To be a REAL juggler you have to...
GLF00
"real" juggler unless you juggle hard balls, instead of the commonly used
beanbag.
BUT: These die-hards are deluded, because they are actually bigger wimps
than they pretend the beanbagers are! Back when juggling started,
naturally spherical objects were probably used, such as fruits, rocks,
etc. There were NO stage balls, NO pinky balls, NO lacrosse or silicones.
Then some wimp came along and decided that flashing 9 boulders was too
hard, so he invented what we now call "juggling balls".
And on the subject of clubs; what's the problem people?! WHY IN THE WORLD
do you think it's okay to use those wimpy composite clubs when you KNOW it
doesn't count unless you use actual indian clubs like Bobby May had, or
better yet, sticks!
And since when does a plastic circle, aka a ring, make an acceptable
replacement for the long-respected plates that any self-respecting juggler
should be using? 11 ring qualifies? Give me a break! LET ME SEE IT DONE
WITH PLATES!!!
--
----== posted via www.jugglingdb.com ==----
ManiacDrew
I started out juggling wooden canes, and
still feel like anything less is "cheating".
However, I found that rather set the challenge
as juggling something physically abusive, I can
just learn a tough pattern (which causes the same
if not more pain). And, with the hours I have to put
down, it's gotta be done with a prop that's a tad more
forgiving. Now I see the wimps as the people that don't
work on advanced techniques.
MD
ultimatewannabe
I think the main misconception is that there are two separate but
sometimes compatible atributes jugglers look for in their props and which
drives them to create new props: asthetics and technical advantage. Most
jugglers are looking for props that look better or perform better. When a
similar prop comes along that does both, the existing prop is usually
discarded. Such was the case when juggling balls replaced boulders and
fruit and when rings replaced plates, rings were easier to juggle and
looked better so they completely replaced plates.
This conflict comes along when a prop provides significant advantages in
one area but detracts from the other area significantly. I think we all
agree underfilled beanbags are vastly superior to stage balls for flashing
or barely running extremely high numbers. I have never seen an 11 ball
flash with stage balls (feel free to correct me if there's a youtube link
somewhere). However it's also a pretty unanimous opinion that these
underfilled beanbags which make 11 ball flashes possible look like crap in
the air compared to stage balls or russians. This results in a stupidly
large number of arguments which are essentially over nothing more than
whether asthetics or technical advantage are more important.
Clubs are the easiest cylindrical objects to juggle which spin when thrown
the most natural way. They are also not significantly worse looking than
indian clubs and definitely have a higher visual impact than sticks.
Therefore no one but you is against them, except people who hate
clubs/sticks (I've met one).
Mike
fakoriginal
>
> There seem to be some jugglers who hold the opinion that you are not a
> "real" juggler unless you juggle hard balls, instead of the commonly used
> beanbag.
>
Really? I can't think of anyone who is serious in this belief. Do tell.
fak
Erik Jernqvist
>
> GLF00 wrote:
> >
> > There seem to be some jugglers who hold the opinion that you are not a
> > "real" juggler unless you juggle hard balls, instead of the commonly used
> > beanbag.
> >
>
> Really? I can't think of anyone who is serious in this belief. Do tell.
>
> fak
>
Mr Dick Franco. Ok, he might not think that you're not a real juggler if
you use beanbags, he doesn't like when refer to bags as balls. He's made
atleast 100 posts on Gatto's forum about this.
Doyen Dean
>
> There seem to be some jugglers who hold the opinion that you are not a
> "real" juggler unless you juggle hard balls, instead of the commonly used
> beanbag.
> BUT: These die-hards are deluded, because they are actually bigger wimps
> than they pretend the beanbagers are! Back when juggling started,
> naturally spherical objects were probably used, such as fruits, rocks,
> etc. There were NO stage balls, NO pinky balls, NO lacrosse or silicones.
> Then some wimp came along and decided that flashing 9 boulders was too
> hard, so he invented what we now call "juggling balls".
>
>
>
>
terminology straight here ;-)
Will S
MD, can you do tapbacks with your canes? Would love to see that.
[OT]
Will
Jay Linn
<7ball....@gmail.com.nospam.com> wrote:
> Mr Dick Franco. Ok, he might not think that you're not a real juggler if
> you use beanbags, he doesn't like when refer to bags as balls. He's made
> atleast 100 posts on Gatto's forum about this.
Dick and balls - 'nuff said.
--
Jay Linn
Reality "is very well known to have a liberal bias" - Conservapedia, The
Trustworthy Encyclopedia.
Little Paul
>> doesn't count unless you use actual indian clubs like Bobby May had,
I could be wrong, but I thought Bobby May used fiberglass clubs.
>> And since when does a plastic circle, aka a ring, make an acceptable
>> replacement for the long-respected plates that any self-respecting juggler
>> should be using? 11 ring qualifies? Give me a break! LET ME SEE IT DONE
>> WITH PLATES!!!
Rings aren't a plate replacement. They're a different prop in their own
right. There are tricks that can be done with plates but not rings, and
tricks that can be done with rings but not plates.
True that people don't juggle plates any more, but then when was the last
time you saw someone with a standard lamp balanced on their face? Or
juggling with artillery shells?
> I think the main misconception is that there are two separate but
> sometimes compatible atributes jugglers look for in their props and which
> drives them to create new props: asthetics and technical advantage.
This.
-Paul
--
paulseward.com - a photo a day for 2008
100jugglers.org - 100 pieces of signed juggling promotional material
Drew_Ministry
>
> GLF00 wrote:
> >
> > There seem to be some jugglers who hold the opinion that you are not a
> > "real" juggler unless you juggle hard balls, instead of the commonly used
> > beanbag.
> >
That's rubbish.
I'll tell you the truth, You're not a real juggler unless you juggle big
balls Minimum 4" (100mm) diameter.
Wimps juggle small balls, and Bean bag jugglers don't even deserves the
contempt of posting an insult about them here.
Anyway, balls are too easy, you're not really "a real juggler" unless you
juggle clubs.
</sarcasm>
Screw the snobbery.
Drew
ManiacDrew
>
> MD, can you do tapbacks with your canes? Would love to see that.
>
> [OT]
> Will
I haven't even asked others to try it.
I predict the hook will rotate wildly,
and:
1. look very sloppy
2. be extremely difficult
However, the difficulty may create a
new trick. Currently, I have been doing
a little experimentation with half and
full async rotations forward.
MD
GLF00
>
>
> I think the main misconception is that there are two separate but
> sometimes compatible atributes jugglers look for in their props and which
> drives them to create new props: asthetics and technical advantage. Most
> jugglers are looking for props that look better or perform better. When a
> similar prop comes along that does both, the existing prop is usually
> discarded. Such was the case when juggling balls replaced boulders and
> fruit and when rings replaced plates, rings were easier to juggle and
> looked better so they completely replaced plates.
>
> This conflict comes along when a prop provides significant advantages in
> one area but detracts from the other area significantly. I think we all
> agree underfilled beanbags are vastly superior to stage balls for flashing
> or barely running extremely high numbers. I have never seen an 11 ball
> flash with stage balls (feel free to correct me if there's a youtube link
> somewhere). However it's also a pretty unanimous opinion that these
> underfilled beanbags which make 11 ball flashes possible look like crap in
> the air compared to stage balls or russians. This results in a stupidly
> large number of arguments which are essentially over nothing more than
> whether asthetics or technical advantage are more important.
Interesting point, thanks for bringing that up.
>
> Clubs are the easiest cylindrical objects to juggle which spin when thrown
> the most natural way. They are also not significantly worse looking than
> indian clubs and definitely have a higher visual impact than sticks.
> Therefore no one but you is against them, except people who hate
> clubs/sticks (I've met one).
>
> Mike
>
>
I'm not really against clubs, I was just being sarcastic.
ChaseMartin
>
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 07:59:15 +0100, Erik Jernqvist
> <7ball....@gmail.com.nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > Mr Dick Franco. Ok, he might not think that you're not a real juggler if
> > you use beanbags, he doesn't like when refer to bags as balls. He's made
> > atleast 100 posts on Gatto's forum about this.
>
> Dick and balls - 'nuff said.
>
haha
Sondre Øverby
In Norwegian we don't have a word for beanbag. So I have to say ball.
Paul
Øverby) wrote:
> In Norwegian we don't have a word for beanbag. So I have to say ball.
Beanbag is a compound word comprising of a description of the contents
and covering of the item in question. Surely you have words for both
beans and bags in Norway [1] so just stick them together and add a
word to Norwegian lexicography.
A cheapjack online translator gives the following: bønnepose. Or
possibly posebønne. I know nothing about Norwegian as a language other
than the fact that it is derived from Old Norse languages, about which
I know equally little, so this is a bit of a stab in the dark, but
does it work for you?
Paul B
[1] If not, ordering mexican takeouts must be a nightmare!
ManiacDrew
> Screw the snobbery.
> Drew
>
Yeah!
Why use juggling balls at all?: scarves!
Screw that balls snobbery . . . wait . . .
why use objects? Pantomime!
Two Drews agree!
MD
Guy G
Fantastic.
Guy
bill coad
>
> There seem to be some jugglers who hold the opinion that you are not a
> "real" juggler unless you juggle hard balls, instead of the commonly used
> beanbag.
This makes sense only for contact juggling.
IveGotBalls
> Yeah!
> Why use juggling balls at all?: scarves!
> Screw that balls snobbery . . . wait . . .
> why use objects? Pantomime!
>
> Two Drews agree!
>
> MD
>
>
>
*sob*
/ben/ who regularly plays with his balls...
Fabio Pinna
--
Scire ubi aliquid invenire possis,
ea demum maxima pars eruditionis est.
www.scratched.it - /dev/random
3balljuggler
>
> Drew_Ministry wrote:
> > Screw the snobbery.
> > Drew
> >
>
> Yeah!
> Why use juggling balls at all?: scarves!
> Screw that balls snobbery . . . wait . . .
> why use objects? Pantomime!
>
> Two Drews agree!
>
> MD
>
>
>
haha lol. It's like as if you are saying: why even juggle??? WHat's the
POINT!
It all comes down to just fun..
3balljuggler
>
> ...enjoy juggling.
>
Couldn't have said it better
bill coad
>
> Fabio Pinna wrote:
> >
> > ...enjoy juggling.
> >
>
> Couldn't have said it better
>
Perhaps necessary but not sufficient. There are many who can enjoy
juggling but can't juggle.
clintonh
>
> 3balljuggler wrote:
> >
> > Fabio Pinna wrote:
> > >
> > > ...enjoy juggling.
> > >
> >
> > Couldn't have said it better
> >
>
> Perhaps necessary but not sufficient. There are many who can enjoy
> juggling but can't juggle.
>
"Can't" or "don't"?
C
ManiacDrew
> haha lol. It's like as if you are saying: why even juggle??? WHat's the
> POINT!
>
> It all comes down to just fun..
No, my point is that even anti-snob ball jugglers like Drew_Ministry have
standards. I consider myself a "juggling snob" taking the position that I
only want to work with 1 prop. I don't see that as different than the ones
who use the standard juggling props. Ironically, anti-snobs are the biggest
snobs of all. If someone wants to admire a particular standard, it's OK.
MD
ManiacDrew
>
>
> "Can't" or "don't"?
>
> C
Those that can't, don't.
MD
It's Him
>
> Rings aren't a plate replacement. They're a different prop in their own
> right. There are tricks that can be done with plates but not rings, and
> tricks that can be done with rings but not plates.
Very true
>
> True that people don't juggle plates any more,
Speak for yourself
> but then when was the last
> time you saw someone with a standard lamp balanced on their face? Or
> juggling with artillery shells?
Nigel
first post in absolutely ages