Best 3ball juggler ever.

[pumpkineater23]

Rather than keep typing IMO over and over again I'm just going to start
with I think.

I think, for the moment anyway, Murakami is the greatest three ball
juggler to have ever walked the earth. There's quite a few 3ball jugglers
(all recent ones) I would consider for the top spot and all for different
reasons but to name just one it's Murakami, and here's why:

1. Unlike higher numbers you can tell one 3ball juggler from the next by
the juggling but Murakami's 3ball is super unique. And it's not just the
odd thing, it's pretty much everything he does. He is changing 3ball
juggling more than anyone I have ever seen.

2. It's 100% pure juggling, not juggling with something else like dance or
dancing with juggling. I don't see him leaping around hanging on to the
balls throwing in a difficult trick or quick combination here and there. I
think usually that can be to cover up a lack of solid intricate skill.
There's no pretension either, it's the real thing, incredible progressive
juggling - juggling for juggling, not juggling for a round of applause.
Also it's not just his mind-blowing tricks, it all looks connected, he can
mix it up.

3. He has great taste! Not only is the technique perfect but he develops
the beautiful stuff. Often the 3ball juggling that comes from those that
strive for the most difficult is not very pretty.


So, do you agree or disagree with any of the things that I think make a
great 3ball juggler? And difficult as it may be to say someone is 'the
best' and to name just one 3ball juggler, is there anyone that you think
stands out from the crowd? And if so then why?



pete


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

[Mike Moore]

I was talking to my girlfriend, fellow juggler, and someone who knows
Murakami (he went to her club for the longest time) about exactly this
yesterday, saying how some very strong 3b jugglers (you, Dan, Michael)
consider him the best 3b juggler.

I definitely agree, he's the best 3b juggler that I know of. His amazing
creativity and consistent production of very difficult tricks is his most
impressive attribute, I would say. Changing 3b juggling the most out?
That's a big claim, but one that I wholeheartedly agree with. There are a
handful of amazing Japanese jugglers who have put out videos in the last
year or so, who pretty much cite Murakami as the source of the
patterns/ideas.

While I think that #2 and 3 are not necessary to be the best 3b juggler, I
certainly appreciate when they're included in the package.

All of that said, I would like nothing more than for someone to post a
bunch of links to someone else's amazing, unseen-by-me 3b videos in
rebuttal!

Mike

[sylphskin]

Wow, what an odd topic name, and I'm sure you'll get some funny answers :)

As you mention briefly at the beginning of the thread, there's not really
such a thing as 'best' in 3 ball juggling, it's like saying 'Who is the
best musician?' or the best artist, and, really, in a short answer - no
one is, it's just about personal taste. 'Who is the best?' really just
means 'Who is your favourite?' but this certainly reads as a bit of a
different question... remember, this is the internet...

If it's Murakami for you guys, that's great. He is awesomely technical, it
is impossible to deny, and I definitely agree with 'juggling for
juggling's sake' which is why I juggle myself...

Personally though, I prefer to see a bit more expression and character in
juggling, particularly in a video. As someone who has made quite a few
videos, but also not featured in the most popular videos I've made
(Japanese Jugglers 1,2 and 3 up to nearly 200k views at last count),
hopefully it is obvious that I don't get on well with an 'Oooh, look at
me, look how good I am' kind of video style.

My favourite videos recently have come from Bram Dobbelaere's video
challenge. Hopefully most people have seen them already, but just in case:

Eric Longequel - Krtch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_kS4i2TnrE

Stefan Sing - I really like it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKBKdKLGyPE

Emmanuel Perez - Dobbelaere project_0511
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PJSH73RFcM

Movement, musicality and sense of humour. That does it for me.

Enjoy the vids!

Oli

[ChaseMartin]

Ori Roth's 3 ballish stuff is my favorite (includes doing 3 ball tricks
with 4). Although I don't search for 3 ball stuff much.

[David Cain]

Not being a 3 ball aficionado, I've never heard of Murakami, despite
being quite knowledgeable in all things juggling. Can you provide
some of the best links to his work? Thanks.
David Cain

[RyanM]

This thread makes no sense. Stefan Sing is the best 3 ball juggler,
technically and artistically. Argument over, nothing more to debate :p

What are you basing your opinion of Murakami on? I've only seen his stuff
in the Japanese jugglers videos, it is interesting, nice tricks and
variations, but nothing too special. Am i missing something?

[IRNjuggle28]

I can't believe nobody's mentioned Falco Sheffler yet!

[C*C*K]

Stefan Sing.

[E Rock]

On Oct 16, 6:57 am, pumpkineate...@hotmail.com.nospam.com

I have to agree. I have not seen a more technically sound 3 ball
juggler. He can do some amazing things, and he can do them for a
really long runs.

[E Rock]

http://www.youtube.com/user/Mura345#p/u/7/Bn3cN6oRPCo

I actually just discovered him this week. His videos Patterns 1, 2,
and 3 are incredible.

[mark1991]

Hi there,

Just wanted to say thanks for posting up those links - think I had seen
one of them before, but the others were new to me and they're all really
great! Thanks for posting!

Blessings,

Mark

http://magicnewstelevision.com/mn/magicalmark

[hirskontra]

I vote for Stefan Sing, too. He juggles in a new dimension.

[Marlon]

RyanM wrote:
>
> This thread makes no sense. Stefan Sing is the best 3 ball juggler,
> technically and artistically. Argument over, nothing more to debate :p
>
> What are you basing your opinion of Murakami on? I've only seen his stuff
> in the Japanese jugglers videos, it is interesting, nice tricks and
> variations, but nothing too special. Am i missing something?
>

Sing is good but he became ..dancy.
Murakami, Ori Roth and falceo show juggling, Sing dances with balls which
obscures the juggling.
Both can look good but when browsing for juggling videos I prefer the
first group.


Marlon -

P.S.: Komei is the best 3 ball juggler ;-)

[pumpkineater23]

I mean 3b toss juggling. I think bounce juggling, contact and contact-toss
juggling work far better with body expression/dance... there's so much
more time for it.

I think Murakami clearly has a natural talent. It's genetic. Although
groovy moving comes more naturally to some than others I think anyone, or
at least most of us can do it, it just takes practice. Same goes for body
tricks, beautiful as they are, comes down to lots of practice. Very few
people can create all that amazing groundbreaking juggling though, you
either have it or you don't. IMO it makes the juggler stand out as
'better' from the rest of us, the best artists and musicians are the
groundbreaking ones.

There's no dance because there is no need for it, the balls are doing the
dancing and the expressing. Physical expression makes the juggling more
difficult and it's far easier/better to express through our body's than
through the balls so the addition of dance to juggling causes the juggling
to becomes less important, the body starts to express and not the
juggling. It can reach a point when there is no need for any balls at all!


Great links by the way. I'm always very interested to see what Emmanuel
Perez is up to. He's definitely one of my favorites.


pete

[Chris Noonan]

Though he's not really known for his three ball stuff, I think Wes Peden
deserves some recognition. The first sequence in 'Plaid' had some really
ground breaking, technical three ball juggling. I think he's up there with
most jugglers who focus exclusively on three balls.
Ori Roth can do pretty much anything with three balls; body throws, box
patterns, squeeze catches etc. He's got the broadest set of tricks I can
think of.

[Benjamin Be]

Falco Scheffler! Who else?

[lutkus]

IRNjuggle28 wrote:
>
> I can't believe nobody's mentioned Falco Sheffler yet!

and I can't believe nobody's mentioned Chris Bliss yet!

[sylphskin]

I am happy to agree more with Ryan here... But as I said before, it's
solely about taste.

There appear to be two main camps (probably everyone who is a bit of both
just doesn't bother posting, but anyway) - I'm going to call them the
'movement and expression in juggling', and the 'look at what my hands can
do!' camps, or 1 and 2.

Basically, we could argue this 'best' forever, so let's not bother. Let's
just agree to disagree.

Here are some more of my favourites:

For camp 1:
Adrian Mondot - 3 ball juggling
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZTYRTaX0_0

Darragh McLoughlin - Juggling Act
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwwNaP0JY5U

Ryan Mellors - Two Dots (if you aren't into CJ, at least give it til the
3b sections, they're worth it!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVv2QP0RHDo

Also, if you ever get a chance to see Yann Frisch, take it. You won't find
his 3 ball routine on YouTube, but I had my mind blown by his Open Stage
performance at the EJC 2009 in Vitoria...
Here's a video of something he does:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JI03MW3Oms

For camp 2:
Reuben Cohn-Gordon
http://juggling.tv/2858 (video from 2009, I'm sure someone can post a more
recent one...)

Pumpkineater - 3play5 (coz I doubt he'll post his own...)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR1sU1X9bfc

..Have to say, I can't think of any more, coz I get a bit bored watching
camp 2 style juggling for more than about thirty seconds... I want to see
some personality!

Anyway, to finish up, a cheeky curveball for both camps:
Jerome Thomas - Trois balles
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZNE40ghohg

If you don't watch any of the others, please watch Jerome Thomas. See just
how much you can do with simple tricks, perfect timing and incredible body
expression.

Love and kisses,

Oli

[Emman]

pumpkineater23 wrote:
>
>
> 2. It's 100% pure juggling, not juggling with something else like dance or
> dancing with juggling. I don't see him leaping around hanging on to the
> balls throwing in a difficult trick or quick combination here and there. I
> think usually that can be to cover up a lack of solid intricate skill.
> There's no pretension either, it's the real thing, incredible progressive
> juggling - juggling for juggling, not juggling for a round of applause.
> Also it's not just his mind-blowing tricks, it all looks connected, he can
> mix it up.

This has absolutely nothing to do with being the best 3 balls juggler or
not.
You're trying to diminish the technicality involved because of the way it
is presented.
Maybe you like Mura's presentation best but his presentation doesn't make
him a better juggler.

> So, do you agree or disagree with any of the things that I think make a
> great 3ball juggler? And difficult as it may be to say someone is 'the
> best' and to name just one 3ball juggler, is there anyone that you think
> stands out from the crowd? And if so then why?
>

I like watching Stefan Sing the most, it doesn't make him the best 3 balls
juggler but he's my favorite.

I think the "best" debates are simply a way to make your favorite "better"
then someone else's favorite.
When it gets to juggling you have to define best in a very very narrow way
if you want to get down to just one name.
I think everyone's favorite 3 ball juggler is part of the best 3 balls
jugglers group (If they are well informed about the best 3 balls jugglers)
and picking one person out of those is a debate that could go on for ever.
It's a my dad's stronger than yours contest.

Emman

[Marlon]

Those videos look promising. I'm sure to check them out somewhere this
week.[1]

I actually agree with you on the fact there is no best 3 ball juggler.
But since we seem to make almost the same division in types of jugglers I
chose Komei as the best juggler.
I think fans of both sides love his style and I can't decide in which of
the 2 groups I'd put him.

Marlon

[1]- okay honestly I checked out the performance by Reuben while typing
this. There has to be something different about the way he looks at three
ball juggling, I can't even figure out what he's doing half of the time.

[MarkRebuck]

I saw his YouTube channel a few months ago while looking for 5 ball
videos, but somehow missed his 3 ball work. Incredible stuff! I
don't usually get too excited about 3 ball tricks, but he's got a
really nice style. Thanks for sharing the link!

-Mark Rebuck

[Brook Roberts]

I second this - it's boring to pick Wes again but that sequence in Plaid
was really something else. I wouldn't call him the best ever but he
certainly pushed the boundaries in a way that was very different to most
of the other jugglers here.

[d_n_b]

I believe Murakami is the best technical 3-ball pattern juggler I have
ever seen. What do I think this means?

Well, it isn't about self-expression, body movement, or entertainment.
This is pure, raw, complex yet aesthetic toss juggling that explores deep
into new and obscure pattern families. It's maximalist within a minimalist
framework. Nothing is dressed up. Flaws and weaknesses cannot be hidden
through strategic body movement. These patterns must be dominated, or they
cannot be maintained at all. Call it "austere 3-ball" if you like.

Please note this is not a contrived category engineered to fit a narrow
definition. It is what you get when you strip away the movements that are
not necessary to display toss patterns with clarity. It is more like
holding up a moving sculpture, as opposed to being part of the sculpture.
With this context in mind, I am NOT speaking of a hybrid style involving
dance and juggling (where Stefan Sing arguably is king).

Most of the patterns that Murakami runs are two or three "levels" ahead of
what has long been considered the top echelon. He consistently shows us
the most difficult 3b patterns ever presented (that I am aware of). When I
say "difficult patterns," I mean they are extremely tough to execute even
at their absolute sloppiest.

In other words they are patterns that one can't even "pull off" without
extensive prerequisite ability. In a sense, the necessary kinetic
precision is built implicitly into the physics. This is something I feel
is not perceived well by those who do not go deep into technical 3-ball
juggling.

I don't know how to say this without risking condescension, but that is
not my intent: It takes an understanding of complexity to judge
complexity. There are often many "prerequisites" to judge the difficulty
of one 3b sync variation from another[1][2]. This is what I work on, and
this is what I study.

This type of advancement is like scientific innovation. He constructs a
pattern like a chemist synthesizes a new molecule.

My view is not solely based on complexity and difficulty. There are
patterns in his videos I could direct people to that I consider "holy
grail" material because of the combination of beauty, symmetry,
complexity, difficulty, AND uniqueness that to me is magical. He finds the
rare "local maximums" in the infinite field of patterns that possess all
of these traits in balance.

I have been thinking about this topic for quite a few months, specifically
because of Murakami and the powerful impression he has had on me. I would
love to carry on this discussion without it being reduced to "There is no
best 3-ball juggler, it's not even worth *talking* about."

Thanks for reading,
Dan / dnb


Bonus Mura footage in here, for those unaware of this excellent juggler's
channel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmhsSH_rU6w


[1] For example, a self-slam looks similar to a regular slam, but is far
trickier. A crossed-arm box throw is unusual enough that its difficulty is
not intuitive. Weave them in with other difficult throws, and it becomes
even harder to discern. To the less trained hand-eye, he may appear to be
running patterns on an "advanced, but typical" level, but he is actually
far beyond that in new territory.

[2] Similarly, the best I can do is *estimate* if a given 7b siteswap
sequence is harder than another, because I don't do them. It would be
foolish for me to claim more.

[Emman]

d_n_b wrote:
>
> A very well thought out post.

Ah yes, this makes me happy. I agree with everything you said.

> Flaws and weaknesses cannot be hidden through strategic body movement.

Any exemples of this with 3 balls?


Emman

[IRNjuggle28]

I can't believe anybody DID mention him. Chris Bliss sucks. He's a good
performer, he's nothing special at juggling, even with 3 balls. The
hardest 3 ball tricks I've ever seen him do are backcrosses and 3 in one
hand.

[JackOfClubs]

Stefan Sing
is still making the juggling
that i like best of all
nice thread
Liam

[Mike Moore]

RyanM wrote:
>
> This thread makes no sense. Stefan Sing is the best 3 ball juggler,
> technically and artistically. Argument over, nothing more to debate :p
>

I haven't seen much from Stefan on the technical side, could you (or
anyone else, really) give a couple links of him doing technical things?

> What are you basing your opinion of Murakami on? I've only seen his stuff
> in the Japanese jugglers videos, it is interesting, nice tricks and
> variations, but nothing too special. Am i missing something?
>

Yes, you are missing HIS videos. In my opinion, the Patterns series is
the best on his channel. Links for convenience:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Mura345#p/u/7/Bn3cN6oRPCo
http://www.youtube.com/user/Mura345#p/u/4/PFiUK57oS90
http://www.youtube.com/user/Mura345#p/u/0/bpTtQSKQO0c

Listed chronologically, and non-coincidentally, in ascending quality.

[Mike Moore]

sylphskin wrote:
>
> There appear to be two main camps (probably everyone who is a bit of both
> just doesn't bother posting, but anyway) - I'm going to call them the
> 'movement and expression in juggling', and the 'look at what my hands can
> do!' camps, or 1 and 2.
>

I think the difference is that group 1 believes that dance/movement/facial
expressions/whathaveyou are an integral (perhaps inseparable) part of
juggling, which group 2 feels that juggling can exist (and not be
dampened) without the above.

>
> Anyway, to finish up, a cheeky curveball for both camps:
> Jerome Thomas - Trois balles
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZNE40ghohg
>
> If you don't watch any of the others, please watch Jerome Thomas. See just
> how much you can do with simple tricks, perfect timing and incredible body
> expression.
>

For (fairly) simple tricks, perfect timing, and body expression, I prefer
Michael Moschen's The Triangle
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjHoedoSUXY, though I'm sure most people
know it). I wasn't a huge fan of Jerome's video (it's well done to be
sure, but not the kind of juggling that excites me).

Mike

[Hapiel]

lutkus wrote:
>
> IRNjuggle28 wrote:
> >
> > I can't believe nobody's mentioned Falco Sheffler yet!
>
> and I can't believe nobody's mentioned Chris Bliss yet!
>

Michael Menes??

http://youtu.be/LA5cd9tXGMs

[biztheclown]

d_n_b wrote:

Great post, from _my_ personal favorite three ball juggler.

[Gravitas]

Benjamin Be wrote:
>
> Falco Scheffler! Who else?
>

I second this, but if he doesn't put something new out soon, Murakami
might become my new favorite. It's been incredible to watch Mura's
progress over the course of his videos.

[sylphskin]

Ok, annoyed now because my damn browser has closed my response twice, so
here's the very shortened version:

If you really dig Murakami's style that much, don't just talk about it on
a forum, invite him to your juggling convention, I'm sure he'd appreciate
an expenses-paid trip.

Here are some more names:
Morgan Cosquer
Guillaume Martinet
Minh Tam Kaplan
Mikel (don't know his surname, he's a young Belgian guy, just started at
Fontys in Tilburg)

You'll have to find videos yourself because trying to link them keeps
breaking my computer.

I'm a bit sad that in 31 posts no one's linked a single video I haven't
already seen...

Love and kisses,

Oli

[Andreas Folk]

Just wanted to add Falco Scheffler here ;).

[Loudax]

Paul Lind has to be up there with the best.

[Lewis Kennedy]

i dont know anything about 3 balls.

but i like dave kelly, he does some insane stuff!!!

Lewis

[Will S]

I think Wes is underrated - since we all know him for much larger tricks
and numbers, we seem to forget how good he is with 3 balls; the same could
be said for Jay Gilligan (remember the balcony on 3bdw?).

Michael Menes was always a favourite of mine, but maybe I'm showing my age.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6f26RNLqY&feature=mh_lolz&list=FLomw_yUw-HtHRr5yROtxI2Q

How about Peter Davidson, or Sean McKinney?

I think if we all voted (perhaps with Christmas coming up?) Stefan Sing
would probably come top.

Will

PS. Have you seen Murakami juggle live in person or only on videos?

[pjgpv]

Loudax wrote:
>
> Paul Lind has to be up there with the best.
>
>
>

I'd agree with this strongly. I also like how he maintains his style for
up to 5 ball too. Logical and creative.

[pumpkineater23]

pjgpv wrote:
>
> Loudax wrote:
> >
> > Paul Lind has to be up there with the best.
> >
> >
> >
>
> I'd agree with this strongly. I also like how he maintains his style for
> up to 5 ball too. Logical and creative.
>

Me too. Shocking that he wasn't in the 2010 top 40.

pete

[Reuben]

> So, do you agree or disagree with any of the things that I think make a
> great 3ball juggler? And difficult as it may be to say someone is 'the
> best' and to name just one 3ball juggler, is there anyone that you think
> stands out from the crowd? And if so then why?

Just watching Murakami really inspires me to do more juggling. Learning
some of his tricks is definitely a goal for when I'm less busy. In answer
to the question though, I think Murakami is definitely one of the best
jugglers in the "pattern seeking" style, where finding new patterns is
more important than continuously juggling in an aesthetically pleasing
way. Stefan Sing is, I think, much more impressive, in terms of
performance, but it's apples and oranges really.

There's quite a lot more that I want to write, but I might save it for
when I have the time to do it properly.

Reuben

[pumpkineater23]

Pattern seekers are the best jugglers. All the other stuff is what people
do because they can't do the pattern seeking. It's what everyone else
builds their 'thing' on, whatever that thing might be. It's the roots of
juggling. Some people may fall across patterns by accident from time to
time but so few of us can really keep creating and chucking them out like
Murakami... or you Reuben. It's jugglers like you that make it all
possible for the rest of us.


pete

[Robin]

A few of my favorites that instantly come to mind (in no particular order)
are:

Jamie Fletcher
Maksim Komaro
Jay Gilligan
Sean Mckinney
Michael Menes
Bobby May
Peter Davidson
Kris Kremo

Technical ability and style. What more could you want?

Robin
Ps. I watched the first patterns video on mura345's youtube and found it
incredibly dull. Funny old world isn't it...

[KooKie]

Seeking patterns make my head hurt.

..unless I'm on youtube :)

[Chris Noonan]

pumpkineater23 wrote:
>
> pjgpv wrote:
> >
> > Loudax wrote:
> > >
> > > Paul Lind has to be up there with the best.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I'd agree with this strongly. I also like how he maintains his style for
> > up to 5 ball too. Logical and creative.
> >
>
> Me too. Shocking that he wasn't in the 2010 top 40.
>
> pete
>

I agree with this. Paul Lind's three ball videos are some of the best. If
it's possible to compare the two styles, I think that he could match a lot
of Murakami's tricks in terms of technical difficulty.

[000norb00]

I think there are just too many to chose one as the best 3b juggler ever.

I guess the 3b vids I've watched most were made by Paul Lind. But there
are some more - like chris noonans vids. Till Rautert is really good with
3b... I really hope he is uploading a 3b vid someday.

[d_n_b]

This may be true. Paul Lind is definitely one of the best, and one of my
favorites.

Dan

[d_n_b]

sylphskin wrote:
>
> I'm a bit sad that in 31 posts no one's linked a single video I haven't
> already seen...

Maybe you haven't seen this one from "jjkohei". The 3b is awesome.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpR--2yy1Uw

Dan

[Mike Moore]

d_n_b wrote:
>
> sylphskin wrote:
> >
> > I'm a bit sad that in 31 posts no one's linked a single video I haven't
> > already seen...
>
> Maybe you haven't seen this one from "jjkohei". The 3b is awesome.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpR--2yy1Uw
>
> Dan
>

Wow, that was great, thanks for the post!

Mike

[Paul Lind]

pumpkineater23 wrote:
>
> Rather than keep typing IMO over and over again I'm just going to start
> with I think.
>
> I think, for the moment anyway, Murakami is the greatest three ball
> juggler to have ever walked the earth. There's quite a few 3ball jugglers
> (all recent ones) I would consider for the top spot and all for different
> reasons but to name just one it's Murakami, and here's why:
>
> 1. Unlike higher numbers you can tell one 3ball juggler from the next by
> the juggling but Murakami's 3ball is super unique. And it's not just the
> odd thing, it's pretty much everything he does. He is changing 3ball
> juggling more than anyone I have ever seen.
>
> 2. It's 100% pure juggling, not juggling with something else like dance or
> dancing with juggling. I don't see him leaping around hanging on to the
> balls throwing in a difficult trick or quick combination here and there. I
> think usually that can be to cover up a lack of solid intricate skill.
> There's no pretension either, it's the real thing, incredible progressive
> juggling - juggling for juggling, not juggling for a round of applause.
> Also it's not just his mind-blowing tricks, it all looks connected, he can
> mix it up.
>
> 3. He has great taste! Not only is the technique perfect but he develops
> the beautiful stuff. Often the 3ball juggling that comes from those that
> strive for the most difficult is not very pretty.
>
>

> So, do you agree or disagree with any of the things that I think make a
> great 3ball juggler? And difficult as it may be to say someone is 'the
> best' and to name just one 3ball juggler, is there anyone that you think
> stands out from the crowd? And if so then why?
>
>
>

> pete
>
>


Murakami and you have a similar style of juggling. I think that's the
reason why you like him more than Stefan, Emanuell, Ori and all the others
great 3 ball jugglers.
If you do similar tricks it's much simpler to understand how difficult
some of these tricks are and simpler to understand them and see the
difference between similar tricks.
And of course it's harder to see these things by tricks you aren't working
on.


I'm always surprised that so many people mentioned Falco as one of the
best or the best 3 ball juggler.
I don't think that. He's a nice guy and good juggler, but he's very
specialised (variations of the box and mills mess) and there are so many
more possibilities in the 3 ball universe. And I know other jugglers who
can do all or even harder box/mess tricks than Falco (e.g. Julius).

Paul

[Paul Lind]

I think Vova is the best,
because he can juggle and playing the piano.
I always thought that's an impossible trick and he did it clean on stage.

[Paul Lind]

of course he juggle balls and not the piano :)

[Jason Lu]

This is probably the best video of him:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpTtQSKQO0c&feature=channel_video_title

I used to spend most of my juggling time working on patterns similar to
his. I stopped because I felt I'd learned most of what's there to learn.
Mura proved me very very wrong!
On this small subset of 3 ball juggling, I feel like I'm qualified to give
an opinion. This guy is very good! He is coming out with a tonne of
distinct and pretty patterns which other than Reuben back in 2008, no-one
is doing (to my knowledge).

I can understand that some people might not enjoy it as much as other
types of 3 ball juggling, it is undeniable that for this catagory, which
Pete nicely described as "pattern seeking", he is amongst the best, if not
the best!

J

[pumpkineater23]

I do appreciate how long it takes to be able to juggle like you and how
much practice is involved, some of it looks impossible. After several
years I'm only beginning to grasp the very basics of body-throws. I would
be genuinely interested to know what you would consider to be some of the
most difficult things you can do with 3balls? (Video points please). Your
twisted half shower thing at the very beginning of this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USqAJDM30b8 is one of my Paul Lind
favorites, but I don't know is it as difficult as it looks or not?

> I'm always surprised that so many people mentioned Falco as one of the
> best or the best 3 ball juggler.
> I don't think that. He's a nice guy and good juggler, but he's very
> specialised (variations of the box and mills mess) and there are so many
> more possibilities in the 3 ball universe. And I know other jugglers who
> can do all or even harder box/mess tricks than Falco (e.g. Julius).

Since you've mentioned Falco and seem to know him somewhat perhaps you can
answer another question for me. His juggling was very different to
anything I had seen before it, and I have noticed elements of his juggling
popping up in many other peoples juggling since. I felt he had steered
3ball in a new direction from the ground up in some way? So I am
interested to know how much of that juggling is his own creation?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qv6-hQDj4ts


Many thanks, sorry about all the questions.


pete

[Paul Lind]

Hi Pete

I don't know who invented these tricks. I already saw him doing this style
of juggling in Ptuj 2005, but there were also other jugglers who were
advanced in box juggling. And before 2005 I wasn't so much interested in 3
ball juggling. Sorry that I can't help.

Greetings Paul

[RyanM]

cool thx mike i needed that.

Mike Moore wrote:
>
> RyanM wrote:
> >
> > This thread makes no sense. Stefan Sing is the best 3 ball juggler,
> > technically and artistically. Argument over, nothing more to debate :p
> >
>
> I haven't seen much from Stefan on the technical side, could you (or
> anyone else, really) give a couple links of him doing technical things?
>
> > What are you basing your opinion of Murakami on? I've only seen his stuff
> > in the Japanese jugglers videos, it is interesting, nice tricks and
> > variations, but nothing too special. Am i missing something?
> >
>
> Yes, you are missing HIS videos. In my opinion, the Patterns series is
> the best on his channel. Links for convenience:
> http://www.youtube.com/user/Mura345#p/u/7/Bn3cN6oRPCo
> http://www.youtube.com/user/Mura345#p/u/4/PFiUK57oS90
> http://www.youtube.com/user/Mura345#p/u/0/bpTtQSKQO0c
>
> Listed chronologically, and non-coincidentally, in ascending quality.

[Miika]

> I believe Murakami is the best technical 3-ball pattern juggler I have
> ever seen. What do I think this means?
>
> Well, it isn't about self-expression, body movement, or entertainment.
> This is pure, raw, complex yet aesthetic toss juggling that explores deep
> into new and obscure pattern families. It's maximalist within a minimalist
> framework. Nothing is dressed up. Flaws and weaknesses cannot be hidden
> through strategic body movement. These patterns must be dominated, or they
> cannot be maintained at all. Call it "austere 3-ball" if you like.
>
> Please note this is not a contrived category engineered to fit a narrow
> definition. It is what you get when you strip away the movements that are
> not necessary to display toss patterns with clarity. It is more like
> holding up a moving sculpture, as opposed to being part of the sculpture.
> With this context in mind, I am NOT speaking of a hybrid style involving
> dance and juggling (where Stefan Sing arguably is king).
>
> Most of the patterns that Murakami runs are two or three "levels" ahead of
> what has long been considered the top echelon. He consistently shows us
> the most difficult 3b patterns ever presented (that I am aware of). When I
> say "difficult patterns," I mean they are extremely tough to execute even
> at their absolute sloppiest.
>
> In other words they are patterns that one can't even "pull off" without
> extensive prerequisite ability. In a sense, the necessary kinetic
> precision is built implicitly into the physics. This is something I feel
> is not perceived well by those who do not go deep into technical 3-ball
> juggling.
>
> I don't know how to say this without risking condescension, but that is
> not my intent: It takes an understanding of complexity to judge
> complexity. There are often many "prerequisites" to judge the difficulty
> of one 3b sync variation from another[1][2]. This is what I work on, and
> this is what I study.
>
> This type of advancement is like scientific innovation. He constructs a
> pattern like a chemist synthesizes a new molecule.
>
> My view is not solely based on complexity and difficulty. There are
> patterns in his videos I could direct people to that I consider "holy
> grail" material because of the combination of beauty, symmetry,
> complexity, difficulty, AND uniqueness that to me is magical. He finds the
> rare "local maximums" in the infinite field of patterns that possess all
> of these traits in balance.
>
> I have been thinking about this topic for quite a few months, specifically
> because of Murakami and the powerful impression he has had on me. I would
> love to carry on this discussion without it being reduced to "There is no
> best 3-ball juggler, it's not even worth *talking* about."
>
> Thanks for reading,
> Dan / dnb
>

Thanks for a nice post, though I don't find myself totally agreeing with
your conclusions. First I have to say I've not really juggled for about
three years now, and in addition I've been out of the online loop for a
year. However, this discussion has ignited a desire to get back into it,
so let's hope I find some time to try doing that before the enthusiasm
shrivels :-)

In the other thread you said "there is no one posting more difficult,
more complex, and more unique 3b pattern toss juggling than Murakami."
This I agree with, but I don't see it as enough to make him the best at
three balls. There is just so much complex and interesting things to do
with body throws in the three ball universe, that if someone doesn't tap
into that, I can only justify saying that he is quite good at this "look
at what my hands can do infront of me"-style. I do recognize the way his
material is difficult (I've tried some of it), but to become the best he
has some ways to go yet.

A quick side note. When I read "Flaws and weaknesses cannot be hidden
through strategic body movement", I took this to mean the type of body
movement that stitches otherwise static or simple ball movements into a
flowing whole. This has its place in performance, but at least for me the
ideas of what the balls are doing, and not the juggler, is more
interesting. So if you meant this, I agree here as well :-) But if you
meant that body throws and movement required by compex body throws are
often actually trying to hide weaknesses in the form of the juggling, then
you're just wrong.

"He finds the rare 'local maximums'." This is true and a nice goal for
anyone creating new patterns. It's very satisfying to find that extra
space in a pattern and use it for some extra manipulation. Or matching
body throws in a way that minimizes the hand movements without a ball in
hand. Or just find a pattern that has no extra room for anything!

Murakami does seem to have a very enviable stability and reliability to
his patterns. I wish there was a shortcut to learn that :-) It also shows
he really works on his stuff quite a bit before presenting it. For those
jugglers that don't really care too much for his style, they have to at
least admire this aspect.

-Miika

--

Siteswaps of the day: 531 , 73131 , 9313131

[Robin]

> I'm always surprised that so many people mentioned Falco as one of the
> best or the best 3 ball juggler.
> I don't think that. He's a nice guy and good juggler, but he's very
> specialised (variations of the box and mills mess) and there are so many
> more possibilities in the 3 ball universe. And I know other jugglers who
> can do all or even harder box/mess tricks than Falco (e.g. Julius).
>
> Paul

I've also often been surprised to here Falco's name pop up as one of the 3
ball greats and often wondered if people gave him credit for pushing the
"physical limits in technical 3 ball juggling" simply because that's what
he says he's doing in his video. I've not met him or seen much of his
juggling beyond that one video and I'm sure he's both a nice guy and a
good juggler but I'm afraid his style of juggling never really did much
for me. I'm finding this an interesting thread. A small insight into how
other jugglers view other jugglers. There's a lot of names here that have
cropped up that I would never put amongst the 3 ball greats, and also a
few of what I would consider to be glaring omissions. It's also
interesting as I think that it's basically impossible to say who is THE
best.

On a side note I'd never seen your juggling before Mr Lind but I just
watched your opus 14 video and I enjoyed it. There's some really nice
stuff in there, thanks for making it available to watch.

Robin

[Mike Moore]

What are some of the glaring omissions? I could always use more 3b in my
life!

Mike

[pumpkineater23]

Robin wrote:
>
>
>
> > I'm always surprised that so many people mentioned Falco as one of the
> > best or the best 3 ball juggler.
> > I don't think that. He's a nice guy and good juggler, but he's very
> > specialised (variations of the box and mills mess) and there are so many
> > more possibilities in the 3 ball universe. And I know other jugglers who
> > can do all or even harder box/mess tricks than Falco (e.g. Julius).
> >
> > Paul
>
> I've also often been surprised to here Falco's name pop up as one of the 3
> ball greats and often wondered if people gave him credit for pushing the
> "physical limits in technical 3 ball juggling" simply because that's what
> he says he's doing in his video. I've not met him or seen much of his
> juggling beyond that one video and I'm sure he's both a nice guy and a
> good juggler but I'm afraid his style of juggling never really did much
> for me. I'm finding this an interesting thread. A small insight into how
> other jugglers view other jugglers. There's a lot of names here that have
> cropped up that I would never put amongst the 3 ball greats, and also a
> few of what I would consider to be glaring omissions. It's also
> interesting as I think that it's basically impossible to say who is THE
> best.

If I put 'what it does for me' aside for a moment I see that Murakami is
at least ahead. It's the difference between:


1. Juggling that includes mixing different kinds of tricks/styles and the
large amount of time/practice it can take to do them.


2. Creating really new juggling that is completely different and all the
possibilities that come with it.


While I find '1' wonderful, extremely impressive etc, I think '2' is what
separates the best from the great. '1' has to be earned but can be reached
whereas the far more rare '2' is there already - (high intelligence with
high creativity or something like that?), you either have it or you don't.
It's good to have both '1' and '2' but I struggle to find examples of it -
maybe '2' is best used when it's focused (specialized). Murakami is
'ahead' of the rest in that way, others are following him, he is changing
the game.

I'm treading carefully, I am aware of all the amazing jugglers that might
read this and have their own completely different opinions, I'd like to
know what you think. I'm happy for you to tell me that I don't know what
I'm talking about.


pete

[recallme]

I am probably unqualified to make a statement, still i try.
I have watched Murakami's vids and i am not that impressed. Still i think
we can concur that Murakami has the best juggling arms.
But i don't like that style, because i get bored pretty fast by it.
His tricks are new and hard to manage, but still they don't look that
pretty.

I like sing best, because everything looks so fluid.

[RyanM]

sylphskin wrote:

> Here are some more names:
> Morgan Cosquer
> Guillaume Martinet
> Minh Tam Kaplan
> Mikel (don't know his surname, he's a young Belgian guy, just started at
> Fontys in Tilburg)

Yes! Here is a list that I can debate about in comparison to Stefan. Oli
knows what's up. Some excellent 3b jugglers mentioned here.

People in this thread keep talking about juggling and dance as if they are
different things. Anyone care to explain this a bit more? I'm rather
confused. If juggling isn't a form of dance, then what is it?

[Al Teal]

Something strange happened while I was typing this post and part of it may
have already posted. I apologize if it does.

I choose not to dance but I do juggle. Most of the dancers that I know
cannot juggle. Dancing requires being able stand and move yourself around
with your feet. I expect there are jugglers who cannot walk.

Juggling and dancing are completely different even though they can be done
at the same time.

[Jason Lu]

RyanM wrote:
>
>
> People in this thread keep talking about juggling and dance as if they are
> different things. Anyone care to explain this a bit more? I'm rather
> confused. If juggling isn't a form of dance, then what is it?
>
>

Are you joking?!

[david leahy]

>
> People in this thread keep talking about juggling and dance as if they are
> different things. Anyone care to explain this a bit more? I'm rather
> confused. If juggling isn't a form of dance, then what is it?
>

10/10

[Emman]

Jason Lu wrote:
>
> RyanM wrote:
> >
> >
> > People in this thread keep talking about juggling and dance as if they are
> > different things. Anyone care to explain this a bit more? I'm rather
> > confused. If juggling isn't a form of dance, then what is it?
> >
> >
>
> Are you joking?!
>

No, he's not joking. Now try answering his question :)

[pumpkineater23]

Emman wrote:
>
> Jason Lu wrote:
> >
> > RyanM wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > People in this thread keep talking about juggling and dance as if they
are
> > > different things. Anyone care to explain this a bit more? I'm rather
> > > confused. If juggling isn't a form of dance, then what is it?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Are you joking?!
> >
>
> No, he's not joking. Now try answering his question :)
>

Dancing is dancing the body. Juggling is dancing the balls. Dance-juggling
is dancing with the balls.

Is that it?


pete

[d_n_b]

That is it. To be even more precise and prevent possible unnecessary
connotations and artificial connections to dance, we can replace "dancing"
with "moving," "manipulating," or "controlling" the objects.

There is a spectrum with "Juggling" on one end and "Dancing" on the other.
At the extremes (endpoints), you have "Pure Juggling" and "Pure Dancing."
In between, you have a spectrum. It is possible to confine your work
strictly to either of the extreme points.

The movement of the body is a secondary, unavoidable consequence to
juggling. Just because one is moving the body does not imply that one is
dancing. Juggling is inherently no closer to dancing than playing the
guitar is to dancing. However, it is possible to blend these things with
dancing in any varying degree.

Yes, it is as simple as that. It is a DEFINITION, not an ideology or
hierarchy. Juggling, Dancing, and Juggling+Dancing all sit side-by-side.

Dan

[Robin]

>
> The movement of the body is a secondary, unavoidable consequence to
> juggling.

One could also say that the juggling is a secondary consequence to the
movement of the body (although obviously an avoidable one).

I think really both those statements are probably true; and that's the
point. If movement of your body is an unavoidable consequence and we can't
eliminate it (not sure why you'd want to anyway) then the least we can do
is pay attention to it.

Robin

[pumpkineater23]

I think unnecessary movement (1) makes the juggling much more difficult
and restricts it. You may be adding something (dancing) to the juggling
but in doing so you are taking something (juggling) away. Two very
different outlets for the dance - the balls and the body.

(1) I assume we are still talking about 3b toss juggling.


pete

[Robin]

I'm still talking about 3b toss juggling.

I'd like to make a distinction between 'unnecessary' and 'unwanted' here.
I would argue that if a movement (be it dance orientated or otherwise) is
present because you've chosen it to be so, for either aesthetic or other
purposes, then that movement becomes a part of the juggling, and is
therefore necessary. This is the case regardless of whether or not
including those movements increases the difficulty. It's true what you
say that the more difficult juggling becomes the more restrictive it is,
but that's what's so nice about 3 over the higher numbers. It has the
space to play.

I'd be interested to know, do you consider the pirouette itself to be a
part of the juggling in a 3up 360? You certainly couldn't argue that it
was an unnecessary movement because without it the trick doesn't exist;
it's just a high 3 ball flash, but it's certainly separate from the
juggling too. The body bears no influence over the balls during the turn
and similarly the balls bear no influence on how we spin beneath them (or
do they? surely the speed we must spin is dictated by the height of the
throws, and the same could also be said the other way around) It's an
interesting thought (to me anyway) and I think the same thinking can be
applied to all movement in juggling. How you move when you juggle IS a
part of your juggling and it deserves to have some attention paid to it.
That doesn't mean that you absolutely have to move to be a good juggler,
different people like different styles, if your movement choice is to cut
out all movement except that which is necessary to making the objects go
where you want them to go then so be it. As long as you've considered what
your body is doing and made the choice to do that. I personally find that
static style pretty boring to watch, especially with the low numbers, but
that's just a personal preference, it doesn't mean that one way is better
than the other. The 3 ball jugglers I like the most are those that inject
their personality into their juggling and become almost one with their
props. I'm not trying to say you're wrong or be argumentative, I'm
genuinely interested in your views.

Robin

[Al Teal]

Dancing, by itself, is somewhat like contact juggling where the prop is
permanently attached to the Earth or whatever planet you live on.

[Little Paul]

On 2011-11-04, Robin <ro...@robingunney.com.nospam.com> wrote:
>
> I'm still talking about 3b toss juggling.
>
> I'd like to make a distinction between 'unnecessary' and 'unwanted' here.
> I would argue that if a movement (be it dance orientated or otherwise) is
> present because you've chosen it to be so, for either aesthetic or other
> purposes, then that movement becomes a part of the juggling, and is
> therefore necessary. This is the case regardless of whether or not
> including those movements increases the difficulty. It's true what you
> say that the more difficult juggling becomes the more restrictive it is,
> but that's what's so nice about 3 over the higher numbers. It has the
> space to play.

I pretty much agree with this entire paragraph.

> I'd be interested to know, do you consider the pirouette itself to be a
> part of the juggling in a 3up 360? You certainly couldn't argue that it
> was an unnecessary movement because without it the trick doesn't exist;
> it's just a high 3 ball flash, but it's certainly separate from the
> juggling too. The body bears no influence over the balls during the turn
> and similarly the balls bear no influence on how we spin beneath them (or
> do they? surely the speed we must spin is dictated by the height of the
> throws, and the same could also be said the other way around) It's an
> interesting thought (to me anyway)

Nice example! I don't think I could have come up with a better one.

> and I think the same thinking can be
> applied to all movement in juggling. How you move when you juggle IS a
> part of your juggling and it deserves to have some attention paid to it.
> That doesn't mean that you absolutely have to move to be a good juggler,
> different people like different styles, if your movement choice is to cut
> out all movement except that which is necessary to making the objects go
> where you want them to go then so be it. As long as you've considered what
> your body is doing and made the choice to do that. I personally find that
> static style pretty boring to watch, especially with the low numbers, but
> that's just a personal preference, it doesn't mean that one way is better
> than the other. The 3 ball jugglers I like the most are those that inject
> their personality into their juggling and become almost one with their
> props. I'm not trying to say you're wrong or be argumentative, I'm
> genuinely interested in your views.

Thanks for posting Robin, I really did enjoy reading it. I can't fault
your thinking (but then I'm not a spotty 15yr old sports juggler ;-)

-Paul
--
http://paulseward.com

[pumpkineater23]

When I'm juggling I am very much dancing, just not with my body. It's the
same feeling. The juggling reflects my dance like a puppet. I see
expression, style, play and the dance in other peoples juggling too
without any unnecessary movement. Do you really need to have exaggerated
body movement to appreciate it? Do you need to see what the puppeteer is
doing or is the puppet not enough? I think it's unwanted because it's
unnecessary. Butter on bacon IMO.

> I'd be interested to know, do you consider the pirouette itself to be a
> part of the juggling in a 3up 360? You certainly couldn't argue that it
> was an unnecessary movement because without it the trick doesn't exist;
> it's just a high 3 ball flash, but it's certainly separate from the
> juggling too. The body bears no influence over the balls during the turn
> and similarly the balls bear no influence on how we spin beneath them (or
> do they? surely the speed we must spin is dictated by the height of the
> throws, and the same could also be said the other way around) It's an
> interesting thought (to me anyway) and I think the same thinking can be
> applied to all movement in juggling. How you move when you juggle IS a
> part of your juggling and it deserves to have some attention paid to it.
> That doesn't mean that you absolutely have to move to be a good juggler,
> different people like different styles, if your movement choice is to cut
> out all movement except that which is necessary to making the objects go
> where you want them to go then so be it. As long as you've considered what
> your body is doing and made the choice to do that. I personally find that
> static style pretty boring to watch, especially with the low numbers, but
> that's just a personal preference, it doesn't mean that one way is better
> than the other. The 3 ball jugglers I like the most are those that inject
> their personality into their juggling and become almost one with their
> props. I'm not trying to say you're wrong or be argumentative, I'm
> genuinely interested in your views.

I've never been a fan of the 360 to be honest. I wonder how it ever found
it's way into 'sport' juggling, it seems more of a showmanship thing to
me. The attention is taken away from the juggling to the juggler, the
first step to engaging with the audience perhaps.

I'm finding your views interesting too, and thanks for not getting shirty
with me! I've often wondered 'Am I missing something?' But here I am
years later with pretty much the same opinions confused as to why so few
jugglers seem to agree with me. I'm keeping an open mind though.


pete

[Scott Seltzer]

pumpkineater23 wrote:
> I've never been a fan of the 360 to be honest. I wonder how it ever found
> it's way into 'sport' juggling, it seems more of a showmanship thing to
> me. The attention is taken away from the juggling to the juggler, the
> first step to engaging with the audience perhaps.

I agree. First, sport juggling is against moving your feet so 360s don't
fit there. Also, it's basically just doing some sort of gymnastics while
flashing balls in the air. Sure, doing a spin or even a backflip with
props in the air is tough, but they're as much gymnastics as juggling.
Truthfully, a 3 ball 1 high backflip would be much easier for a gymnast to
learn than the average juggler.

-Scott

[Robin]

pumpkineater23 wrote:

>
> When I'm juggling I am very much dancing, just not with my body. It's the
> same feeling. The juggling reflects my dance like a puppet. I see
> expression, style, play and the dance in other peoples juggling too
> without any unnecessary movement. Do you really need to have exaggerated
> body movement to appreciate it? Do you need to see what the puppeteer is
> doing or is the puppet not enough? I think it's unwanted because it's
> unnecessary. Butter on bacon IMO.

Yes, generally I would say the balls themselves are not really enough for
me. If the patterns the balls are making are all that interests you then
you don't even need a juggler. Would you enjoy watching the patterns as
much if they were juggled by a robot rather than a human being? (ignoring
the novelty factor ;o) I've never really been a big fan of glowball
routines either, where you only see the pattern, except for the few
exceptions where the absence of the 'puppeteer' was used to create moments
that weren't possible had the jugglers been visible (the old feeding the
fish glowball routine comes to mind). Again that's just my preference and
it's not always true all the time, there are exceptions :o)

> I've never been a fan of the 360 to be honest. I wonder how it ever found
> it's way into 'sport' juggling, it seems more of a showmanship thing to
> me. The attention is taken away from the juggling to the juggler, the
> first step to engaging with the audience perhaps.

I'm not a fan either in the sport juggling sense (nor am i really a fan or
either sport juggling or overly dance orientated juggling) but you didn't
really answer my question. You surely can't contest that the 3up pirouette
is a juggling trick, or that the pirouette itself is an integral and vital
(if not fundamental) part of the trick. So the question remains, would you
consider the pirouette itself to be part of the juggling as a whole? If
the trick is not the trick without the movement then is the movement not a
part of the trick and/or a part of the juggling?

respectfully
Robin

[Marlon]

Robin wrote:
>

spinning around isn't hard to come up with.
flashing 3 balls high gives you time to do something underneath.

Of course some jugglers thought about combining those two together.
That does not make that pirouette a dance move.
Would a 360 be the same trick without the spin? of course not.
Would the 3up 360 be dancing without the balls? I don't think so.

If you count every unnecessary move while juggling as dance I do
everything dancing.
Although I must admit Mills'mess without the balls...that almost how I
dance[1]

Marlon

[1]- rhythmic shouldermovements and trying not to be noticed are the other
2 parts of it.

[Robin]

Marlon wrote:
>
> Robin wrote:
> >
>
> spinning around isn't hard to come up with.
> flashing 3 balls high gives you time to do something underneath.

I never said it was, I was just trying to give an example of a movement in
juggling that was an inherent part of the trick as opposed to an
unnecessary movement that was there purely for aesthetics. I wanted to
know if in this example the (necessary) movement was considered a part of
the juggling or not. I don't consider there to be a right or wrong answer
to this, I'm just interested in the opinion.

> Of course some jugglers thought about combining those two together.
> That does not make that pirouette a dance move.

I never said it did and I agree.

> Would a 360 be the same trick without the spin? of course not.

Agreed.

> Would the 3up 360 be dancing without the balls? I don't think so.

Again, I never said it would be, that's not the point I was trying to
make.

> If you count every unnecessary move while juggling as dance I do
> everything dancing.
> Although I must admit Mills'mess without the balls...that almost how I
> dance[1]
>
> Marlon
>
> [1]- rhythmic shouldermovements and trying not to be noticed are the other
> 2 parts of it.
>

Let me be clear. I'm not in any way trying to defend dancing and juggling
together, in fact, as I said in my last post, I don't even particularly
like it. I'm talking about movement. Any movement. Turning your head is a
movement, walking from one place to another, shrugging your shoulders,
straightening your arm, looking in a particular place or direction. All of
these are movements, in fact, as you said, basically anything you do is a
movement. That's my point, as long as we consider what those movements are
and then make a conscious decision on what we do with them, be it to
extend them or strip them down to their bare essentials, they're both
equally juggling. If you're putting in extra movement that you don't need
in order to achieve the desired look or feel to your juggling then I don't
consider those to be 'unnecessary' movements. They are necessary to create
the result that you want. Only movements that you hadn't planned to make
but were forced to make (to correct a bad throw for example) are
unnecessary. I hope this helps to clarify what I'm trying to say, I feel
like I'm not being too clear so sorry if that's the case.

Robin

[pumpkineater23]

I can't do a 3up 360, I've never tried, I heard it's harder than it looks.
So I don't really feel qualified to answer. However, I would think that
it's half a juggling trick. The 3up is the juggling half and the 360 half
is a pirouette. Maybe there more to it than that.. do you think if I could
do it would I see it differently?

pete

[d_n_b]

Perhaps the 360 could be considered a stunt? More like a "daring feat"
than either dancing or juggling; potentially a third category.

Of course it is possible to perform a stylized 360 with the aesthetics of
dance, but that's obvious and I think would constitute a "hybrid" movement
rather than a fundamental, which I think we are discussing here.

Dan

[Al Teal]

Al Teal wrote:
>
>
> Dancing, by itself, is somewhat like contact juggling where the prop is
> permanently attached to the Earth or whatever planet you live on.
>

That was funny. I promise. I laughed.

[pumpkineater23]

Robin wrote:

I've never really been a big fan of glowball
> routines either, where you only see the pattern

This stuck.

Me neither and I take your point, the juggler does have some relevance. I
was thinking about it from the 'doing' rather than the 'seeing' point of
view.

Still I can't rate style, expression or any of those things, be it with
the juggling or the juggler, over really creative 3b juggling. They seem
shallow in comparison. Creative 3b doesn't need any those things, that's
why I think they are the best jugglers.


pete

[JugglerPeter]

pumpkineater23 wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
> pete
>
>

I've been lurking on this thread for a while. What has really surprised
me about the responses is that there is nearly unanimous support for one
of two names - Murakami and Stefan Sing.

This thread has also helped separate three ball juggling into 3 distinct
styles:
- Pattern Jugging (Murakami)
- Whole Body (dance) (Stefan Sing)
- Body Throws (Paul Lind and Dave Kelly)

I'm really curious to see this thread resurface in a couple years, and to
see whether these styles continue to diverge.

I also wanted to add the name Chris Hodge to this thread because I don't
remember seeing it. Not because I think he's the best, but because he's
pretty clearly one of the best. He does a little of everything so it's
easy to forget that he is amazing at pattern juggling:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywNl9yGlPPg&feature=channel_video_title
and can also do crazy acrobatics while juggling.

Peter

--------
This link below is here to help my webpage get better search results, you
can stop reading now.
---------
Need to hire a juggler in omaha?
www.jugglerpeter.com

[Robin]

> I can't do a 3up 360, I've never tried, I heard it's harder than it looks.
> So I don't really feel qualified to answer. However, I would think that
> it's half a juggling trick. The 3up is the juggling half and the 360 half
> is a pirouette. Maybe there more to it than that.. do you think if I could
> do it would I see it differently?
>
> pete
>
>

I honestly have no idea, but it's an interesting thought. I'm not really
sure where I stand on it completely... I can see both sides. Why don't you
learn it and see if it changes how you feel? You can do it in the name of
science... ;o)

[Robin]

pumpkineater23 wrote:
>
> Robin wrote:
>
> I've never really been a big fan of glowball
> > routines either, where you only see the pattern
>
>
> This stuck.
>
> Me neither and I take your point, the juggler does have some relevance. I
> was thinking about it from the 'doing' rather than the 'seeing' point of
> view.

I guess I can understand that to a point, except when I learn a trick or
sequence or whatever I definitely think a lot about how it looks, even
once it's learned I think about the aesthetics... what angle does it look
best when viewed from etc. I still practice just my 3 ball cascade, a
lot, and I can still see things in it that I want to improve or tweak, and
I've had that solid for over 20 years. I guess what I'm trying to say is
that in my mind 'doing' and 'seeing' are connected things, because when
I'm doing, I'm always thinking about how it looks, even if I'm alone and
there's nobody to see it. I choose how I do my tricks, for the most part,
purely on how it looks. I'll learn a trick different ways and then make a
decision on what looks best, for example back crosses; High and looking up
or low and turning the head side to side? I don't think I could say one is
better technique than the other, they're both equally valid. You learn
both and make your choice based on the dynamics of how it looks, then
continually tweak it for years trying to get whatever it is just how you
want it.

It's my feeling that the juggler has a fairly equal relevance to the
juggling because the two are equally connected. One cannot exist without
the other; they can only exist as a whole. On a base level, 3 ball
juggling is about creating an aesthetic, as long as you're thinking about
that, it doesn't really matter what it is, as long as you're clear on what
you want it to be.

> Still I can't rate style, expression or any of those things, be it with
> the juggling or the juggler, over really creative 3b juggling. They seem
> shallow in comparison. Creative 3b doesn't need any those things, that's
> why I think they are the best jugglers.

Funny because I feel exactly the opposite. Those things are exactly what I
think creative juggling needs. I think I understand your way of
thinking... I get the impression that for you coming up with new patterns
is creative juggling, and you're right. Of course it is, you're creating
new patterns, so it's creative. However, I think for you it ends there and
you miss the fact (I could be wrong) that creating new movements and
sequences in your juggling is equally creative and equally difficult. I
think if you dug a bit deeper you'd find out that the people at the top
end of the movement and juggling style are all also excellent at the
small, in front of you, tech patterns too, and are all often very good
'pattern seekers' themselves. They just choose not to juggle this way.
Patterns are great (they're invaluable, the basis of what we do as
jugglers) but to me they are tools in a lot of ways. I learn most things
as patterns but then I strip them down and use small parts of them to
build sequences. The patterns are the tools, it's what we do with those
tools that makes them interesting to me.

Robin

[George Juggles]

I like Wes Peden.

I don't know who this guy is, but you should see this trick!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFOZxdXZynE

[Chris Noonan]

pumpkineater23 wrote:
>

> I've never been a fan of the 360 to be honest. I wonder how it ever found
> it's way into 'sport' juggling, it seems more of a showmanship thing to
> me.
>
>

> pete
>
>
>

I think this might have a lot to do with Jason Garfield being really good
at 360s.

[Mike Moore]

As someone who had this (Pete's) view of 360s before learning them[1], I
feel like I am somewhat qualified to answer this. I still feel like it's
half juggling, half "doing something to give an indication of how much
time you have because your throws are high and accurate". So for me, the
method in which you indicate the time you have available is arbitrary, and
not really juggling.

Mike

[1] Learning them = being able to do 3 ups pretty consistently, 5b 3 ups
~50-75% of the time, and 5 ups sometimes. Not something I practise often,
but fun sometimes.

[pumpkineater23]

I agree, there is a connection. I'm also 'thinking' about the way it
looks, I use a mirror when I practice. When I say the 'doing' I mean the
feel. It's why I mentioned puppeteering - trying to fill the juggling with
life. The feel can be the same with the juggling as with body expression
(I think using the body is a much better/easier way to achieve that). The
puppeteer wasn't the best example, it's misleading because, as you've made
me realize, seeing the juggler is far more important than seeing the
puppeteer.

> It's my feeling that the juggler has a fairly equal relevance to the
> juggling because the two are equally connected. One cannot exist without
> the other; they can only exist as a whole. On a base level, 3 ball
> juggling is about creating an aesthetic, as long as you're thinking about
> that, it doesn't really matter what it is, as long as you're clear on what
> you want it to be.

An equal relevance? I don't see it like that. I do feel there is far more
relevance now than before you joined this thread though, so your words
have been getting through to me.

> > Still I can't rate style, expression or any of those things, be it with
> > the juggling or the juggler, over really creative 3b juggling. They seem
> > shallow in comparison. Creative 3b doesn't need any those things, that's
> > why I think they are the best jugglers.
>
> Funny because I feel exactly the opposite. Those things are exactly what I
> think creative juggling needs. I think I understand your way of
> thinking... I get the impression that for you coming up with new patterns
> is creative juggling, and you're right. Of course it is, you're creating
> new patterns, so it's creative. However, I think for you it ends there and
> you miss the fact (I could be wrong) that creating new movements and
> sequences in your juggling is equally creative and equally difficult.

Regarding the sequences; the relationship between one part and the next, I
think that's creative too but do you mean using the juggling that's
already been discovered, isn't that other peoples tools? That's what my
juggling has always been limited to. When I watch Murakami juggling I see
a whole new set of tools, his tools.

> I think if you dug a bit deeper you'd find out that the people at the top
> end of the movement and juggling style are all also excellent at the
> small, in front of you, tech patterns too, and are all often very good
> 'pattern seekers' themselves. They just choose not to juggle this way.

Are they? I'd be interested to see some evidence of that. I think those
jugglers learn the basics, then they learn some extremely difficult body
throws then those two parts are blended with the movement. It becomes
something for an audience, the juggling doesn't really advance much but
the act does. Movement and sequences are original but not the juggling.
Also, there's a difference between being excellent at the small(1) in
front of you(2), tech juggling and creating brand new tech juggling.
Creative tech requires a certain type of person, I wouldn't mind betting
they have high IQ's, and of course the creativity to go with it.

> Patterns are great (they're invaluable, the basis of what we do as
> jugglers) but to me they are tools in a lot of ways. I learn most things
> as patterns but then I strip them down and use small parts of them to
> build sequences. The patterns are the tools, it's what we do with those
> tools that makes them interesting to me.

I've always thought something similar, but recently I've been wondering
have I partly been in some kind of denial. Over the last few years,
because of online video, 3b is advancing at a phenomenal rate. I think it
looks old and 'not as good' very quickly. I suppose you would say that the
'new' more advanced 3b juggling is just a form of rearranging the tools.

Robin, this is the most interesting conversation I've ever had about
juggling. Thank you, you're giving me lots to think about.


(1) The small can be combined with the large to great effect.

(2) I love body tricks but aren't they 'in front' juggling also? Just not
done in front. I don't think it's the same kind of creativity. I suppose
it follows that body throws lead to more awareness of the body.




pete

[Robin]

pumpkineater23 wrote:

>
> I agree, there is a connection. I'm also 'thinking' about the way it
> looks, I use a mirror when I practice. When I say the 'doing' I mean the
> feel. It's why I mentioned puppeteering - trying to fill the juggling with
> life. The feel can be the same with the juggling as with body expression
> (I think using the body is a much better/easier way to achieve that). The
> puppeteer wasn't the best example, it's misleading because, as you've made
> me realize, seeing the juggler is far more important than seeing the
> puppeteer.
>
>
>
>
> > It's my feeling that the juggler has a fairly equal relevance to the
> > juggling because the two are equally connected. One cannot exist without
> > the other; they can only exist as a whole. On a base level, 3 ball
> > juggling is about creating an aesthetic, as long as you're thinking about
> > that, it doesn't really matter what it is, as long as you're clear on what
> > you want it to be.
>
>
>
> An equal relevance? I don't see it like that. I do feel there is far more
> relevance now than before you joined this thread though, so your words
> have been getting through to me.

Good to hear, I'm not saying that my way of thinking is definitively the
correct way though. Sometimes it's good to just see and think about things
from a different perspective

> Regarding the sequences; the relationship between one part and the next, I
> think that's creative too but do you mean using the juggling that's
> already been discovered, isn't that other peoples tools? That's what my
> juggling has always been limited to. When I watch Murakami juggling I see
> a whole new set of tools, his tools.

That's an interesting question so let's try and look at a basic example.
Let's assume you have two patterns and you wish to transition between the
two. This could be achieved in a number of ways, the simplest being to
simply stop doing one pattern and move into the next, perhaps with some
sort of transition throw if necessary. Now lets assume that when you
learned those two patterns you decided that one of them looks best when
viewed from head on, and one looks best viewed from the side. Now to
transition between the two it's not enough to simply change what the balls
(or whatever) are doing. It's now also necessary to re-orientate yourself
during the transition so that you're facing a different direction. To do
this you have to move and thus, you are incorporating movement in with
your juggling. Obviously you could do this using juggling that already
exists, but if you start making a lot of these sequences then you soon
find out that you run out of tools pretty quickly and if you keep using
the same ones then your juggling quickly starts to look samey. Sure, you
could do a 3up half pirouette every time you wanted to turn 180 degrees,
but that's going to get pretty boring pretty fast. There are so many
different pattern and positions to do those patterns in that a standard
tool set just isn't enough, especially if you want your juggling to have
some variety in it. You have to start making your own tool that are more
specifically catered for the job.

>
> Are they? I'd be interested to see some evidence of that. I think those
> jugglers learn the basics, then they learn some extremely difficult body
> throws then those two parts are blended with the movement. It becomes
> something for an audience, the juggling doesn't really advance much but
> the act does. Movement and sequences are original but not the juggling.
> Also, there's a difference between being excellent at the small(1) in
> front of you(2), tech juggling and creating brand new tech juggling.
> Creative tech requires a certain type of person, I wouldn't mind betting
> they have high IQ's, and of course the creativity to go with it.

Let's take Stefan Sing as an example here as his name has come up a lot in
this thread. The first time I saw Stefan juggle was at the Bristol
juggling convention around about 10 years ago (give or take). Back then he
wasn't really doing any dance stuff. He was doing small, fairly tech 3
ball juggling. He was brilliant then (one of the best I'd seen) everything
was tight, solid and precise. He did a lot of creative things I hadn't
seen before. Speaking to him then he seemed shy and almost nervous of
performing (I think I remember him saying he had no real interest in
performing back then but I can't be sure). When you see the juggler who
really move well with their juggling you can be sure of one thing. They
didn't start out like that. You need a really solid, broad and creative
foundation in the tools before you can do that stuff well.

> > Patterns are great (they're invaluable, the basis of what we do as
> > jugglers) but to me they are tools in a lot of ways. I learn most things
> > as patterns but then I strip them down and use small parts of them to
> > build sequences. The patterns are the tools, it's what we do with those
> > tools that makes them interesting to me.
>
>
>
> I've always thought something similar, but recently I've been wondering
> have I partly been in some kind of denial. Over the last few years,
> because of online video, 3b is advancing at a phenomenal rate. I think it
> looks old and 'not as good' very quickly.

And yet the true masters stand the test of time. The Michael Menes routine
that I believe was posted in this thread still looks fresh to me and
that's over 20 years old. Bobby May, Kriss Kremo, you could list dozens,
all still look fresh today. I think most of us could probably make a
fairly good estimation as to whether someone was a good juggler or not
just by seeing them juggle a 3 ball cascade and nothing else.

>I suppose you would say that the
> 'new' more advanced 3b juggling is just a form of rearranging the tools.

Perhaps. It's the age old question isn't it; Do we invent a juggling
pattern or do we discover it? Is it new, or has it always been there just
waiting to be found?

> Robin, this is the most interesting conversation I've ever had about
> juggling. Thank you, you're giving me lots to think about.

It's been really interesting for me too. it's good to see how other people
think about it.

> (1) The small can be combined with the large to great effect.

and should be. It's hard to see one without the other.

> (2) I love body tricks but aren't they 'in front' juggling also? Just not
> done in front.

Yes, I guess you could put it like that. I like body tricks. I like the
small in front pattern stuff too. What I really like is the stuff that
happens inbetween that links it all together...

I don't think it's the same kind of creativity.

Why not? I'm not being obtuse here, I'm genuinely interested :o)

> I suppose
> it follows that body throws lead to more awareness of the body.

That could be true. It certainly makes sense :o)

Robin

[Robin]

George Juggles wrote:
>
>
> I like Wes Peden.
>
> I don't know who this guy is, but you should see this trick!
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFOZxdXZynE
>

That is David Erikson (sp?) A very very good 3 ball juggler.

[Brook Roberts]

> >
>
> I can't do a 3up 360, I've never tried, I heard it's harder than it looks.
> So I don't really feel qualified to answer. However, I would think that
> it's half a juggling trick. The 3up is the juggling half and the 360 half
> is a pirouette. Maybe there more to it than that.. do you think if I could
> do it would I see it differently?
>
> pete
>
>

I think there is also the 'I know where all the balls are so don't need to
look for a while' which I think is more of a juggling trick as well. The
360 is kind of a look how long of a gap thing I have, but not a very
efficient one - some people can do 720's in the time it takes others to do
360's so it's very rough.

[Paul Lind]

pumpkineater23 wrote:
>
> Paul Lind wrote:
> >
> > pumpkineater23 wrote:
> > >
> > > Rather than keep typing IMO over and over again I'm just going to start
> > > with I think.
> > >
> > > I think, for the moment anyway, Murakami is the greatest three ball
> > > juggler to have ever walked the earth. There's quite a few 3ball jugglers
> > > (all recent ones) I would consider for the top spot and all for different
> > > reasons but to name just one it's Murakami, and here's why:
> > >
> > > 1. Unlike higher numbers you can tell one 3ball juggler from the next by
> > > the juggling but Murakami's 3ball is super unique. And it's not just the
> > > odd thing, it's pretty much everything he does. He is changing 3ball
> > > juggling more than anyone I have ever seen.
> > >
> > > 2. It's 100% pure juggling, not juggling with something else like dance
or
> > > dancing with juggling. I don't see him leaping around hanging on to the
> > > balls throwing in a difficult trick or quick combination here and there.
I
> > > think usually that can be to cover up a lack of solid intricate skill.
> > > There's no pretension either, it's the real thing, incredible progressive
> > > juggling - juggling for juggling, not juggling for a round of applause.
> > > Also it's not just his mind-blowing tricks, it all looks connected, he
can
> > > mix it up.
> > >
> > > 3. He has great taste! Not only is the technique perfect but he develops
> > > the beautiful stuff. Often the 3ball juggling that comes from those that
> > > strive for the most difficult is not very pretty.
> > >
> > >
> > > So, do you agree or disagree with any of the things that I think make a
> > > great 3ball juggler? And difficult as it may be to say someone is 'the
> > > best' and to name just one 3ball juggler, is there anyone that you think
> > > stands out from the crowd? And if so then why?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > pete
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > Murakami and you have a similar style of juggling. I think that's the
> > reason why you like him more than Stefan, Emanuell, Ori and all the others
> > great 3 ball jugglers.
> > If you do similar tricks it's much simpler to understand how difficult
> > some of these tricks are and simpler to understand them and see the
> > difference between similar tricks.
> > And of course it's harder to see these things by tricks you aren't working
> > on.
> >
>
>
> I do appreciate how long it takes to be able to juggle like you and how
> much practice is involved, some of it looks impossible. After several
> years I'm only beginning to grasp the very basics of body-throws. I would
> be genuinely interested to know what you would consider to be some of the
> most difficult things you can do with 3balls? (Video points please). Your
> twisted half shower thing at the very beginning of this video:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USqAJDM30b8 is one of my Paul Lind
> favorites, but I don't know is it as difficult as it looks or not?
>
>
Sorry to do this old thread up to date, but I‘ve just found out that I
have missed the upper part of Pete’s post.

I find it hard to say how hard my tricks are because I don’t work straight
forward on most of my three ball tricks.
I didn‘t work so much on the trick you mentioned. At the time where I
started with the trick, the catch behind the neck felt already very
comfortable. I tried it for the first time several years ago and worked
on it from time to time.
It could be that this learning method was the best method for the trick
and I wouldn’t have learned it in a significant shorter time by working on
it more intensively. I don’t know how hard it is and now after learning
this trick I haven’t the feeling that it is very hard, but I think that’s
with all the tricks you can do…

A good example for some hard tricks is the first part of the last scene in
opus 12

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=qY3TaTcVYG4#t=350s

Especially the 2 ball multiplex with half pirouette is hard. I don’t have
the feeling that I will ever be able to do this thing safe.

I don’t work so much on boxes but I can do some harder variations like
Murakamis upside down box with the 4’s as cross throws. I always learned
these patterns much faster than body-throw tricks. But perhaps are some of
Murakamis tricks on the same level. I tried yesterday for the first time
the (6;2x) (2x;2x)* upside down box and was directly able to run it a
short time. Don’t know how long it takes to get it solid, but it feels
much more doable than my current goals for body-catch-throw patterns (e.g.
this 423 variation but with the 4 as shoulder throws).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=kKlgMYpx9dc#t=263s


In fact, I think the best part of my own 3 ball juggling aren’t some
single hard tricks. I work on a lot of different thinks and have the goal
of a very widespread style of 3 ball juggling.



>
> > I'm always surprised that so many people mentioned Falco as one of the
> > best or the best 3 ball juggler.
> > I don't think that. He's a nice guy and good juggler, but he's very
> > specialised (variations of the box and mills mess) and there are so many
> > more possibilities in the 3 ball universe. And I know other jugglers who
> > can do all or even harder box/mess tricks than Falco (e.g. Julius).
>
>
> Since you've mentioned Falco and seem to know him somewhat perhaps you can
> answer another question for me. His juggling was very different to
> anything I had seen before it, and I have noticed elements of his juggling
> popping up in many other peoples juggling since. I felt he had steered
> 3ball in a new direction from the ground up in some way? So I am
> interested to know how much of that juggling is his own creation?
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qv6-hQDj4ts
>
>
> Many thanks, sorry about all the questions.
>
>
> pete

[d_n_b]

Paul Lind wrote:

> I tried yesterday for the first time
> the (6;2x) (2x;2x)* upside down box and was directly able to run it a
> short time. Don’t know how long it takes to get it solid, but it feels
> much more doable than my current goals for body-catch-throw patterns (e.g.
> this 423 variation but with the 4 as shoulder throws).
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=kKlgMYpx9dc#t=263s

That extended box is not too far out there, though certainly nowhere near
trivial. Choosing a harder one, how long do you think it would take you to
learn the "switched box"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wFKUqT1fnw

Dan

[d_n_b]

Also...

that 432 variation
is
nuts
!

[pumpkineater23]

Thanks Paul. It's always a treat to watch your next video and really
interesting to read about your juggling too. Hopefully, one day, I will be
able to do some of that crazy stuff.

[Paul Lind]

Yep, it looks hard. I never tried this variation but learnt some other
stuff which should be very useful to learn it. I can do the crossed arm
box with the 2x always as cross throws and can do the two boxes where I
change between the two possibilities of crossed hands after each throw.
One variation is with the 2x from the upper hand to the lower hand, the
other variation with the 2x in the opposite direction (I filmed one
variation some years ago but not with a really crossed throw 2x. But I
think it’s enough to show what I’m talking about…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=FOSvhSKns_E#t=403s
These 2xs with crossed arms are tricky and really funny. I’ll give this
pattern a try tomorrow.
Sylvain Garnavault is very good at this 2x stuff. It’s a pity that he
stopped making videos.

[Julius]

I wouldn't say this one is harder; it's more of a brain challenge whereas
the upside down one is more technically challenging - I practiced the
"switched box" for half an hour (including practicing the cross-arm-box as
I never tried this one before as well) and got to a best run of about 30
catches. I was doing very high throws though - doing it as low as mura
would take a little more practice.
I would also claim that any bodythrow pattern is harder than any box
variation (which doesnt include bodythrows of course).

[Paul Lind]

I think the same. I tried the trick today. It's nearly the same thing like
the variations I described before. Therefore I got it nearly directly.
Learning the different variations of cross boxes my main problem was more
a mental thing and not the technic.
Does Mura have some harder boxes? I'm not sure with Julius' last point but
I have the same feeling.

[Harm1]

pumpkineater23 wrote:

> Pattern seekers are the best jugglers. All the other stuff is what people
> do because they can't do the pattern seeking.

I strongly disagree with this. The notion that new juggling makes better
juggling is only one of many ways to look at juggling. I primarily like
juggling as a performance-based art/entertainment form so to me the best
juggling is the juggling that has the most aesthetic appeal or the
juggling that communicates best what the artist has to say (which could
range from 'look I can do an incredibly hard trick' to a sociopolitical
statement). As a juggler I try to focus on these aspects of juggling and I
can assure you that they are at least as hard (and as much fun) as finding
new patterns.

[pumpkineater23]

I agree with you when you mention the many different ways to look at
juggling. My juggling isn't very original, I've never been a good pattern
finder so perhaps that's why I get so excited when I see the new
groundbreaking stuff, and rate it above everything else. I rarely see
really 'new' juggling, the other stuff you mention I see quite a lot of.

What if the juggling has all the quality's you mention above, plus it's
made up of original juggling as opposed to secondhand? Does that not make
it seem better for you?


pete

[Mats1]

Paul Lind wrote:
> I think Vova is the best,
> because he can juggle and playing the piano.
> I always thought that's an impossible trick and he did it clean on stage.

Two in one hand + playing piano is really easy. Even the passing is
probably not that hard.

Three in two hands while playing the piano, that's the real trick. Not
seen it done yet.