantly higher than
those with 7 rings even though I practice far more with
rings than with balls -- sometimes I go weeks without
doing 7 balls. But it is still easier to to 7 rings
on stage than 7 balls for me. A colision or bobble may
not be noticed and it is still possible to finish
cleanly.
Personally, I've never gone twice around with 8 balls -- but
I've probably put no more that a couple hours into it all my
life. I can't imagine flashing and catching nine. I use street
hockey balls though. I've gone 3 times around with 8, 11 catches
with 9 and 10 just isn't going to happen.
Edward
Jack Boyce
In article <34091A...@clockwork.org>, ja...@clockwork.org wrote:
> Also - Isn't Gatto's best run of 8 rings over a minute? and much less
> with 8 balls?
> The fountain pattern is much easier with rings than balls - even my
> longest run with 6 rings is longer than with 6 balls, and I'm generally
> not as comfortable with rings.
Yes, that's right. It is very difficult to avoid collisions consistently
in the fountain pattern with balls -- the pattern just tolerates less
error. It seems the collision-free nature of rings wins out in this
case. I guess this is why everybody is doing even #s these days with
balls using the wimpy pattern, where the margin of error is much larger
(as large as the cascade). One might even say that wimpy is the "best"
pattern to use for even numbers, if long runs are the desired goal.
Sarafian's personal best is around 165 catches with 8 ball wimpies -- I
wonder how well Anthony could do with this pattern if he worked on it, and
in particular if he could match his ability with 8 rings.
Jack
Greg Warrington
In article <jboyce-3108...@jboyce.hip.berkeley.edu>,
Jack Boyce <jbo...@physics.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>(as large as the cascade). One might even say that wimpy is the "best"
>pattern to use for even numbers, if long runs are the desired goal.
you might. i'm putting my practice time into the synchronous facade.
unfortunately, i have no real data points to back up my opinion.
greg
Andrew Conway
> [...] I guess this is why everybody is doing even #s these days with
> balls using the wimpy pattern, where the margin of error is much larger
Jason Garfield seems to prefer the fountain pattern, even for ten balls!
(Unless he has changed recently.) I have never seem either Lucas or Gatto
use the wimpy pattern, either.
Andrew
Edward Jackman
p...@unconfigured.xvnews.domain (Peter Billam) wrote:
>If you throw a ring slightly outwards, as it moves upwards, it moves outwards
>away from you. But when it stops at the top and begins to come down again,
>its orientation doesn't change because its axis of spin is stabilised
>gyroscopically. So as the descent speeds up it grips the air and comes
>gliding back in to you. This boomerang effect is one of the things that
>makes high patterns easier with rings.
I asked Albert Lucas specifically about this. He says he does not
take advantage of this effect at all.
Edward
Peter Billam
In <MPG.e71d6bf2...@news.sirius.com>, con...@juggling.org wrote:
>
> [...] if the throw goes higher, and there is the same angular error,
> it will come down further away, right? On that basis I would say that
> rings are harder to throw accurately.
>
I don't think so; rings aren't just lumps that move in parabolas, they catch
the air.
If you throw a ring slightly outwards, as it moves upwards, it moves outwards
away from you. But when it stops at the top and begins to come down again,
its orientation doesn't change because its axis of spin is stabilised
gyroscopically. So as the descent speeds up it grips the air and comes
gliding back in to you. This boomerang effect is one of the things that
makes high patterns easier with rings.
Regards, Peter Billam
dia...@planet.net
On Thu, 28 Aug 1997 02:25:30 -0700, jbo...@physics.berkeley.edu (Jack Boyce)
wrote:
>So should Ignatov's 11 ring "juggle" be stricken from the record books? I
>wasn't there at the convention, but from others I gather that:
>
>a) Nobody ever actually saw him do it. (Maybe his coaches, Alexander and
>Violetta Kiss?)
>
>b) His own recollections are somewhat vague as to what his longest runs
>were and when they were achieved (could be the language barrier).
>
>Has there ever been a confirmed qualifying run of 11 rings by anyone? A
>number of people are listed in the Guinness book -- but now I wonder how
>anecdotal these records are. At this point it seems like the real record
>may be 10 rings.
Welcome to hell.
*Everyone* believed that Sergei Ignatov "juggled" 11 rings. I personally
spoke to Karl-Heinz who stated that he believed that Ignatov probably did,
but there was no film/video evidence that he knew of. Then Barry B.
questioned Ignatov directly and it seems as though Sergei himself confirms
that he never actually accomplished it.
So I'll ask the same question as Jack:
>So should Ignatov's 11 ring "juggle" be stricken from the record books?
I also ask what would happen if we did? Has anyone ever heard of the
"Justice for Ignatov" Committee? No, but you will if the record is dropped.
I was responsible for getting Guinness to add asterisks (*) to the old
records for which indisputable proof was not available (this was begun
*before* the Justice for Rastelli committee reared its nasty head):
11 rings: Petrovski, Belaur, Ignatov
7 clubs: Petrovski, Munteanu, Bremlov
10 balls: Rastelli
10 balls bounced: Tim Nolan
8 plates: Rastelli
Anyone have any indisputable proof of any of these records? Now don't scream
about the one that seems out of place: Tim Nolan. He has confirmed that
there is no proof other than a still photo of his 10 ball bounce and he can
no longer duplicate the feat.
So should Guinness drop Ignatov? I wouldn't suggest it until a russian
interpreter questioned Sergei directly in his native language. What are your
thoughts?
Steve S.
My homepage is now at "http://www.planet.net/pdiabolo/"
And no, as opposed to Two-Ply-Press's opinion...
it is NOT Perry Rubenfeld's homepage! <duh>
dia...@planet.net
Jag (I think) wrote:
>> On the topic of Ignatov, I spoke with Ben Schoenberg the other day.
>> He pulled out his copy of "4000 Years", and found the passage where
>> it clearly describes, in some detail, a practice session in which
>> Ignatov juggles 7, then flashes into nine with the help of assistants,
>> and then the balls are caught in nets. [...]
Then Andrew Conway wrote:
>I have no difficulty believing such a description was made up or that the
>numbers were muddled. The translation into English of 4kY was done by
>somebody whose native language was neither English nor German. There were
>some terrible mistranslations and much information was garbled. It's a
>book you buy for the pictures rather than the text.
Let's muddy the "Numbers Records" waters a bit further.
In his new book "Enrico Rastelli and The World Greatest Jugglers", Karl-Heinz
Ziethen says about Anthony Gatto: "He effortlessly tosses eight and nine
balls, as well as eight and nine rings with a ball resting on his forehead.
Needless to say, then, he also juggles ten and eleven rings.".
He also says about Ignatov: "... and in 1973 he raised juggling onto a new
plane when he succeeded in juggling eleven rings, starting with nine and then
detaching another two from a special belt.".
Karl-Heinz is THE juggling history guy. But he has been around a long time
and in that time the definitions and understanding of "Juggling", "Flashing",
and "Qualifying" have evolved. And he has an English/German language problem
to contend with also. Jugglers World magazine and the IJA Newsletter have
also been around a long time. Lot's of people on this group quote these
sources as proof of past achievements. If Karl-Heinz was wrong, what are the
odds that a magazine written by regular-mortal folk is going to be more
accurate? These are not investigative journals, they just report what they
are told and what is believed at the time. I say don't put too much stock in
a quote from an old IJA Newsletter.
It's probably not Karl-Heinz's *fault* that he may have false information in
his book. It's that these definitions are somewhat new and not everyone
understands them, or is even aware of them.
Steve S.
.sig's stupid quote of the day:
ON BRITISH TIME TRAVEL:
"The only thing to prevent what's past is to put a stop to it
before it happens."
[Sir Boyle Roche, 18th century member of Parliament]
Bill Wachspress
The pattern with rings is much narrower than with balls because the rings are so
narrow, so there is much more room to catch wide throws.
--
Bill Wachspress <w...@idir.net>
Barry Bakalor
>*Everyone* believed that Sergei Ignatov "juggled" 11 rings. I personally
>spoke to Karl-Heinz who stated that he believed that Ignatov probably did,
>but there was no film/video evidence that he knew of. Then Barry B.
>questioned Ignatov directly and it seems as though Sergei himself confirms
>that he never actually accomplished it.
That's not what I reported Ignatov telling me. See:
http://www.juggling.org/rj/97/08/20-190857
I had a nice talk with Ignatov in Pittsburgh. He told me that he
never performed 11 rings for more than 11 throws and catches. ...
He was very clear that he never made more than 11 throws and catches
of 11 rings during a performance. Stories of longer runs are
apparently well-meaning exaggerations. ...
I asked him about what he did in practice at that time. He never
worked on more than 11 rings, as he felt there was no point in
working on a trick he would never perform, and he thought there was
no chance he could get more than 11 rings performable. With 11
rings, he believed his best runs in practice were "2 times around."
When I asked him to clarify that, it seems he was talking about 22
throws and catches. He confirmed that such practice sessions were
never filmed or taped, and is certain that there can be no such
recording of him doing more than a flash of 11 rings.
>So should Guinness drop Ignatov? I wouldn't suggest it until a russian
>interpreter questioned Sergei directly in his native language. What are your
>thoughts?
Guinness has its own rules, which have led to having many errors and
confusing reports get published as juggling records for many years.
The JIS Committee on Numbers Juggling Records was established to
publish the definitive list of these records, that have been validated
so as to be without question. No hearsay evidence of a record is
accepted. For information on the committee, its rules, and the current
set of records, see:
Numbers Juggling Records
http://www.juggling.org/records/
I'm pleased to report that 4 new records were added to the listing this
morning:
8 balls 108 catches Bruce Sarafian
9 balls 61 catches Bruce Sarafian
10 balls 22 catches Bruce Sarafian
11 balls 12 catches Jason Garfield, ties record of Bruce Sarafian
Barry Bakalor
>In his new book "Enrico Rastelli and The World Greatest Jugglers", Karl-Heinz
>Ziethen says about Anthony Gatto: "He effortlessly tosses eight and nine
>balls, as well as eight and nine rings with a ball resting on his forehead.
>Needless to say, then, he also juggles ten and eleven rings.".
>
>He also says about Ignatov: "... and in 1973 he raised juggling onto a new
>plane when he succeeded in juggling eleven rings, starting with nine and then
>detaching another two from a special belt.".
>
>Karl-Heinz is THE juggling history guy. But he has been around a long time
>and in that time the definitions and understanding of "Juggling", "Flashing",
>and "Qualifying" have evolved.
All of the above reports are true, given that Ziethen was using the
word "juggling" here to mean what we usually refer to as "flashing."
This confusion in terminology, which has changed over the years, has
led to several misunderstandings. However, I would not have described
Gatto's 9 ring flash with a ball balanced on his head as effortless.
> Jugglers World magazine and the IJA Newsletter have
>also been around a long time. Lot's of people on this group quote these
>sources as proof of past achievements. If Karl-Heinz was wrong, what are the
>odds that a magazine written by regular-mortal folk is going to be more
>accurate? These are not investigative journals, they just report what they
>are told and what is believed at the time. I say don't put too much stock in
>a quote from an old IJA Newsletter.
Exactly. Juggler's World and the newsletter that preceded it contain
a wealth of wonderful information. But not all of it is absolutely
accurate.
>It's probably not Karl-Heinz's *fault* that he may have false information in
>his book.
I agree. However, I believe it *is* Ziethen's fault that he chose
to omit some of the "World's Greatest Jugglers" from his book for
apparently personal reasons. Any book published on recent great
jugglers that omits mentioning Albert Lucas should be questioned on
its accuracy and completeness.
Edward Jackman
p...@ml.removethisbit.csiro.au (Peter Billam) wrote:
>In <340b5d03...@news.primenet.com>, edw...@jte.com (Edward Jackman) writes:
>He must know what he's doing. Are there, then, two Rival Schools of ring
>juggling, the glider school and the parabola school ?
I don't think so. I've tried to take advantage of this effect and
found it far too difficult to help. It may be that for higher
patterns -- at least 9 or 10 ring height, it becomes more
usefull. I'm nearly sure it's useless for 8 or less thrown
to typical heights. I have asked Jason Garfield the same
question and he had never even thought of it before.
I think it's way to much to ask to throw a ring 25 feet or
higher at any precise angle non-incident to the direction
of the throw.
This may be another reason patterns of 11 rings and higher
will be very difficult to maintain -- at that height, slight
errors in the angle of the ring at throwtime may cause large
errors at catchtime.
>I would have thought that without gliding, rings would have no advantage over
>balls except for their thinness, i.e. would have no advantage over small balls.
When thin balls collide, the pattern crashes. Collisions are often
non-fatal and often barely require a correction with rings.
>Did he try gliding and reject it ?
>If so, did he say why ?
I don't think he ever tried it and I didn't press him. I had kind
of *assumed* up until then that he *did* glide them. I think it's
one of those urban juggling legends that I'd heard about him before.
Edward
Jack Boyce
In article <EFurJ...@ml.csiro.au>, p...@delete-this-bit.ml.csiro.au wrote:
>
> as the descent speeds up it grips the air and comes
> gliding back in to you. This boomerang effect is one of the things that
> makes high patterns easier with rings.
>
Gatto's 9-ring pattern definitely does this. When viewed from the front
it has a very distinctive heart-shaped appearance. At least that's how it
appears to me on the videotapes I have.
Whether he's conscious of this is another matter.
Whether this makes the pattern more or less difficult is yet another matter.
Case for harder:
As Scott Sorensen noted, the orientation of the ring is yet another
variable to be controlled by the juggler -- perhaps strong aerodynamic
effects force you to exert a stricter control over orientation than would
otherwise be the case.
Case for easier:
The boomerang effect makes the pattern wider at the top where the objects
cross (in the cascade), making collisions less likely.
Who knows? I myself find that orientation of the thrown rings does play
an important role, and also that with rings it's harder to make a quick
catch/throw when one of them comes down later than it should -- it just
takes time to throw them properly. You can't do a rush job of it as you
can sometimes with balls.
Jack Boyce
jbo...@physics.berkeley.edu
Scott Sorensen
dia...@planet.net wrote:
>
> Jag (I think) wrote:
>
> >> On the topic of Ignatov, I spoke with Ben Schoenberg the other day.
> >> He pulled out his copy of "4000 Years", and found the passage where
> >> it clearly describes, in some detail, a practice session in which
> >> Ignatov juggles 7, then flashes into nine with the help of assistants,
> >> and then the balls are caught in nets. [...]
>
> Then Andrew Conway wrote:
> >I have no difficulty believing such a description was made up or that the
> >numbers were muddled. The translation into English of 4kY was done by
> >somebody whose native language was neither English nor German. There were
> >some terrible mistranslations and much information was garbled. It's a
> >book you buy for the pictures rather than the text.
>
> Let's muddy the "Numbers Records" waters a bit further.
>
> In his new book "Enrico Rastelli and The World Greatest Jugglers", Karl-Heinz
> Ziethen says about Anthony Gatto: "He effortlessly tosses eight and nine
> balls, as well as eight and nine rings with a ball resting on his forehead.
> Needless to say, then, he also juggles ten and eleven rings.".
>
> He also says about Ignatov: "... and in 1973 he raised juggling onto a new
> plane when he succeeded in juggling eleven rings, starting with nine and then
> detaching another two from a special belt.".
>
>
> Steve S.
--
I must say that I'm really enjoying this thread. I have to put in my 2
cents now, however. The rings that Ignatov used were made of plywood.
They were heavy and they snapped like egg shells when dropped from an 11
ring pattern. I spoke with him personally in Pitt and he told me that
his best run with 9 rings was 138 catches, 69 with each hand.... with
plywood! I saw Albert Lucas in the ice capades in the '70s and he
flashed 10 plywood rings on the ice! As far as records are conserned
this dosen't change much but it might give you a new respect for these
great jugglers of the past.
As far as wether or not rings are easier than 'beanbags' I guess thats
up to you but I must add this point. When I was learning 7 rings my
hands blead almost every day as I put hours of gym time into it. The
same with 8. Eventually My hands formed callauses and the pattern
became such that I didn't get cut and blead anymore. Most ring jugglers
have suffered through or are suffering with something like this. I did
it because rings were unique and I wanted to learn something more
origional. Beanbag jugglers won't ever go through that kind of
suffering to learn 7, 8, 9, or more. Your fingernails won't turn purple
because you caught a ring wrong. You won't have to superglue your nails
back on as Anthony told me he does sometimes.
With rings the position of your arms must be different than balls. Your
pattern is a different shape and the elements play a larger part. Your
can't correct as easily as with balls for many reasons, one of which is
that if you throw a ring from a slightly different position its flight
pattern changes more dramatically. Rings are more difficult than
beanbags. (a large blanket statement, I know) I think historically that
performers found that the audience could see rings better from greater
distances and they flew higher which everyone likes so they became
popular in the circus environment. I'm not a historian but that would
be my reasoning. My personal bests with balls and rings stays fairly
even although I practice rings at least 3 times as long.
I took some advise from Sergie and started making my throws a little
higher. In my first practice after the convention I had 45 catches with
8 rings, a new personal best. I think it should be more after 4 years
from my first qualifying run. There's a lot of 'feel' with the rings.
If you put them down for too long you really loose your edge quickly.
If they are easier than balls it is in one area only, the handles are
bigger!
Ok, I'm done ranting now!
*** Scott Sorensen is... jugg...@iglou.com
____________________________________________________________
\"You don't have to solve all the problems of the world... /
\ ...You just have to stop being one!" /
\------------------------------------------------------/
My Juggling Home Page... http://members.iglou.com/juggle12/
Cincinnati Club Club... http://members.iglou.com/ram/
Peter Billam
> p...@unconfigured.xvnews.domain (Peter Billam) wrote:
>
> >If you throw a ring slightly outwards, as it moves upwards, it moves outwards
> >away from you. But when it stops at the top and begins to come down again,
> >its orientation doesn't change because its axis of spin is stabilised
> >gyroscopically. So as the descent speeds up it grips the air and comes
> >gliding back in to you. This boomerang effect is one of the things that
> >makes high patterns easier with rings.
>
> I asked Albert Lucas specifically about this. He says he does not
> take advantage of this effect at all.
>
> Edward
>
He must know what he's doing. Are there, then, two Rival Schools of ring
juggling, the glider school and the parabola school ?
I would have thought that without gliding, rings would have no advantage over
balls except for their thinness, i.e. would have no advantage over small balls.
It seems so neat to me to have rings go up on one flight path and come down on
another from the point of view of avoiding collisions. But like I say, he must
know what he's doing a lot more than I do... Did he try gliding and reject it ?
If so, did he say why ?
The effect won't occur (so much) with fat rings, but then it's not so
useful in passing, where fat rings get used most but heights are less.
Regards, Peter Billam
Peter Billam
In <340cee4a...@news.primenet.com>, edw...@jte.com (Edward Jackman) writes:
> p...@ml.removethisbit.csiro.au (Peter Billam) wrote:
>
> >He must know what he's doing. Are there, then, two Rival Schools of ring
> >juggling, the glider school and the parabola school ?
>
> higher at any precise angle non-incident to the direction
> of the throw.
>
line with its own plane (i.e. at right angles to its axis of
rotation), so it only bites the air and departs from its parabola
on the way down.
I have heard advice to throw the ring vertically, but with the
plane (and spin) of the ring inclined; this would rely on aerodynamics
during the upward journey too. But I've never been able to do the throw.
> This may be another reason patterns of 11 rings and higher
> will be very difficult to maintain -- at that height, slight
> errors in the angle of the ring at throwtime may cause large
> errors at catchtime.
>
True, all too true.
But the biggest danger for me is that if I launch the ring with
a _wobble_ (i.e. axis of rotation not quite perpendicular to the
plane of the ring) then it doesn't bite the air and return, so
it suddenly ends up meters away from me ...
> >I would have thought that without gliding, rings would have no advantage over
> >balls except for their thinness, i.e. would have no advantage over small balls.
>
> When thin balls collide, the pattern crashes. Collisions are often
> non-fatal and often barely require a correction with rings.
>
Another good point.
> >Did he try gliding and reject it ?
> >If so, did he say why ?
>
> I don't think he ever tried it and I didn't press him. I had kind
> of *assumed* up until then that he *did* glide them. I think it's
> one of those urban juggling legends that I'd heard about him before.
>
Fascinating thread. I could learn something to my advantage here ...
On the other hand, Jack Boyce notes that Gatto's 9-ring pattern
definitely glides - when viewed from the front it has a very distinctive
heart-shaped appearance. When JuggleAnim learns rings, will they glide
or not, I wonder ?
Regards, Peter Billam
Scott Allen Cain
I believe that there is good evidence (though not video/film) to support that Ignatov did indeed juggle 11 rings for 22 catches in practice. There are many
references to Ignatov juggling in practice 9 rings for 184 catches and 11 for
22 catches. These were on display in the history lounge in Pittsburgh. Most
of those accounts were from Roger Dollarhide (sp?), whom (if I recall correctly)
spent several days with Ignatov in 1977 watching him practice and perform.
Roger documented those numbers as what he accomplished in practice. Roger
's credibility to accuracy shouldn't be questioned as he was a big numbers
juggler (8 or 9 balls), the founder of the IJA competitions, and has a good
eye (pro photographer). If there is doubt, ask Roger or see Mary WIlken's collection.
Scott
Bill Giduz
I heard from Lotte Brunn today that she had a great time at the Yale Fest, and
congratulate those in charge for hosting a large part of the juggling world.
I'm sure we'll get more details in the next couple days on the newsgroup...
But that's past history! If you want to make history, steer yourself to
Davidson, N.C., this coming weekend for the Hurricane Hugo Juggling Festival.
I won't go over the whole schedule, but here are brief highlights---
* Campuswide party Friday night capped off by our fire juggling display
* Public juggling lessons on the Village Green Saturday morning
* We do the halftime show at Davidson's football game on Saturday afternoon
* Pizza party!
* Mark Nizer show Saturday night followed by Renegade Show in the college pub
* Mark will be around all weekend, Friday afternoon through Sunday evening
* Free crash space!
* Beautiful campus
* Door prizes galore
* Big juggling space, high ceilings, good lighting
It's $15 to guarantee you a Nizer ticket, football game ticket, pizza and
festival souvenir. Please let me know asap if you're coming so that we can
save your tickets. The seats for the Nizer show are going fast. See you Friday!
Bill Giduz
http://www.davidson.edu/administrative/relations/giduzhp/hugo/hugofest.html