Are you a thrower or a catcher?
TAStrong
In message
From: edw...@jte.com (Edward Jackman)
Date: 9 Apr 1997 17:53:02 -0700
Message-ID: <5ihdle$42f$1...@nnrp01.primenet.com>
Edward Jackman talked about what a great juggler Sean McKinney is. Most
notable is Sean's ability to catch almost anything he throws; it doesn't
matter if a club is caught by the handle, end or middle.
This brings up a concept we (the juggling students and I) used to discuss
at the circus school in France. One can divide numbers jugglers into two
large categories, throwers and catchers. Throwers are jugglers who
concentrate on making each throw properly. Most jugglers who were trained
in the former Soviet bloc countries can be categorized as throwers.
Catchers are not as concerned with previous throws, they rely more on
making good catches and putting the objects back into the pattern.
I have had a chance to briefly talk about juggling with Arkady Pouponne
(don't think I have got the spelling correct) and with several of Arkady's
students. Arkady is the juggling teacher at the circus school in Kiev. He
also frequently teaches at the circus school in Brussels.
I am going to try and relate my interpretation of a 'thrower' approach to
numbers juggling. Please remember this may not coincide with what is
actually being taught in Kiev or other circus schools. My understanding of
this juggling method is to make sure that each throw is correct. At the
first sign that an object has been thrown too high, or over spun, or too
far in front or whatever one should immediately stop juggling. The idea
here seems to be that the first incorrect throw disrupts the pattern and
one begins to learn to juggle 'badly.' Rather than learn bad techniques,
stop, collect the props and begin again.
If the first throw is incorrect, do not throw the second. Once it is
possible to consistently make the first toss well, then one may throw the
second object. This idea is carried out to each subsequent throw. As soon
as a bad throw is made, stop.
Gregor Kiock, who studied with Arkady for several months, related this
story to me. Gregor was demonstrating his progress with five clubs. He
began to juggle five, saw that the pattern was getting sloppy, brought it
back together into a tight pattern and continued juggling for a while. He
was proud that he could make the necessary corrections to save the
pattern. Arkady was upset that Gregor had continued to juggle when it was
obvious that he had made several bad throws.
A different approach to making sure every throw is good before continuing
with the next is to catch every throw and keep on juggling as long as one
can. Sean McKinney is, perhaps, the strongest example of a catcher that I
have seen. Meaning no disrespect, Sean is the best 'bad' juggler that I
know of. (By 'bad' I mean he doesn't seem to concentrate too much on
making sure all his throws are perfect. Instead, Sean seems to just chuck
up objects in wild patterns and assumes (most often correctly) he will
catch whatever comes down.
Another example of a former catcher is Cotton McAloon. Several years back
Cotton broke his arm. When the doctor told him he would never juggle again
his response was, "Screw you, doc, you may never juggle again but I
certainly will." (Not an exact quote but the essence is there, even if I
watered it down.)
Cotton told me it was interesting juggling after his arm healed. Before he
used to rely on being able to catch almost any bad throw by reaching out
quickly and snagging the club. Now, his arm hurts when he makes those
quick, adjusting movements. He confessed to me that after all these years
he was finally learning to juggle 'correctly.'
Jason Garfield and most of the ex-Soviet bloc jugglers (Victor Kee, Sergei
Ignatov and others) could be put into the 'thrower' category.
I used to ask my students if they would rather be throwers or catchers.
The majority responded, throwers. Has this already been discussed at
rec.juggling? Any thoughts?
Todd Strong
Seth Golub
In article <19970416182...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
TAStrong <tast...@aol.com> wrote:
> I used to ask my students if they would rather be throwers or
> catchers. The majority responded, throwers.
Curious. I'd rather be a catcher. My patterns might not look as
nice, but I'd be better at recovering from bad throws. Sometimes bad
throws can't be helped, like when someone else does the throwing or
something changes the trajectory of the object after I've thrown it.
I suspect there are many cases where being able to recover from
variance not under my control would allow me to juggle in a wider
variety of environments, some of which might be very interesting.
For example, a bounce juggler who is a catcher would probably have an
easier time bouncing throws off an uneven (and hard to predict)
surface.
--
Seth Golub --- se...@cs.wustl.edu --- http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~seth/
Greg Warrington
Todd,
They're several interesting issues here. Most dear to my heart is the
question of what is the most efficient way to learn numbers. In
particular, am I more likely to qualify 10 in the next year if I
discipline myself according to the thrower method, or if I take a more
relaxed approach and hold the pattern together as long as I can?
Personally, I think I'll have a better chance as a catcher.
For one, my enthusiasm is kept up better this way. I get a wonderful
feeling from saving a falling pattern. If I feel like trying 8 in a
new pattern, I can just go do it. Maybe I'll get lucky. If I'm
enthusiastic, I'll practice more and enjoy it more. Even if per hour
I would make better progress as a 'thrower' I'd be putting in less
enjoyable (and therefore fewer) hours.
I also have a terrible sense of rhythm (as allen k. can attest). I
don't start well. Once I get the pattern going, I can usually manage
to even things out. But I have trouble throwing things at a
particular rate on command. It would be tiresome to abort whenever my
initial throws were a little off time. Furthermore, I don't think
stopping as soon as my rhythm was off would help my rhythm improve
faster than just continuing. In fact, feeling the pattern at the
correct rhythm is probably the best thing for me.
I also happen to think that it is useful to test my limits.
Half-milers don't train just by running half-miles over and over.
They do sprints and distance work. Similarly, I'd rather be able to
recover from that poor throw. And if I can recover from a terrible
throw, hopefully recovering from a merely suboptimal throw won't be
that big a deal. No matter how hard you try to have perfect throws,
you're not always going to succeed. Numbers records would be much
longer than they are if this were possible.
Now, I do have a confession to make: It is true, my left hand still
throws low and often not far enough across in 7. Sure enough, the
problem manifests itself in 9 and I tend to to turn in a circle (as if
I were an IJA competitor showering clubs :). Juggling as a thrower, I
would have fixed this to some degree by now.
Another interesting point you implicitly raise is the matter of what
constitutes a bad habit. I would claim that catching close to your
body and throwing from further away is such a bad habit. Raising your
arms in order to catch the ball early is another. Many beginning
jugglers are prone to these two habits. I think this where my list
ends, though I'm sure they're more. These habits are avoidable.
Underspinning, throwing the wrong height, throwing to the wrong place
don't make my list. They are all symptoms of learning as far as I'm
concerned. They are unavoidable. They are part of juggling. As you
improve as a juggler, these errors will decrease in frequency and
severity (at least, until you add more balls :).
I should also point out, though, that I am approaching this solely
from the view of a hobbyist. Were I to perform, I would probably be
well served by spending more time making my patterns look good and
learning to do them with more consistency.
>I used to ask my students if they would rather be throwers or catchers.
>The majority responded, throwers. Has this already been discussed at
I think this question is a little misleading. Your definitions of
thrower and catcher seem to relate most heavily to practice style.
But this question to me could be construed as to referring to ones
pattern in performance. Sure, I'd rather have any pattern I do in
performance be perfect, but as I hope is clear from the above, I'd
rather not restrict my throws in my practice sessions to being
perfect.
Thanks for the post, it was very interesting.
greg
Arthur Lewbel
Todd Strong wrote:
>...
> This brings up a concept we (the juggling students and I) used to discuss
> at the circus school in France. One can divide numbers jugglers into two
> large categories, throwers and catchers. Throwers are jugglers who
> concentrate on making each throw properly. Most jugglers who were trained
> in the former Soviet bloc countries can be categorized as throwers.
> Catchers are not as concerned with previous throws, they rely more on
> making good catches and putting the objects back into the pattern.
> I used to ask my students if they would rather be throwers or catchers.
> The majority responded, throwers. Has this already been discussed at
>
> Todd Strong
Yes, like almost everything juggling related (except possibly vests),
this was discussed years ago on rec.juggling, and can be found the JIS
archives. On Jan 25, 1995 I posted the following:
Bram Cohen and Andrew Conway together observe that Ignatov makes
accurate
throws, while Stammer and Boppo make good corrections. I've often found
it
useful to divide jugglers into "throwers" and "catchers." Ignatov is
a thrower, Stammer a catcher. Gatto and Jay Gilligan are rare examples
of
both (uniformly great throws, but occasional error very well tracked and
corrected). Bennett is a catcher. Usually low fast jugglers are
catchers,
high slow patterns are throwers (Boppo is something of a freak, we
already
knew that, but in this respect his strangeness is that he always
recovers from
bad throws by making the next throw even higher to get more time to
recover
from the next bad throw, etc.,.). Among lower quality jugglers, I know
I'm
a catcher. Apparently, Jack and Rick of clockwork insult each others
seven
ball patterns by claiming they look as bad as mine (Jack's a pure
thrower).
practice suggestion: figure out if you're a thrower or a catcher, and
work
on what your not.
.sig says there are 2 kinds of people: those that think there are 2
kinds
of people, and those that don't.
Arthur Lewbel
--
Arthur Lewbel ale...@lemberg.brandeis.edu (617)-736-2258
Dept. of Economics, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA 02254, USA
http://www.brandeis.edu/ief/faculty/al.html
rodi...@aol.com
Great topic!
A few points:
1. Perfect throwing can go on until you get tired or bored, since catches are consequently easy.
2. Perfect catching does not exist, since nobody has the speed or arm span to catch every bad throw.
On average, I teach around ten newbie juggling lessons a day. Here's one of the most valuable techniques I've learned:
Problem(s): While practicing two balls, the second ball goes too low, too soon, too late, too far away, gets handed across, etc. This happens because there's too much focus on the first catch.
Solution: Roderick sez, "Okay, this time, make the two best throws you can, and DO NOT CATCH THEM. Let them go to the floor." The new juggler then usually makes two very good throws, and about
half the time, both balls fall into their hands. It's a beautiful moment.
A catch is the natural result of a good throw.
The same idea applies no matter what your doing. Numbers, tricks, props, climbing ladders, steering your car, vaccinations, etc. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Okay, who can guess which side I'm on? :^)
Roderick
Joran Elias
In article <19970416182...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
tast...@aol.com (TAStrong) wrote:
> If the first throw is incorrect, do not throw the second. Once it is
> possible to consistently make the first toss well, then one may throw the
> second object. This idea is carried out to each subsequent throw. As soon
> as a bad throw is made, stop.
This sounds like a quote from Boppo's Number Notes on JIS. He describes
two types of number's jugglers...performers and hobbiests. The performers
tend to practice as you described above, while the hobbiests are willing to
dive all over the gym for bad throws, pushing their runs to the limit.
>
> Gregor Kiock, who studied with Arkady for several months, related this
> story to me. Gregor was demonstrating his progress with five clubs. He
> began to juggle five, saw that the pattern was getting sloppy, brought it
> back together into a tight pattern and continued juggling for a while. He
> was proud that he could make the necessary corrections to save the
> pattern. Arkady was upset that Gregor had continued to juggle when it was
> obvious that he had made several bad throws.
This I find interesting. I've always been interested in how I learn
things, particularly in juggling, and I have only found one consistant
truth: When confronted with a choice of stategies, usually it is best to
use both to some extent.
Personally, the "thrower" strategy is essential when first tackling a
juggling trick, 5 balls for instance. I think that it's _very_ important
to build up your throws, using the usual drills (3 ball chase, 3 ball
flash, then 4, then flash 5). Making sure that your first few throws are
right on is vital.
But, correcting for bad throws is also a vital skill. Concentrating on
having perfect throws is a great way to approach a trick, but I think that
ultimately, you need to just go for it sometimes and correct on the fly. I
mean, I've seen some good jugglers, but nobody throws perfect throws all
the time. At some point you have to be able to adjust and recover within a
pattern. And the way to learn that is to have it happen to you.
> I used to ask my students if they would rather be throwers or catchers.
> The majority responded, throwers. Has this already been discussed at
> rec.juggling? Any thoughts?
>
> Todd Strong
Again, I guess I'd object to the either/or aspect of this question. I
think that _anyone_ whose runs w/5 are >100 catches (I pulled that number
out of nowhere) needs to be a catcher. Or with seven. How can you
realistically expect to achieve perfect throws for runs of 50, 60, 70
catches every time?
I we are all "throwers" during the first n throws for n objects, and for
sustaining patterns, the skill involved is catching and correcting. My
ideas are getting more articulate as I write this....
The "thrower" and "catcher" qualities are both necessary parts of any
trick, if you want to sustain that trick for any period of time. The
"thrower" in you initiates a trick, and the "catcher" in you sustains is.
btw, I understand you are new to rj, welcome! This is one to the most
interesting ideas I've seen on here recently.
jor
Jack Kalvan
TAStrong wrote:
>
> If the first throw is incorrect, do not throw the second. Once it is
> possible to consistently make the first toss well, then one may throw the
> second object. This idea is carried out to each subsequent throw. As soon
> as a bad throw is made, stop.
>
This is the Nick Gatto method (told to me by Steve Mills). Usually, I
don't use it, but it really does work. Always juggling until you drop
teaches you to be a bad juggler. You drop a lot less when you just try
to catch them after the first bad throw. Less drops means more time
juggling well, and more self confidence. It really feels good to
practice 7 balls without dropping - even if runs are little more than
flashes.
Jack.
G.S.Sinclair
tast...@aol.com (TAStrong) wrote:
>I used to ask my students if they would rather be throwers or catchers.
Personally, I'd rather be a juggler and that involves knowing how to do both!
Your idea about learning how to throw by stopping after the first bad one may
seem like a good idea but would make for a very boring juggle. I learnt club
passing, for instance, by following the golden rule of never, ever, stop
juggling until the number of drops have made it impossible to continue. If
you did stop you would usually find your partner had continued and you'd get a
club incoming as you bent down to pick-up.
By learning that way you become a better catcher by:
-getting more juggling time
-learning how to compensate for poorly thrown passes
-learning when and how to pickup mid-pattern
but you also learn how to become a better passer by:
-getting more juggling time
-learning how to adjust your passes mid-juggle so that if one is overspun (or
whatever) you can get the next one correct
You can see the important factor; juggling time. The more time you spend 'in'
the pattern the easier it gets. If I spent any time passing with someone who
stopped at the first sign of trouble I'd quickly get very annoyed. It also
would make teaching someone a passing pattern very dull. If you were passing
with someone who was just learning something new, so that most of their throws
were duff, you'd be forever stopping. I'd much rather occupy my time
attempting to keep the pattern going, no-matter how bad the pass.
So I would say your question is spurious, to be a good juggler you have to be
both. No-one wants to pass with an amazing catcher who throws rubbish, or a
perfect thrower who drops everything.
Obviously, juggling alone, if you were perfect at one you could get away with
being totally crap at the other, but that's never likely to happen.
-~'~-..-~'~-..-~'~-..-~'~-..-~'~-..-~'
/ G.S.Sinclair. /
/ gss at pgm dot gla dot ac dot uk /
-~'~-..-~'~-..-~'~-..-~'~-..-~'~-..-~
-Mail to header address is deleted on receipt-
K Chu
TAStrong <tast...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970416182...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> In message
> From: edw...@jte.com (Edward Jackman)
> Date: 9 Apr 1997 17:53:02 -0700
> Message-ID: <5ihdle$42f$1...@nnrp01.primenet.com>
>
>
> I used to ask my students if they would rather be throwers or catchers.
> The majority responded, throwers. Has this already been discussed at
> rec.juggling? Any thoughts?
>
> Todd Strong
>
I think I'd rather be catcher, coz throwers if following that guys "onces
you pop, you top method" you'll never be able to learn about recovering
from bad catches.
They can't do one of those "toss them all up and juggle them in random
order" patterns because they've not got enough catching practice.
Most of all, they won't be good passers (unless both of them are the
"throwers")
also I think equilibrium is the key (i.e. be a "juggler" instead of
"throwers" or "catcher" - a comparison would be a "gymnaist" rather than
"tumbler" or "dancer" - got to be both to be good)
K
--
Ken the Juggler
Milton Keynes, UK
"If Juggling be the food of love catch on"
Chris Simmons
I think learning a pattern comes in two parts. The first is getting a
rough shape - the throws will *not* be perfect, but you're trying to find
out where the 'perfect' throw lies. As you progress, the throws/ catches
get closer to perfect. The trouble is, there will always be errors, so to
juggle for as long as possible, you need to be a near perfect *corrector*.
This is the key thing, I think, to run things for a longer while.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Chris Simmons, CS/Maths, York Uni.
cps...@tower.york.ac.uk
Why are ducks so nice? I can't quite figure it out....
I am, as I type, hungover atm, so this is jsust aload of crap that's in my head
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Alan Morgan
In article <33572B...@clockwork.org>,
Jack Kalvan <ja...@clockwork.org> wrote:
>TAStrong wrote:
>>
>> If the first throw is incorrect, do not throw the second.
>
>don't use it, but it really does work.
If you don't use it, how do you know it works? :-)
>Always juggling until you drop teaches you to be a bad juggler.
This really depends on your definition of 'bad juggler'. I don't
consider Boppo to be a 'bad juggler' but some of his patterns
consist of about 1 correction for every 3 throws. Boppo is certainly
a bad *performer* (except on the Renegade stage) but that is
a different matter.
>You drop a lot less when you just try to catch them after the first
>bad throw.
I don't drop 7 balls much anymore regardless of how crappy my throws
are. I still drop 9 a hell of a lot. OTOH, if I used the perfect
catch practice method I really doubt I'd have made a legal run of 9
balls yet, something of which I'm very proud.
Of course, you are a much better juggler than me, so why am I arguing
with you?
Alan
----
.sig says "Because you *like* arguing with people"
Daniel Menendez
My take on the thrower catcher theory and performing. [who cares]
1.Tendency towards accurate throws
- better style for technical juggling
performance.
2. Concentrates on catching
everything - better suited for comedy juggling.
The reverse might be more common
in club passing, with the catcher holding
the technical end of the act together, as the passer makes wild throws. To
do any juggling at all, a juggler must be both, to some degree. Certainly
Anthony can catch inaccurate throws, I saw him do it, once.
Edward Jackman
tast...@aol.com (TAStrong) wrote:
> One can divide numbers jugglers into two
>large categories, throwers and catchers. Throwers are jugglers who
>concentrate on making each throw properly. Most jugglers who were trained
>in the former Soviet bloc countries can be categorized as throwers.
>Catchers are not as concerned with previous throws, they rely more on
>making good catches and putting the objects back into the pattern.
Let me say this about that:
First, I think this division is a little bit of a red herring. I
believe that one can practice throwing a specific way ("Correct"
is comletely subjective.) but I don't think people practice catching.
The jugglers on the 'catchers' list are simple the ones who pay
less attention to form and/or perfect throws. I'll probably get
nailed for this, but I've *never* seen or heard of anyone working
specifically on catching or of any exercises that have been
developed for catching. If you throws suck, you can improve.
If you can't catch, say ga'night Gracie.
That being said, I much prefer throwers. Soon after my first
convention in 1976 I saw a crappy tape of Ignatov. In all the
years since, I've yet to see another juggling act of that type
that comes close. Anthony does many killer tricks, many beyond
what Ignotav did. But to me it appeared as if Ignatov rarely
needed to make even the slightest correction. His 7 ring routine
was ridiculous -- inluding two 1/2 turns, a full turn, a half
reverse and ending with pancakes. His 5 club routine, though
simple, gave me the impression that his mind my have been else
where because this was just a walk in the park. Of course, he
was my 'first' -- the first big time juggler I ever saw, so
I am aware of being anchored.
Edward, "Not a thrower, but I wishes he was." Jackman
TAStrong
In Message-ID: <5j454p$783$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>
Date: 17 Apr 1997 03:24:09 GMT
gw...@abel.harvard.edu (Greg Warrington) wrote:
In article <19970416182...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
TAStrong <tast...@aol.com> wrote:
>>One can divide numbers jugglers into two large categories, throwers
>>and catchers. Throwers are jugglers who concentrate on making each
>>throw properly...
>They're several interesting issues here. Most dear to my heart is the
>question of what is the most efficient way to learn numbers. In
>particular, am I more likely to qualify 10 in the next year if I
>discipline myself according to the thrower method, or if I take a more
>relaxed approach and hold the pattern together as long as I can?
>Personally, I think I'll have a better chance as a catcher.
I tried to leave my personal opinions out of the original post. Whenever
discussions like this came up at the school I pronounced myself an
American pragmatist. Still, if the goal is to create a whole bunch of
world class numbers jugglers, credence should be given to the Soviet way
of learning. They seem to get results.
>For one, my enthusiasm is kept up better this way. I get a wonderful
>feeling from saving a falling pattern. If I feel like trying 8 in a
>new pattern, I can just go do it. Maybe I'll get lucky. If I'm
>enthusiastic, I'll practice more and enjoy it more. Even if per hour
>I would make better progress as a 'thrower' I'd be putting in less
>enjoyable (and therefore fewer) hours.
Nikolaus-Maria Holz discusses motivation in a three part article he wrote
for Kaskade about two years ago. One of his goals was to learn seven large
stage balls without subjecting himself to the artificial discipline of the
east. As a west European he finds it hard to train in a Chinese or Soviet
style.
By the way, this rigid style of training reaches beyond juggling. Watching
a video tape of a Chinese teacher hitting her eight year handstand
balancing student hard enough to have him fall on his head makes an
impression. The child was instructed to hold a handstand for a certain
length of time. He faltered, dropped his legs out of the vertical position
and recovered. The unsatisfied teacher berated him and slapped him on the
head hard enough so that he fell off the grips.
I had a chance to watch the tape several times with different audiences.
When the blow is shown most people watching the tape react visibly. I
noticed an acrobatic teacher, trained in an eastern bloc country, didn't
flinch while watching. Later on I asked him where a teacher should have
best hit the child. His response was quick and certain, on the head. If
you hit someone on the feet or legs it doesn't make as much of an
impression. He elaborated that it was normal for the students to reach a
point where they no longer wanted to train. It was then necessary for the
teacher to play a role that was even more disagreeable than the training.
This training technique is not uncommon in some traditional circuses as
well as ex-soviet and chinese schools. And The Catch is so concerned about
the treatment of animals in the circus. What about the people?
A similar story related to me by another teacher, though I don't have
first hand knowledge of it: A student came to study and each session was
diligent about warming up with one ball for close to an hour. When asked
what he thought about while practicing he related this story. "My father
is a well-known animal trainer in the Russian circus. He told me to go and
learn to be a good juggler. He said if I failed, my job would be to come
back and shovel manure for his animals."
I would much rather have enthusiasm than the fear associated with failure
that this guy carries around. Similarly, I would rather have enthusiastic
students than ones being forced into it. Again, I was working in the west
where we have different assumptions and different methods. This same
eastern bloc acrobatic teacher used to talk about the Soviet training
style. "Constantly work everyone as hard as possible. The ones at the end
who are not injured will be world class gymnasts."
>I also have a terrible sense of rhythm (as allen k. can attest)...
Have you ever tried juggling with a metronome? A few of my students did
and were quite pleased with the results. Set it at a nice five ball rhythm
and juggle to the metronome until the rhythm gets internalized.
>I don't start well. Once I get the pattern going, I can usually manage
>to even things out. But I have trouble throwing things at a
>particular rate on command. It would be tiresome to abort whenever my
>initial throws were a little off time. Furthermore, I don't think
>stopping as soon as my rhythm was off would help my rhythm improve
>faster than just continuing. In fact, feeling the pattern at the
>correct rhythm is probably the best thing for me.
I agree. It seems to be easier to learn a new behavior by doing it rather
than by going through the steps to learning it. Once one's body gets a
sense of the proper movements and timing it can replicate them. For
example, having someone loosely grab my wrist while spinning a lasso lets
them feel the proper spinning motion. This method will impart much more
information more quickly than a mental understanding followed by trial and
error. The stereotypical golf instructor wrapping his arms around a blonde
student may have some validity.
>I also happen to think that it is useful to test my limits.
>Half-milers don't train just by running half-miles over and over.
>They do sprints and distance work. Similarly, I'd rather be able to
>recover from that poor throw. And if I can recover from a terrible
>throw, hopefully recovering from a merely suboptimal throw won't be
>that big a deal. No matter how hard you try to have perfect throws,
>you're not always going to succeed. Numbers records would be much
>longer than they are if this were possible.
I'm not sure about the analogy here. I think your comparison to sprints
and distance work may be tighter if you think about juggling fewer
objects. A half-miler doesn't run ten miles at a half-mile pace. Someone
learning seven balls could work on a long, correct run of five as a way to
train for seven; or five balls thrown at the height of seven.
Given all that, it is my understanding that Soviet style jugglers, even
though they are supposed to stop and gather their props after the first
bad throw, are told to do anything to keep the pattern going when they are
in front of an audience. In essence, all these 'throwers' become
'catchers' (or maybe thrower/catchers) when in front of the public. It
makes sense to me to practice this style as well as well as the pure
thrower style.
>Now, I do have a confession to make: It is true, my left hand still
>throws low and often not far enough across in 7. Sure enough, the
>problem manifests itself in 9 and I tend to turn in a circle (as if
>I were an IJA competitor showering clubs :). Juggling as a thrower, I
>would have fixed this to some degree by now.
Ignatov, Viktor and Anatoly and Viktor Kee all gave me the same advice on
how to train a hand to throw more accurately. The goal is to have the
balls cross at a point in the middle of the pattern. Most people juggle
with the crossing point off to the left or right of center. If your left
hand consistently throws short, your X crossing point would be slightly to
the left. Walk slowly to your left while juggling. The idea is to force
your left hand to throw a bit longer each time. Viktor Kee told me his gym
in Kiev wasn't large enough to walk side to side so he purposely turned in
circles. If your left hand throws too short I assume you turn in a
counterclockwise direction (looked at from above). Try juggling five while
rotating clockwise. This should also train your left hand to throw a bit
longer.
>Another interesting point you implicitly raise is the matter of what
>constitutes a bad habit. I would claim that catching close to your
>body and throwing from further away is such a bad habit. Raising your
>arms in order to catch the ball early is another. Many beginning
>jugglers are prone to these two habits. I think this where my list
>ends, though I'm sure they're more. These habits are avoidable.
>Under spinning, throwing the wrong height, throwing to the wrong place
>don't make my list. They are all symptoms of learning as far as I'm
>concerned. They are unavoidable. They are part of juggling. As you
>improve as a juggler, these errors will decrease in frequency and
>severity (at least, until you add more balls :).
You haven't seen my right hand. When juggling clubs at the height of
double spins my left hand throws a natural double while my right throws
one and a half spins. It was frustrating to learn five clubs. As soon as I
relaxed and didn't say to myself each time, "Right hand more spin," clubs
out of the right hand would revert back to being under spun. I'll hazard a
guess that catching too close to the body is just an effect of not
throwing to the proper place.
Todd Strong
TAStrong
In Message-ID: <5j7oge$c...@singer.cent.gla.ac.uk>
Date: 18 Apr 1997 12:13:02 GMT
junk...@pgm.gla.ac.uk (G.S.Sinclair) wrote:
tast...@aol.com (TAStrong) wrote:
>>I used to ask my students if they would rather be throwers or
catchers...
>>If the first throw is incorrect, do not throw the second. Once it is
>>possible to consistently make the first toss well, then one may throw
>>the second object. This idea is carried out to each subsequent throw. As
>>soon as a bad throw is made, stop...
>Your idea about learning how to throw by stopping after the first bad one
>may seem like a good idea but would make for a very boring juggle. I
>learnt club passing, for instance, by following the golden rule of never,
>ever, stop juggling until the number of drops have made it impossible to
>continue. If you did stop you would usually find your partner had
>continued and you'd get a club incoming as you bent down to pick-up.
>By learning that way you become a better catcher by:
>-getting more juggling time...
>but you also learn how to become a better passer by:
>-getting more juggling time...
>You can see the important factor; juggling time...
and In Message-ID: <33572B...@clockwork.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 00:05:59 -0800
Jack Kalvan <ja...@clockwork.org> wrote:
>This is the Nick Gatto method (told to me by Steve Mills). Usually, I
>don't use it, but it really does work. Always juggling until you drop
>teaches you to be a bad juggler. You drop a lot less when you just try
>to catch them after the first bad throw. Less drops means more time
>juggling well, and more self confidence. It really feels good to
>practice 7 balls without dropping - even if runs are little more than
>flashes.
I have snipped from the above messages but trust I have kept the original
intents clear.
Now this is interesting. If I understand correctly, Jack seems to feel
that stopping at the first sign of trouble actually leads to more time
juggling well while G.S. Sinclair thinks it leads to less time juggling.
Don't know if Jack thinks it leads to more or less time juggling. (Or
perhaps the time doesn't change.)
Does it make sense to define 'time spent juggling' more specifically? If a
juggler spends one hour a day with the props, how much of that hour is
spent actually juggling, how much collecting dropped props and how much
time getting ready to juggle. (As an example, I'm thinking of that
infamous wind up motion so many of us do before actually releasing the
first ball that strikes non-jugglers as so amusing. Another time I would
label 'non-juggling' would be positioning all the props in the hands.)
I'm not aware of any research done on this subject. When I was at the
circus school I noticed that the 'non-juggling' students did not spend the
entire period juggling. I was perplexed until I watched the same students
in an acrobatics class. Because of space, equipment and teacher
limitations (mostly when the teacher was acting as spotter) the majority
of time spent by an individual in a gym class actually doing gymnastics is
surprisingly little. I recall asking a gym teacher and she told me it's
about 10% of the time. (This is from my memory. I think she said about six
minutes out of a sixty minute class. However, I didn't write it down.
Apparently it's based on actual research.) The rest of the time is spent
waiting in line, warming up, and in preparation for a particular maneuver.
I suspect if one distinguishes between the time spent collecting props and
preparing to juggle as separate from actually juggling then a juggler who
stops after one bad throw and then makes another attempt will actually
juggle more in the same sixty minute session than a juggler who spends
lots of time collecting many dropped props.
The idea of motivation becomes important here. The concern that an
unmotivated juggler, forced to practice in a style with which she or he is
not comfortable, will have fewer and shorter juggling sessions is valid.
My understanding of the 'thrower' system is that motivation is not a
factor. Hours are assigned and students juggle.
Todd Strong
TAStrong
In Message-ID: <5jbvm2$g12$1...@nnrp01.primenet.com>
Date: 19 Apr 1997 19:40:02 -0700
edw...@jte.com (Edward Jackman) wrote:
tast...@aol.com (TAStrong) wrote:
>> One can divide numbers jugglers into two large categories, throwers
>>and catchers...
>First, I think this division is a little bit of a red herring. I
>believe that one can practice throwing a specific way ("Correct"
>is comletely subjective.) but I don't think people practice catching...
Agreed. Dividing numbers jugglers into two broad categories, throwers and
catchers, may appear arbitrary. Juggling involves both activities, to
juggle well one must be good at both catching and throwing. Splitting
juggling into these two categories is an attempt to break things down in
order to discuss some ideas.
An analogy to me is how a scientist may choose to relate to sunlight. Many
people are happy to go to the beach and fully enjoy a sunny day by
immersing themselves in the sun. A scientist, however, may choose to shut
herself in a darkened room, allowing in only a thin sliver of sunlight
which passes through a prism. While the scientist may not get a tan on
that day, she discovers that sunlight contains bands of colors. In a
similar way I feel that temporarily dividing a juggler's task into the
separate components of throwing and catching may yield some information
which may otherwise be overlooked.
I also feel there is some justification in labeling a certain way to throw
'correct' or 'proper.' If one thousand people were given the same goal and
a significant majority achieved that goal with a certain technique,
(qualifying seven balls) I would consider calling that technique more
'correct' than another technique that didn't achieve the goal.
When I learned to high jump there were two techniques taught. I think the
easier of the two was called the 'scissor kick' while the advanced jumpers
were taught the 'western roll.' In both systems the leg goes over the bar
first. Years later Dick Fosbury came along and amazed all the experts with
the 'Fosbury Flop,' head and shoulder over the bar first. His new
technique caused an uproar in track and field. But he won. Several years
back I was watching a PE class learn the high jump and the Fosbury Flop
was being taught to everybody. This technique is now considered more
correct (more people get better results) than the western roll.
In a similar fashion I suspect that there is a more 'correct' way to throw
a club for numbers juggling. If I understand him, Boppo feels that an
under or over spun club should be corrected by throwing higher or lower,
not by throwing with more or less wrist. I think this method of no wrist
adjustment will be better for the majority of people who try it.
Todd Strong
Francis Favorini
My philosohpy on practice is to try a combination of the two methods being
discussed: 1) stop when you are throwing badly and 2) just go for it.
Method 1 is good because you have to pick up less, and you aren't
practicing bad throws (although I've never really been sure that
"practicing bad throws" is all that bad). Method 2 is important because if
you don't just go for it sometimes, you may very well miss a breakthrough.
Breakthroughs often happen at random (a Eureka moment), perhaps when you
accidently change the angle of your wrist or the height of your left hand
throws or relax your shoulders or whatever. These subtle things can make
all the difference, and I think they are more likely to occur when you are
less inhibited by the discipline of Method 1. Method 1 on the other hand
may allow you to focus more on proper technique--once you know what it is.
That's why I try to do a mixture of both. The percentage of each changes
according to how I feel on any given day.
Random thought: perhaps people who do a lot of passing are better catchers
since they have to rely on someone else's throws. Corollary: do more
passing if you want to tune up your catching.
-Fran
Brian D Milner
Daniel Menendez <zi...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>My take on the thrower catcher theory and performing. [who cares]
>
> 1.Tendency towards accurate throws
>- better style for technical juggling performance.
>
> 2. Concentrates on catching
>everything - better suited for comedy juggling.
The way I see it if you throw it right, you don't have to try hard to
catch it, as it nestles into your hand at the perfect moment. I want to
be an expert thrower so I don't have to make wild saves.
OTOH, when passing it's handy to be able to grab wild passes to keep the
pattern up. Maybe the accomplished juggler can't help but learn both
disciplines?
--
==Brian Milner, The Computer Centre, Brunel University, West London, UK==
== Knives are showy things. Today we deal in fundamentals, Sleet said. ==
== We deal in the philosophy of the art. Knives would be a distraction.==
===== WWW == http://www.brunel.ac.uk/~ccusbdm/home.htm ====We The Freed==
Dusty Galbraith
Brian....@brunel.ac.uk (Brian D Milner) wrote:
>Daniel Menendez <zi...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>My take on the thrower catcher theory and performing. [who cares]
>>
>> 1.Tendency towards accurate throws
>>- better style for technical juggling performance.
>>
>> 2. Concentrates on catching
>>everything - better suited for comedy juggling.
>The way I see it if you throw it right, you don't have to try hard to
>catch it, as it nestles into your hand at the perfect moment. I want to
>be an expert thrower so I don't have to make wild saves.
>OTOH, when passing it's handy to be able to grab wild passes to keep the
>pattern up. Maybe the accomplished juggler can't help but learn both
>disciplines?
I would strongly agree!
Like most of the great questions in life, the answer that makes the
most sense is IMHO, "It depends."
My $.02
Dusty
Founder, President, and Clumsiest
member of The Quad Cities
Juggling Club Inc.
Scott Sorensen
TAStrong wrote:
>
>
> My understanding of the 'thrower' system is that motivation is not a
> factor. Hours are assigned and students juggle.
>
> Todd Strong
Actually I'm a pattern juggler. I concentrate on getting the throws
to a point where you don't feel like you are working hard, you're just
in the groove. Once you hit the groove you're really jugglin' man!
-Scott Sorensen
Scott Sorensen
Hmm... You write some long articles, Todd. If I had that much extra
time I'd probably spend it juggling...
...anyway you make some good observations...
TAStrong
In Message-ID: <335EC5...@iglou.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 02:30:10 GMT
Scott Sorensen <jugg...@iglou.com> wrote...
>Hmm... You write some long articles, Todd. If I had that much extra
>time I'd probably spend it juggling...
You mean it's an either/or thing?
(And I just assumed people who wrote exclusively in lower case didn't have
high enough ceilings.)
Todd Strong
Jack Kalvan
TAStrong wrote:
>
> Now this is interesting. If I understand correctly, Jack seems to feel
> that stopping at the first sign of trouble actually leads to more time
> juggling well while G.S. Sinclair thinks it leads to less time juggling.
> Don't know if Jack thinks it leads to more or less time juggling. (Or
> perhaps the time doesn't change.)
>
Stopping after the first bad throw leads to much more time juggling.
Instead of chasing your props and picking them up, you catch them all
and immediately start again. Yesterday I practiced 6 rings with this
method - usually getting about 10 throws per run and almost never
dropping them. I got much more practice than usual.
As a result, you do have to force yourself to take breaks to give your
hands time to rest (especially with rings! - more rest = less pain =
better juggling)
Also, as Ignatov says,"Juggle, think, juggle, think." (paraphrased
because I don't remember) But the point is after each juggling attempt,
think about what was wrong before you throw them up again.
[...]
> in an acrobatics class. Because of space, equipment and teacher
> limitations (mostly when the teacher was acting as spotter) the majority
> of time spent by an individual in a gym class actually doing gymnastics is
> surprisingly little. I recall asking a gym teacher and she told me it's
> about 10% of the time. (This is from my memory. I think she said about six
> minutes out of a sixty minute class. However, I didn't write it down.
This was definitely true when I used to attend Hovey Burgess's classes
in New York. We'd all take turns tumbling or on the trapeze and everyone
else would wait and watch. But it was fun.
Jack.
MILESFNW
As a juggler, this is a topic that interests me. But as a tennis
player/juggler, it interests me even more. In a typical game of tennis,
each point lasts an average of about 10 seconds. Then there is about a 20
second break before the next point (that's regulation in the pros). So,
only one third of the time the player is on the court is actually spent
playing tennis. Many sports psychologists, namely Jim Loehr, one of the
leaders in that field, have agreed that what the player does during that
time in between greatly affects his/her perfomance on the next point. Jim
Loehr has observed that the top players all have a set of rituals between
points which keeps them in the optimal emotional state throughout the
match.These rituals allow them to keep a balance of concentration,
relaxation, intensity, and confidence. I can't help but think that this
applys to a juggling practice. How many times have you thrown up seven
balls perfectly, only to find the next attempt scattering balls all over
the place. What has changed between those two trys? Your mental state is
what has changed. In a book called something like "Mental "Toughness for
Tennis", Jim Loehr teaches how to establish the proper rituals for tennis.
I've tried it, and it works for my game. Maybe it would work for juggling
as well.
milesfnw (Scott Plapinger}
Edward Jackman
tast...@aol.com (TAStrong) wrote:
>I also feel there is some justification in labeling a certain way to throw
>'correct' or 'proper.' If one thousand people were given the same goal and
>a significant majority achieved that goal with a certain technique,
>(qualifying seven balls) I would consider calling that technique more
>'correct' than another technique that didn't achieve the goal.
I don't.
There's a big difference to saying one way tends
to or usually works better than another than saying that there is a
'right' way and a 'wrong' way. The sports world provides hundreds of
examples of people who refuse to do things the 'proper' way and yet
surpass the rest. A 'correct' method would work for everyone. There
is rarely such a thing.
>When I learned to high jump there were two techniques taught. I think the
>easier of the two was called the 'scissor kick' while the advanced jumpers
>were taught the 'western roll.' In both systems the leg goes over the bar
>first. Years later Dick Fosbury came along and amazed all the experts with
>the 'Fosbury Flop,' head and shoulder over the bar first. His new
>technique caused an uproar in track and field. But he won. Several years
>back I was watching a PE class learn the high jump and the Fosbury Flop
>was being taught to everybody. This technique is now considered more
>correct (more people get better results) than the western roll.
Which illustrates my point! Before Fosbury, jumpers were instructed to
do things the 'correct' way -- which turns out to be not so darn
correct. I'm *sure* Fosbury had to endure intense pressure and
critisizm for doing things the 'wrong' way -- until he started leaving
everyone else in his sawdust.
While it's usually easier, quicker and more sensible to follow the
steps of the master before you rather than constantly reinventing
the wheel, there are trade-offs in doing so. There are examples of
jugglers who learned in a relative vacuum who show up at conventions
doing everything 'wrong' -- e.g. Larry Vee. He told me
that he never even saw another juggler until he had be at it for
13 years. I will always believe that if he had been surrounded by
other jugglers all that time and had access to all the information,
books and tapes available now, he would be a much better juggler
in the 'accepted' sense -- and he would also more than likely be
completely forgetable.
Years ago I was watching a class of young baton twirlers - maybe 8 to
12 year old girls. Most pretty much followed instructions and tried to
copy the instructors as best they could. One girl was off by herself
experimenting. At one point she did some new move and got all excited.
She went to one of the two teachers and said: "Look at this one!"
Rather than sharing her excitement over her inventiveness, she
practically scolded: "No, that not a correct move. Here's the right
way." Lovely. The results? Every top baton twirler does every move
exactly the same way. As a group, they predate sheep as the first
clones.
Fifteen years ago, the "correct" way to do five club backcrosses
was with triple spins, with the hands not coming close to crossing
the body's centerline. I've seen several jugglers do just fine
breaking both of these rules.
When I teach juggling, I always say: "Here's one way of doing this
that I found easiest for myself." or words to that effect.
>In a similar fashion I suspect that there is a more 'correct' way to throw
>a club for numbers juggling. If I understand him, Boppo feels that an
>under or over spun club should be corrected by throwing higher or lower,
>not by throwing with more or less wrist. I think this method of no wrist
>adjustment will be better for the majority of people who try it.
But what tends to work for the masses is often not what works best for
the record setters. One of the top Japanese home run hitters uses a
grip in which his hands do not touch -- they grip the bat about 4
inches apart. That coudn't be more 'wrong'. Many great sidearm
pitchers were ruined by coaches who insisted that throwing overarm
was the 'correct'. (Turns out sidearm is much less damaging to the
shoulders -- but hey, they can't get a "proper" curve that way!)
And remember, George Burns lived to one hundred smoking a fist full of
cigars and dranking way too much. His regimine might not work for
everybody.
Orson Scot Cards short story 'Unaccompanied Sonata'
in his collection by the same name speaks to this issue. In
the future, people are allowed to be music makers OR they may
be listeners. A music maker must NEVER listen to ANY music
written or performed by anyone else because it will stifle that
individuals creativity. Someone slips the hero a recording of
some clasical music and it has an obvious effect on his music.
He is tainted now -- we'll never know what he would have created.
He is banned from being a maker. Later he comes across a delapidated
piano, not merely out of tune but hopelessly broken. Since he
doesn't know the 'correct' way to play a piano, he finds it no
more difficult to create beautiful music with it than if it were
state of the art. He uses not just the keys but all part of the
piano in every possible way. Not unlike Larry.
Edward
JCRjuggler
I've *never* seen or heard of anyone working
specifically on catching or of any exercises that have been
developed for catching.
This is attributed to Ed Jackman, however, as a club passer, I have passed
with quite a few people who occasionally like to try a "catcher" drill
where one thrower throws "crap" at least to the right place and the right
time to have the "catcher" practice catching it. It actually develops your
"catcher" instincts. Not that I condone this, because I would rather be a
thrower, but find I am more of a catcher myself.
Jimmy Robertson
Flight Patterns
Rodirick
Yall,
Yesterday in practice, I had a great example of the benefit of, "throwing"
For anyone just now joining, "throwing" and "catching" are two different
modes of execution for your juggling. You can figure from there, or read
the archive. I just didn't want you to think I was a nut.
Anyway, I was working on a five ball, five up, half pirouette. It was
giving me problems, and I didn't know why, but couldn't get it at all. I
said to myself, "Self, this time you're gonna throw them all right where
they need to go, then you're just gonna watch and see what happens so you
can understand the problem. Got it?" "Yes," I said. So I got into the
pattern, then I threw the five up as well as I could. They looked really
good up there. "Too good to waste." Said my self. "yes" I thought. So I
did the half turn, caught them all easily, and kept going.
For me, the question isn't throwing or catching. The question is how
to have the discipline to be a thrower all the time. A think it's just a
habit.
Roderick
Jani Ilari Kyllönen
Rodirick (rodi...@aol.com) wrote:
: Anyway, I was working on a five ball, five up, half pirouette. It was
: giving me problems, and I didn't know why, but couldn't get it at all. I
: said to myself, "Self, this time you're gonna throw them all right where
: they need to go, then you're just gonna watch and see what happens so you
: can understand the problem. Got it?" "Yes," I said. So I got into the
: pattern, then I threw the five up as well as I could. They looked really
: good up there. "Too good to waste." Said my self. "yes" I thought. So I
: did the half turn, caught them all easily, and kept going.
I was working on flashing 7 for one of the first times and
just couldn't do it. It seemed too fast, too high and too
everything. I caught maybe 3 or 4 at a time. Then I thought
that I'd just throw really slow and let them fall to the floor.
Suddenly I had thrown #7 and #1 was still coming down so I
caught it and the rest of them. Often trying too hard makes
you too desperate to be able to do the thing you are trying to.
Weird it is.
jani
--
"Znqr lbh ybbx"
-Sbk Z.-
Michael Ferguson
In article <5kc634$h...@verkko.uwasa.fi>, dated 2 May 1997 07:45:40
GMT, d74542-to_spa...@vilkku.uwasa.fi (Jani Ilari Kyllönen)
wrote:
>Often trying too hard makes
>you too desperate to be able to do the thing you are trying to.
>Weird it is.
It's a common motivational belief that trying harder will lead to
success. However with my own juggling, I've found quite the opposite
to be true.
I think that a lot of my poorer juggling sessions are a result of
trying *too* hard. I find that when I'm in that "trying hard" mode,
my body is much tenser and I am unable to maintain the fine control
over my throws and catches that is required for good juggling.
My advice: "Don't try harder, try easier." Take a more relaxed
approach to juggling and avoid the tenseness that often comes with
trying harder.
--Michael Ferguson (a.k.a. Fergie)
Jani Ilari Kyllönen
Michael Ferguson (fer...@parrett.net) wrote:
: My advice: "Don't try harder, try easier."
Thank's Fergie. No one has yet managed put my attitude towards
life into words better. In fact I think I'll make it my new .sig.
jani
--
"Don't try harder, try easier."
-Fergie-