info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
New Juggling Prop Rotation Notation
40 views
Skip to first unread message
The Varkora .
Jan 4, 2012, 5:30:25 PM1/4/12
to
I've noticed that often, when people are describing juggling patterns,
especially with ring and club throws, that they are at a loss for how
to describe some of the more unique throws accurately. Words like
"vertical" and "flat" and "axis" are used inconsistently with
different people, meaning actually visualising what someone means can
be very hard indeed.
How do you describe a pattern like pancakes, for example, to someone
who has never seen them before and (for various reasons) does not have
the ability to view a video of them (for some patterns, videos are
extremely hard to find at all).
I was pondering upon this and decided that what really needed to be
done was some kind of standardisation - in the sort of way Siteswap
Notation standardised juggling patterns (in terms of throw height and
timing).
So, with this aim, I've created a document creating a specification
for what I think is the easiest and most versatile way of describing
throws with props that have some sort of spin or rotation applied to
them (almost every ring and club throw is an example).
I feel this fills a hole that needed filling, but I'd be happy to see
what the rest of the community think.
Below is a link to the document in question. I've tried to keep it as
simple as I can, with examples, but tell me if there are any ways in
which I could improve it.
I'd really appreciate feedback on this, so please tell me how useful
this actually would be, or if there are pieces of advice or critique.
Thank you.
Juggling Prop Rotation: http://www.box.com/s/2azk2z9hjtlryvmiclhp
especially with ring and club throws, that they are at a loss for how
to describe some of the more unique throws accurately. Words like
"vertical" and "flat" and "axis" are used inconsistently with
different people, meaning actually visualising what someone means can
be very hard indeed.
How do you describe a pattern like pancakes, for example, to someone
who has never seen them before and (for various reasons) does not have
the ability to view a video of them (for some patterns, videos are
extremely hard to find at all).
I was pondering upon this and decided that what really needed to be
done was some kind of standardisation - in the sort of way Siteswap
Notation standardised juggling patterns (in terms of throw height and
timing).
So, with this aim, I've created a document creating a specification
for what I think is the easiest and most versatile way of describing
throws with props that have some sort of spin or rotation applied to
them (almost every ring and club throw is an example).
I feel this fills a hole that needed filling, but I'd be happy to see
what the rest of the community think.
Below is a link to the document in question. I've tried to keep it as
simple as I can, with examples, but tell me if there are any ways in
which I could improve it.
I'd really appreciate feedback on this, so please tell me how useful
this actually would be, or if there are pieces of advice or critique.
Thank you.
Juggling Prop Rotation: http://www.box.com/s/2azk2z9hjtlryvmiclhp
David Cain
Jan 4, 2012, 5:45:07 PM1/4/12
to
but I do want to point out that I do have hands and feet.
David Cain
Marlon
Jan 4, 2012, 6:58:40 PM1/4/12
to
I just have the time to scan over it so maybe I'm not seeing it's full
potential.
At first glance it seems that although it could perfectly be used it would
be harder to learn this notation as it is to just learn the names of the
throws.
It wouldn't be something I'd use often enough to be worth the trouble.
(Although I feel the same way about passing notations)
Maybe I'm wrong and just like with passing notation there are jugglers to
whom I'd be usefull often enough to learn so one improvement point.
Why did you name the axes xyz?
Is there a reason for this or just what you are used to?
I'm used to z being the vertical axis so it was counterintuitive for me.
Maybe change the name of the axes to usf (up-side-front) or something
similar so they can be remembered easier.
I'll try to read it again and see if I got any more remarks but for a
first draft this seems really good.
--
----== posted via www.jugglingdb.com ==----
potential.
At first glance it seems that although it could perfectly be used it would
be harder to learn this notation as it is to just learn the names of the
throws.
It wouldn't be something I'd use often enough to be worth the trouble.
(Although I feel the same way about passing notations)
Maybe I'm wrong and just like with passing notation there are jugglers to
whom I'd be usefull often enough to learn so one improvement point.
Why did you name the axes xyz?
Is there a reason for this or just what you are used to?
I'm used to z being the vertical axis so it was counterintuitive for me.
Maybe change the name of the axes to usf (up-side-front) or something
similar so they can be remembered easier.
I'll try to read it again and see if I got any more remarks but for a
first draft this seems really good.
--
----== posted via www.jugglingdb.com ==----
The Varkora .
Jan 5, 2012, 2:27:49 AM1/5/12
to
For some though, these names are not standardised, either because
they're so uncommon, or because different people make up their own
names for them. Although initially perhaps a little difficult to learn
at first, I think it could be useful later on.
Another potential use, I suppose, for this would be in computer
software (like Siteswap animators). Most current ones don't support
(or have little support for) throws with unusual spin applied to them.
Having an (at most) 3 character way to represent these could be very
useful...
I named the axes x, y and z because they're the standard names for 3D
axes. I agree, the one problem is that there seems to be an
inconsistency between whether z or y is used for the vertical axis. I
originally did use z for this, but I was told by others that y was
more common. Changing their names completely could work, yes.
I did put quite a lot of effort into the draft. I hope it is actually
filling a need and not a waste of time, but it was fun writing, so it
doesn't matter too much either way.
@David Cain - My sources are incorrect then!
It's actually that I'm terrible at drawing human bodies, with hands
and feet being the worst parts (for me personally). At least it seems
to be recognisable as a human!
thegoheads
Jan 5, 2012, 3:03:03 AM1/5/12
to
The Varkora . wrote:
> I did think of the point that the names are actually easier to learn.
> For some though, these names are not standardised, either because
> they're so uncommon, or because different people make up their own
> names for them.
Ahhh, yes, I'm reminded of a trick with rings... full reverse, or reverse
> I did think of the point that the names are actually easier to learn.
> For some though, these names are not standardised, either because
> they're so uncommon, or because different people make up their own
> names for them.
front flats, or flat front reverse, or sideways throws... or something
like that...
Anyway, this notation system seems like a cool idea, I'll check it out
when I have more time and maybe I'll have some actual feedback instead of
a mostly pointless comment like this one! :)
-Steve
Little Paul
Jan 5, 2012, 5:37:05 AM1/5/12
to
On 2012-01-04, David Cain <davidcai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I appreciate you using my likeness for the juggler in your diagrams,
> but I do want to point out that I do have hands and feet.
Genuine office lol
>
> I appreciate you using my likeness for the juggler in your diagrams,
> but I do want to point out that I do have hands and feet.
-Paul
--
http://paulseward.com
Robin
Jan 5, 2012, 12:21:58 PM1/5/12
to
but instead occurs on a different plain somewhere between them? For
example, in a 3 club cascade the clubs neither start their orientation or
rotate on any of your 3 given axes.
Norbi
Jan 5, 2012, 12:39:49 PM1/5/12
to
Robin wrote:
>
> How would you notate a throw that doesn't rotate on one of those 3 axes
> but instead occurs on a different plain somewhere between them?
Cartesian coordinates
>
> How would you notate a throw that doesn't rotate on one of those 3 axes
> but instead occurs on a different plain somewhere between them?
>For
> example, in a 3 club cascade the clubs neither start their orientation or
> rotate on any of your 3 given axes.
I don't really know, just trying to sound clever.
Nor
The Varkora .
Jan 5, 2012, 1:11:38 PM1/5/12
to
one. Generally, if you throws aren't fitting one of the axes, you'll
not juggling the pattern very cleanly.
Like something like Siteswap, the numbers are theoretical. No-one
juggles a 5 at exactly the same height - it can be a range of heights
- it's just the overall pattern that matters.
Starting with 3 clubs, all 3 clubs would be z. Each one's going to be
slightly different (unless you start 3 clubs very differently than
most people), but strictly speaking, it is aligned to the z axis.
I'm pretty sure you won't need to get more specific than that, unless
you know of any patterns which deliberately have throws which are
between the axes I've defined?
@Norbi - ...you haven't read the document have you?
Ameron Rosvall
Jan 5, 2012, 7:42:13 PM1/5/12
to
of new tricks can be found by going through it. Well, maybe, or at least
make the entries in my juggling journal snappier. I wanted to make a video
showing lots of basic variations that you didn't include, but I didn't
have a good juggling space to film in, so I mostly messed around instead.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxXFET2VO60
I tried changing the alignment of the alberts over time so that they went
from spinning more like shoulder throws to spinning more like backcrosses.
If you feel like it I'd very much appreciate you helping me with the
notation of the siteswap 3 tricks I do in the video! I'd like to see how
Luke's spin variation trick would look in this notation too!
/Ameron
David Cain
Jan 5, 2012, 10:18:21 PM1/5/12
to
On Jan 5, 5:37 am, Little Paul <use...@lpbk.net> wrote:
least most of us do.
David Cain
> On 2012-01-04, David Cain <davidcainjugg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I appreciate you using my likeness for the juggler in your diagrams,
> > but I do want to point out that I do have hands and feet.
>
> Genuine office lol
>
> -Paul
> --http://paulseward.com
I'm proof that Christians do, in fact, have a sense of humor. At
>
>
>
> > I appreciate you using my likeness for the juggler in your diagrams,
> > but I do want to point out that I do have hands and feet.
>
> Genuine office lol
>
> -Paul
> --http://paulseward.com
least most of us do.
David Cain
Robin
Jan 6, 2012, 3:54:57 AM1/6/12
to
> Although throws don't snap exactly to an axis, almost every throw fits
> one.
I'm afraid I disagree. my clubs don't fit any of those axes in a 3 club
cascade, least of all the z one. If anything it's half way between z and x.
> Generally, if you throws aren't fitting one of the axes, you're
> not juggling the pattern very cleanly.
On the contrary, I like to think that my 3 club cascade is pretty clean...
and I've seen me juggle and everything.
> Like something like Siteswap, the numbers are theoretical. No-one
> juggles a 5 at exactly the same height - it can be a range of heights
> - it's just the overall pattern that matters.
the same relationships between their different throw heights.
> Starting with 3 clubs, all 3 clubs would be z. Each one's going to be
> slightly different (unless you start 3 clubs very differently than
> most people), but strictly speaking, it is aligned to the z axis.
> I'm pretty sure you won't need to get more specific than that, unless
> you know of any patterns which deliberately have throws which are
> between the axes I've defined?
That's why I chose it and that's why I have a problem with your notation
(sorry). I think you should be able to learn from a notation, read a
pattern and understand it from the information given. The information your
notation gives about a cascade would leave you with a very ugly pattern
with not a lot of space in it( all your clubs parallel to each other and
pointing forwards). i'm not trying to be awkward or discouraging, I like
the idea, I just think it needs refining to be able to cope with a wider
range of angles. If a notation can't describe what I would consider to be
the most basic club pattern accurately then I just feel it's use is
limited somewhat.
Respectfully
Robin
bluecat
Jan 6, 2012, 5:22:21 AM1/6/12
to
I had a quick skim and a read of some of the replies; Have to admit to not
being hugely interested in notation beyond basics, but just wanted to add
a little in terms of cross-prop language.
In many juggling/circus arts the three/multiple planes are really well
defined in English - I've been wondering for a little while why toss
juggling, which is so far ahead in its development, exploration and
language has not done so much here...
Although other words are used for acrobatics and aerial planes, I think
the most relevant is spinning, which is hugely plane-based - so,
clubswinging, poi, staff, hoop. The commonly used terminology there is as
follows:
Wall Plane
Wheel Plane
Horizontal Plane
Atomic Plane
Not quite sure if/how this helps, but I always feel it's good to know what
is out there before wheels are re-invented...
Janion
Jan 6, 2012, 6:13:16 AM1/6/12
to
Robin wrote:
>
> I thought you might say something along those lines. It makes sense but
> I'm afraid I disagree. my clubs don't fit any of those axes in a 3 club
> cascade, least of all the z one. If anything it's half way between z and x.
>
>
>
> I thought you might say something along those lines. It makes sense but
> I'm afraid I disagree. my clubs don't fit any of those axes in a 3 club
> cascade, least of all the z one. If anything it's half way between z and x.
>
>
> Cascade deliberately has throws that are between your describes axes.
> That's why I chose it and that's why I have a problem with your notation
> (sorry). I think you should be able to learn from a notation, read a
> pattern and understand it from the information given. The information your
> notation gives about a cascade would leave you with a very ugly pattern
> with not a lot of space in it( all your clubs parallel to each other and
> pointing forwards). i'm not trying to be awkward or discouraging, I like
> the idea, I just think it needs refining to be able to cope with a wider
> range of angles. If a notation can't describe what I would consider to be
> the most basic club pattern accurately then I just feel it's use is
> limited somewhat.
>
If you just treat the notation as a rough guide. Obviously nobody is
> That's why I chose it and that's why I have a problem with your notation
> (sorry). I think you should be able to learn from a notation, read a
> pattern and understand it from the information given. The information your
> notation gives about a cascade would leave you with a very ugly pattern
> with not a lot of space in it( all your clubs parallel to each other and
> pointing forwards). i'm not trying to be awkward or discouraging, I like
> the idea, I just think it needs refining to be able to cope with a wider
> range of angles. If a notation can't describe what I would consider to be
> the most basic club pattern accurately then I just feel it's use is
> limited somewhat.
>
capable of throws that are perfectly in any plane, no matter how hard they
tried.
But the cascade, for instance, for most people the clubs spin near enough
pointing forward (z axis).
Another idea would be to define the spins as the place you would have to
be to observe the spin best, using words like top, front and side.
So top spin would be best observed from above like helicopters, side spin
would be the normal cascade and front spin would be flat fronts.
I know that is another method to confuse it even more. Just a thought
Marlon
Jan 6, 2012, 7:27:00 AM1/6/12
to
It seems 3 planes aren't enough to describe juggling but I can't really
think of 1 extra plane that solves that.
david
Jan 6, 2012, 7:44:42 AM1/6/12
to
about the center of mass of the prop and path of the center of mass moving
in a plane oriented with respect to the juggler and the gravitational
field. In the usual cascade the clubs rotate end-over-end in a plane that
is about 45 degrees from the frontal plane of the juggler's body.
david
Robin
Jan 6, 2012, 11:21:25 AM1/6/12
to
Janion wrote:
> If you just treat the notation as a rough guide. Obviously nobody is
> capable of throws that are perfectly in any plane, no matter how hard they
> tried.
I understand that, but what i mean is that in a cascade you're not even
> If you just treat the notation as a rough guide. Obviously nobody is
> capable of throws that are perfectly in any plane, no matter how hard they
> tried.
trying to throw on any of these planes. That's why I find lacking about
the notation.
> But the cascade, for instance, for most people the clubs spin near enough
> pointing forward (z axis).
this statement for a 3 club cascade. Am I the only one or am I just being
a dick?
Robin
Colin E.
Jan 6, 2012, 11:22:38 AM1/6/12
to
It's a nice idea, but I doubt it will ever catch on. Every year someone
posts a new idea that extends the basic siteswap in some way, adding
spins, or hand positions - as far as I can tell, none of them have
'stuck', becoming a standard part of the juggling vocabulary.
Personally I think this boils down to one key feature of siteswaps that is
absent in all of the other notations and extensions. Siteswaps are far
more than just a notation, they have a set of rules associated with them
that allow you to validate, permutate and modify them. This has lead to
the discovery of new patterns, mathematical theorems, computer simulations
and more.
Unless you can come up with some non-arbitrary rules relating to your
notation, I doubt it will catch on. Without this, the only thing that
distinguishes your notation from any other is cosmetics.
Sorry :-)
Regards,
Colin E.
posts a new idea that extends the basic siteswap in some way, adding
spins, or hand positions - as far as I can tell, none of them have
'stuck', becoming a standard part of the juggling vocabulary.
Personally I think this boils down to one key feature of siteswaps that is
absent in all of the other notations and extensions. Siteswaps are far
more than just a notation, they have a set of rules associated with them
that allow you to validate, permutate and modify them. This has lead to
the discovery of new patterns, mathematical theorems, computer simulations
and more.
Unless you can come up with some non-arbitrary rules relating to your
notation, I doubt it will catch on. Without this, the only thing that
distinguishes your notation from any other is cosmetics.
Sorry :-)
Regards,
Colin E.
Colin E.
Jan 6, 2012, 11:24:39 AM1/6/12
to
dance!
Colin E.
Jan 6, 2012, 11:54:23 AM1/6/12
to
> > But the cascade, for instance, for most people the clubs spin near enough
> > pointing forward (z axis).
>
> I'm sorry, maybe I'm being pedantic, but I wholeheartedly disagree with
> this statement for a 3 club cascade. Am I the only one or am I just being
> a dick?
Yeah, I disagree also. There is a fantastic video on youtube which I have
> > pointing forward (z axis).
>
> I'm sorry, maybe I'm being pedantic, but I wholeheartedly disagree with
> this statement for a 3 club cascade. Am I the only one or am I just being
> a dick?
totally failed to find that shows a russian circus juggler performing high
numbers of clubs and rings all with outside throws / dip style throws. I
think he even does 8 rings with a balance. Does anyone know the video I am
referring to?
Colin E.
David Cain
Jan 6, 2012, 12:14:19 PM1/6/12
to
On Jan 6, 11:54 am, webmas...@jugglingdb.com.nospam.com (Colin E.)
wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GPVaN5HzMQ
wrote:
Jason Perry
Jan 6, 2012, 1:35:23 PM1/6/12
to
Robin wrote:
having them throw one club back & forth, stressing that the club should be
at about a 45 degree angle, and not perpendicular to their body.
Having just checked out my own cascade, I'd say it was more like 30
degrees, but that is still not 'near enough on the z axis'.
Jason.
>
> Janion wrote:
>
> > But the cascade, for instance, for most people the clubs spin near enough
> > pointing forward (z axis).
>
> I'm sorry, maybe I'm being pedantic, but I wholeheartedly disagree with
> this statement for a 3 club cascade. Am I the only one or am I just being
> a dick?
Not at all! When I teach people to juggle with clubs I make a point of
> Janion wrote:
>
> > But the cascade, for instance, for most people the clubs spin near enough
> > pointing forward (z axis).
>
> I'm sorry, maybe I'm being pedantic, but I wholeheartedly disagree with
> this statement for a 3 club cascade. Am I the only one or am I just being
> a dick?
having them throw one club back & forth, stressing that the club should be
at about a 45 degree angle, and not perpendicular to their body.
Having just checked out my own cascade, I'd say it was more like 30
degrees, but that is still not 'near enough on the z axis'.
Jason.
Robin
Jan 6, 2012, 2:33:47 PM1/6/12
to
Jason Perry wrote:
> Not at all! When I teach people to juggle with clubs I make a point of
> having them throw one club back & forth, stressing that the club should be
> at about a 45 degree angle, and not perpendicular to their body.
> Having just checked out my own cascade, I'd say it was more like 30
> degrees, but that is still not 'near enough on the z axis'.
>
> Jason.
>
I make the same point when I teach people to juggle clubs too. In my
> Not at all! When I teach people to juggle with clubs I make a point of
> having them throw one club back & forth, stressing that the club should be
> at about a 45 degree angle, and not perpendicular to their body.
> Having just checked out my own cascade, I'd say it was more like 30
> degrees, but that is still not 'near enough on the z axis'.
>
> Jason.
>
opinion if all your clubs are pointing on the z axis when you juggle a 3
club cascade then you aren't very good at it.
Robin
Varkor
Jan 6, 2012, 4:20:00 PM1/6/12
to
It seems the main problem people are having with this is the fact
their cascade's aren't perfectly aligned on the z-axis. No-one seems
to have offered any suggestions on how this could be rectified though.
I can't think of any throw that is perfectly aligned to the z-axis
with clubs apart from perhaps clubs. If it helps, think of it as a
range. It's a concept, and within it, normal cascade throws are
counted as z-axis throws. That's how you differentiate between over-
the-top throws and so forth. You may have a problem with how I've
defined it, and I accept that, but I think the main point is just to
identify which throws count as which. Can you think of two patterns,
only almost perfectly on the z-axis and one 30-45 degrees off it? If
you can, I will rethink my concept for you, but I think the concept
works fine if you just accept a range of values.
The fact is, with a wide range of axes, this notation will become
incredibly complex, and the the exact opposite of what you want for
this kind of thing...
@Ameron - I really enjoyed the video, you've explored some different
concepts really nicely. When you say the notation, do you mean
Siteswap, or orientation/rotation? And which tricks are you referring
to? All of them?
@bluecat - I hadn't heard of any names for these. I can't find any
good reference online to them though. Do you know anywhere that
explains them? I don't see why you'd need 4 planes.
@Janion - Again, the names for the axes are quite subjective. It's
hard to find names that fit everyone... Perhaps if people continue to
take interest in this notation, there could be some sort of vote?
@Colin E. - Yes, that's exactly what I was wondering when I first
designed the specification. It could be too niche to actually be used.
Personally, I think it could be found useful, but that's really the
entire juggling community's decision to make. As with the arbitrary
values - again, it's something I thought over. Using the x, y and z
for the axes means it does follow some basic mathematical rules, but
some decisions had to be made arbitrarily. It's quite different from
Siteswap. It's not supposed to be so widely used - you can use
Siteswap for any pattern, but you'd only use rotation notation for
certain patterns, which is why it's not going to revolutionise
juggling as much as Siteswap notation did. That doesn't mean it can't
have any effect however...
With you second statement, you say you disagree, but you're actually
proving the wrong point. He does not juggle a normal cascade, so his
throws are obviously not z-axis oriented. He throws in dips, which are
x-axis oriented. He is actually a perfect example of how useful my
notation could be - almost all his throws are unconventional, but can
easily be written in the rotation notation.
@All the other repliers - I think I covered your statements in my
first part. Hopefully you can see where I'm coming from.
their cascade's aren't perfectly aligned on the z-axis. No-one seems
to have offered any suggestions on how this could be rectified though.
I can't think of any throw that is perfectly aligned to the z-axis
with clubs apart from perhaps clubs. If it helps, think of it as a
range. It's a concept, and within it, normal cascade throws are
counted as z-axis throws. That's how you differentiate between over-
the-top throws and so forth. You may have a problem with how I've
defined it, and I accept that, but I think the main point is just to
identify which throws count as which. Can you think of two patterns,
only almost perfectly on the z-axis and one 30-45 degrees off it? If
you can, I will rethink my concept for you, but I think the concept
works fine if you just accept a range of values.
The fact is, with a wide range of axes, this notation will become
incredibly complex, and the the exact opposite of what you want for
this kind of thing...
@Ameron - I really enjoyed the video, you've explored some different
concepts really nicely. When you say the notation, do you mean
Siteswap, or orientation/rotation? And which tricks are you referring
to? All of them?
@bluecat - I hadn't heard of any names for these. I can't find any
good reference online to them though. Do you know anywhere that
explains them? I don't see why you'd need 4 planes.
@Janion - Again, the names for the axes are quite subjective. It's
hard to find names that fit everyone... Perhaps if people continue to
take interest in this notation, there could be some sort of vote?
@Colin E. - Yes, that's exactly what I was wondering when I first
designed the specification. It could be too niche to actually be used.
Personally, I think it could be found useful, but that's really the
entire juggling community's decision to make. As with the arbitrary
values - again, it's something I thought over. Using the x, y and z
for the axes means it does follow some basic mathematical rules, but
some decisions had to be made arbitrarily. It's quite different from
Siteswap. It's not supposed to be so widely used - you can use
Siteswap for any pattern, but you'd only use rotation notation for
certain patterns, which is why it's not going to revolutionise
juggling as much as Siteswap notation did. That doesn't mean it can't
have any effect however...
With you second statement, you say you disagree, but you're actually
proving the wrong point. He does not juggle a normal cascade, so his
throws are obviously not z-axis oriented. He throws in dips, which are
x-axis oriented. He is actually a perfect example of how useful my
notation could be - almost all his throws are unconventional, but can
easily be written in the rotation notation.
@All the other repliers - I think I covered your statements in my
first part. Hopefully you can see where I'm coming from.
bluecat
Jan 6, 2012, 6:59:00 PM1/6/12
to
sure:
> > Wall Plane
imagine you are standing in front of a wall, and the plane stretches out
flat to both your left and right, and above you. Juggling patterns in this
plane include dips...
> > Wheel Plane
As if you had wheels... Mike's mess is a good one in this plane
> > Horizontal Plane
should be pretty obvious...
> > Atomic Plane
this describes any broken plane, but is usually taken (in poi, certainly)
to mean either 45 degree planes, or where you have two objects working in
different planes, i.e. 1 Wall, 1 horizontal.
I'm genuinely not sure how well juggling fits these other than vaguely...
> > Wall Plane
imagine you are standing in front of a wall, and the plane stretches out
flat to both your left and right, and above you. Juggling patterns in this
plane include dips...
> > Wheel Plane
As if you had wheels... Mike's mess is a good one in this plane
> > Horizontal Plane
should be pretty obvious...
> > Atomic Plane
this describes any broken plane, but is usually taken (in poi, certainly)
to mean either 45 degree planes, or where you have two objects working in
different planes, i.e. 1 Wall, 1 horizontal.
I'm genuinely not sure how well juggling fits these other than vaguely...
Ameron Rosvall
Jan 7, 2012, 5:50:28 AM1/7/12
to
Varkor wrote:
>
> It seems the main problem people are having with this is the fact
> their cascade's aren't perfectly aligned on the z-axis. No-one seems
> to have offered any suggestions on how this could be rectified though.
> I can't think of any throw that is perfectly aligned to the z-axis
> with clubs apart from perhaps clubs. If it helps, think of it as a
> range. It's a concept, and within it, normal cascade throws are
> counted as z-axis throws. That's how you differentiate between over-
> the-top throws and so forth. You may have a problem with how I've
> defined it, and I accept that, but I think the main point is just to
> identify which throws count as which. Can you think of two patterns,
> only almost perfectly on the z-axis and one 30-45 degrees off it? If
> you can, I will rethink my concept for you, but I think the concept
> works fine if you just accept a range of values.
> The fact is, with a wide range of axes, this notation will become
> incredibly complex, and the the exact opposite of what you want for
> this kind of thing...
>
> @Ameron - I really enjoyed the video, you've explored some different
> concepts really nicely. When you say the notation, do you mean
> Siteswap, or orientation/rotation? And which tricks are you referring
> to? All of them?
Thanks! I meant your orientation/rotation notation, just do the half spin
>
> It seems the main problem people are having with this is the fact
> their cascade's aren't perfectly aligned on the z-axis. No-one seems
> to have offered any suggestions on how this could be rectified though.
> I can't think of any throw that is perfectly aligned to the z-axis
> with clubs apart from perhaps clubs. If it helps, think of it as a
> range. It's a concept, and within it, normal cascade throws are
> counted as z-axis throws. That's how you differentiate between over-
> the-top throws and so forth. You may have a problem with how I've
> defined it, and I accept that, but I think the main point is just to
> identify which throws count as which. Can you think of two patterns,
> only almost perfectly on the z-axis and one 30-45 degrees off it? If
> you can, I will rethink my concept for you, but I think the concept
> works fine if you just accept a range of values.
> The fact is, with a wide range of axes, this notation will become
> incredibly complex, and the the exact opposite of what you want for
> this kind of thing...
>
> @Ameron - I really enjoyed the video, you've explored some different
> concepts really nicely. When you say the notation, do you mean
> Siteswap, or orientation/rotation? And which tricks are you referring
> to? All of them?
sequence where the hands have different tasks in front of the basketball
hoop, I want to see how you write a string like that with the notation.
Robin
Jan 7, 2012, 6:20:48 AM1/7/12
to
Varkor wrote:
>
> It seems the main problem people are having with this is the fact
> their cascade's aren't perfectly aligned on the z-axis.
Again, it's not that a cascade isn't perfectly aligned on the z axis, it's
>
> It seems the main problem people are having with this is the fact
> their cascade's aren't perfectly aligned on the z-axis.
that it's no SUPPOSED to be aligned to the z axis, or even really anywhere
near it. My problem with this is that if we're happy to just snap fit a
throw to the nearest(?) axis then we don't really have an accurate
description of the pattern and surely that's what a notation should give?
An accurate description of the pattern.
> No-one seems
> to have offered any suggestions on how this could be rectified though.
to rectify this. As you said, once you star opening up the range of values
it starts to become incredibly complex.
> If it helps, think of it as a range.
information anywhere along that range other than those 3 set values.
> I think the main point is just to identify which throws count as which.
accurately what is happening. The notation should bend to fit to the
event, not the other way around.
> Can you think of two patterns,
> only almost perfectly on the z-axis and one 30-45 degrees off it?
(miles off it)
> The fact is, with a wide range of axes, this notation will become
> incredibly complex, and the the exact opposite of what you want for
> this kind of thing...
juggling does in fact occur on a wide range of axes. Limiting your
notation to only describe 3 possibilities limits the amount of throws the
notation can describe. Whether or not this is a problem worth solving is
another matter.
My apologies, I feel like what I meant as a simple inquiry made out of
genuine interest has turned into a bit of a bashing of your idea which
wasn't really my intention. I guess I just don't feel that as a notation
it does it's job well enough at the moment to really be useful beyond
describing a few patterns.
Norbi
Jan 7, 2012, 7:22:00 AM1/7/12
to
Varkor wrote:
> No-one seems
> to have offered any suggestions on how this could be rectified though.
Hey, I did.
> No-one seems
> to have offered any suggestions on how this could be rectified though.
david
Jan 7, 2012, 7:26:22 AM1/7/12
to
The three anatomical planes are called saggital (dividing left and
right), frontal (dividing front and back) and transverse (top vs bottom)
There are other names for these.
http://biology.about.com/od/anatomy/a/aa072007a.htm
The center of mass of the prop travels in a plane perpendicular to the
ground and the transverse plane (assuming the juggler is standing upright).
Most props have axes of symmetry. Simple, good-looking rotations are
about one of these axes. Rotations about other axes are wobbly.[1]
Most people prefer rotations with axes either in the plane of travel or
perpendicular to it.
david
[1]A prop with three different moments of inertia (e.g. a cigar box) can
have stable rotations only about its axes with the greatest and the
smallest moment of inertia. The intermediate axis rotation is not stable.
If you hold the cigar box at opposite ends of its shortest dimensions or
its largest dimensions you can flip it smoothly and the ends you were
holding will stay on the same side. If you start on opposite sides of the
intermediate dimension the rotation will not be stable.
Varkor
Jan 7, 2012, 8:26:02 AM1/7/12
to
@bluecat - Strictly speaking, those aren't planes, so the names are a
bit misleading. The wall plane is basically the rotation I call the z
axis. The wheel "plane" seems a little confusing. It seems to be a
path for describing patterns rather than an orientation. The
horizontal plane are rotations on the y axis. The atomic "plane" is
too wide to be useful in my opinion. For juggling notations, I think
doesn't work quite as well, like you say.
@Ameron - As far as I can tell from that angle, to begin with you're
throwing zx0.5s (I probably need a better way to represent half
throws) from your right hand and -zx0.5s from your left (as the club
is oriented in the opposite direction (which then automatically
reverses the spin direction). You do seem to change your pattern a bit
though, so it's hard to tell which hand is throwing which... With the
pattern with the overhead throws, you're doing -zx with the right hand
and simply zx from the left.
I hope that's what you meant, and my that explanation is satisfactory.
@Robin - To begin with, the those are two separate patterns. Flats and
singles are quite different from each other. I meant exactly the same
pattern that looked/acted significantly differently depending on
whether it was 0 degrees or 30-45 degrees. It seems people juggle the
cascade at different angles though - my 3 club cascade is only about 5
degrees off the z axis, and I know other people whose throws are
nowhere near 45 degrees.
I have an idea, which slightly changes the definition of the axes at
the moment, though I'm not sure if you'll be any happier with it.
Suppose the z-axis represented a basic cascade throw, rather than a
line going through the centre of the juggler. That way, the z-axis
allows for any angle in a cascade pattern that anyone does. You argue
that the notation doesn't properly show each angle, but would you say
two people juggling a 3 club cascade, one with 45 degree angles, and
one with 5 degree angles were juggling different patterns? Probably
not - the difference is very small, and is not big enough to need
having an extra axis just to represent it. The z-axis simply
represents cascade-type throws.
I understand where you're coming from - everyone wants a notation to
be usable in their eyes - and I see your points. I'm trying to address
them - I accept my notation isn't perfect, and criticism is good, as
long as it's understood that you can only go so far before it becomes
too complex and that certain details need to be simplified slightly to
actually be any use.
@Norbi - Yes, sorry, I forgot to reply to your reply. Something using
numbered co-ordinates like that crosses the line between simplicity
and complexity. I feel it's not simple enough to use with ease.
@david - Ah, I hadn't heard of anatomical planes. The symmetry concept
might work in some cases, but what about a juggling club, for example.
It's only symmetrical on one axis, and yet it can rotate smoothly on
three. I may not completely be understanding it, but I think that's
what you mean?
bit misleading. The wall plane is basically the rotation I call the z
axis. The wheel "plane" seems a little confusing. It seems to be a
path for describing patterns rather than an orientation. The
horizontal plane are rotations on the y axis. The atomic "plane" is
too wide to be useful in my opinion. For juggling notations, I think
doesn't work quite as well, like you say.
@Ameron - As far as I can tell from that angle, to begin with you're
throwing zx0.5s (I probably need a better way to represent half
throws) from your right hand and -zx0.5s from your left (as the club
is oriented in the opposite direction (which then automatically
reverses the spin direction). You do seem to change your pattern a bit
though, so it's hard to tell which hand is throwing which... With the
pattern with the overhead throws, you're doing -zx with the right hand
and simply zx from the left.
I hope that's what you meant, and my that explanation is satisfactory.
@Robin - To begin with, the those are two separate patterns. Flats and
singles are quite different from each other. I meant exactly the same
pattern that looked/acted significantly differently depending on
whether it was 0 degrees or 30-45 degrees. It seems people juggle the
cascade at different angles though - my 3 club cascade is only about 5
degrees off the z axis, and I know other people whose throws are
nowhere near 45 degrees.
I have an idea, which slightly changes the definition of the axes at
the moment, though I'm not sure if you'll be any happier with it.
Suppose the z-axis represented a basic cascade throw, rather than a
line going through the centre of the juggler. That way, the z-axis
allows for any angle in a cascade pattern that anyone does. You argue
that the notation doesn't properly show each angle, but would you say
two people juggling a 3 club cascade, one with 45 degree angles, and
one with 5 degree angles were juggling different patterns? Probably
not - the difference is very small, and is not big enough to need
having an extra axis just to represent it. The z-axis simply
represents cascade-type throws.
I understand where you're coming from - everyone wants a notation to
be usable in their eyes - and I see your points. I'm trying to address
them - I accept my notation isn't perfect, and criticism is good, as
long as it's understood that you can only go so far before it becomes
too complex and that certain details need to be simplified slightly to
actually be any use.
@Norbi - Yes, sorry, I forgot to reply to your reply. Something using
numbered co-ordinates like that crosses the line between simplicity
and complexity. I feel it's not simple enough to use with ease.
@david - Ah, I hadn't heard of anatomical planes. The symmetry concept
might work in some cases, but what about a juggling club, for example.
It's only symmetrical on one axis, and yet it can rotate smoothly on
three. I may not completely be understanding it, but I think that's
what you mean?
Ameron Rosvall
Jan 7, 2012, 10:10:40 AM1/7/12
to
Varkor wrote:
> @Ameron - As far as I can tell from that angle, to begin with you're
> throwing zx0.5s (I probably need a better way to represent half
> throws) from your right hand and -zx0.5s from your left (as the club
> is oriented in the opposite direction (which then automatically
> reverses the spin direction). You do seem to change your pattern a bit
> though, so it's hard to tell which hand is throwing which... With the
> pattern with the overhead throws, you're doing -zx with the right hand
> and simply zx from the left.
> I hope that's what you meant, and my that explanation is satisfactory.
So, if I was to use this notation in my notes I should write the sequence
> @Ameron - As far as I can tell from that angle, to begin with you're
> throwing zx0.5s (I probably need a better way to represent half
> throws) from your right hand and -zx0.5s from your left (as the club
> is oriented in the opposite direction (which then automatically
> reverses the spin direction). You do seem to change your pattern a bit
> though, so it's hard to tell which hand is throwing which... With the
> pattern with the overhead throws, you're doing -zx with the right hand
> and simply zx from the left.
> I hope that's what you meant, and my that explanation is satisfactory.
as:
-zx-0.5zx-0.5
-zx-0.5-yx-0.5
zx-zx
Assuming alternating points of manipulation as in siteswap notation.
For the first part left hand throws a half spin from the wrong end and
right hand throws a reverse half spin.
Second part left hand acts the same way, right hands catches while halfway
pronated which makes the club point towards the ground, which means it's
oriented on the y-axis now, and pointing nose down down means that it's
orientation is reversed, am I right?
Varkor
Jan 7, 2012, 10:32:33 AM1/7/12
to
On Jan 7, 3:10 pm, incontort...@hotmail.com.nospam.com (Ameron
Yep, that looks right, although I'm not sure if maybe you'd put the
right hand's notation first instead (as I'm pretty sure that's what
Siteswap does).
right hand's notation first instead (as I'm pretty sure that's what
Siteswap does).
Wolfgang
Jan 7, 2012, 5:42:57 PM1/7/12
to
Hi all,
here´s what I use with JoePass, which is in some ways close to Varkoras
ideas:
I use the same x,y,z system.
additionaly, I add information to the throw about what I call elevation
and rotation - in the documentation, check menu->controls->styles.
The system lets you define throws as pankakes, backcrosses, alberts (*)
and such.
As an example: in the russian video the juggler does 8 clubs with his
arms streched to the side at 2:54, throwing and catching the clubs at
the same position. In my notation this would be:
8 f (2, 1, 0, -90)
values are:
8: siteswap
f: from
(): x,y,z
elevation
You can find more information in the JoePass documentation, but I also
be happy to answer questions here.
yours
wolfgang
(*) just the objects, not the juggler.
here´s what I use with JoePass, which is in some ways close to Varkoras
ideas:
I use the same x,y,z system.
additionaly, I add information to the throw about what I call elevation
and rotation - in the documentation, check menu->controls->styles.
The system lets you define throws as pankakes, backcrosses, alberts (*)
and such.
As an example: in the russian video the juggler does 8 clubs with his
arms streched to the side at 2:54, throwing and catching the clubs at
the same position. In my notation this would be:
8 f (2, 1, 0, -90)
values are:
8: siteswap
f: from
(): x,y,z
elevation
You can find more information in the JoePass documentation, but I also
be happy to answer questions here.
yours
wolfgang
(*) just the objects, not the juggler.
TK
Jan 7, 2012, 6:12:11 PM1/7/12
to
On 1/7/2012 4:42 PM, Wolfgang wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> here´s what I use with JoePass, which is in some ways close to Varkoras
> ideas:
>
> I use the same x,y,z system.
> additionaly, I add information to the throw about what I call elevation
> and rotation - in the documentation, check menu->controls->styles.
So when are you going to port it to the iPad, (grin) and why not?
> Hi all,
>
> here´s what I use with JoePass, which is in some ways close to Varkoras
> ideas:
>
> I use the same x,y,z system.
> additionaly, I add information to the throw about what I call elevation
> and rotation - in the documentation, check menu->controls->styles.
--
TK ~ aka Terry Kimpling
http://wejuggle2.com/
If life hands you melons, maybe you are dyslexic.
Varkor
Jan 8, 2012, 4:53:39 AM1/8/12
to
On Jan 7, 10:42 pm, west-wo...@-net-cologne-.de (Wolfgang) wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> here´s what I use with JoePass, which is in some ways close to Varkoras
> ideas:
>
> I use the same x,y,z system.
> additionaly, I add information to the throw about what I call elevation
> and rotation - in the documentation, check menu->controls->styles.
>
> The system lets you define throws as pankakes, backcrosses, alberts (*)
> and such.
>
> As an example: in the russian video the juggler does 8 clubs with his
> arms streched to the side at 2:54, throwing and catching the clubs at
> the same position. In my notation this would be:
>
> 8 f (2, 1, 0, -90)
>
> values are:
> 8: siteswap
> f: from
> (): x,y,z
> elevation
>
> You can find more information in the JoePass documentation, but I also
> be happy to answer questions here.
>
> yours
> wolfgang
>
> (*) just the objects, not the juggler.
>
> Hi all,
>
> here´s what I use with JoePass, which is in some ways close to Varkoras
> ideas:
>
> I use the same x,y,z system.
> additionaly, I add information to the throw about what I call elevation
> and rotation - in the documentation, check menu->controls->styles.
>
> The system lets you define throws as pankakes, backcrosses, alberts (*)
> and such.
>
> As an example: in the russian video the juggler does 8 clubs with his
> arms streched to the side at 2:54, throwing and catching the clubs at
> the same position. In my notation this would be:
>
> 8 f (2, 1, 0, -90)
>
> values are:
> 8: siteswap
> f: from
> (): x,y,z
> elevation
>
> You can find more information in the JoePass documentation, but I also
> be happy to answer questions here.
>
> yours
> wolfgang
>
> (*) just the objects, not the juggler.
>
axes, and not numbers, because I feel (and I know a lot of other
people do) that "magic numbers" - that have no real logic behind them,
and are just used for constants, are confusing.
The only real difference between our notations though is the
elevation. I feel that although this may be useful for a Siteswap
animator (like you use it for), it's unnecessary in most cases for
describing real patterns. This is because almost all patterns start at
the same elevation, except for things like overhead throws, which you
can just use a negative axis for.
Wolfgang
Jan 8, 2012, 12:57:28 PM1/8/12
to
TK <tkn...@wejuggle2.com> wrote:
> On 1/7/2012 4:42 PM, Wolfgang wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > here´s what I use with JoePass, which is in some ways close to Varkoras
> > ideas:
> >
> > I use the same x,y,z system.
> > additionaly, I add information to the throw about what I call elevation
> > and rotation - in the documentation, check menu->controls->styles.
>
> So when are you going to port it to the iPad, (grin) and why not?
I don´t have one to test,
> On 1/7/2012 4:42 PM, Wolfgang wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > here´s what I use with JoePass, which is in some ways close to Varkoras
> > ideas:
> >
> > I use the same x,y,z system.
> > additionaly, I add information to the throw about what I call elevation
> > and rotation - in the documentation, check menu->controls->styles.
>
> So when are you going to port it to the iPad, (grin) and why not?
I don´t want to spend money to buy one just to do the work,
I don´t want to pay for a developer licence for the iPad.
But I am willing to support anyone who want´s to do the port.
Anyone who is interested just drop me a line.
Wolfgang
TABjuggler
Jan 9, 2012, 3:25:33 AM1/9/12
to
Little Paul
Jan 9, 2012, 6:18:37 AM1/9/12
to
On 2012-01-06, Colin E. <webm...@jugglingdb.com.nospam.com> wrote:
> We want to see you dance!
Yes! This!
-Paul
--
http://paulseward.com
> David Cain wrote:
>>
>> I'm proof that Christians do, in fact, have a sense of humor. At
>> least most of us do.
>
> You call that proof? We need more than that David.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?
>>
>> I'm proof that Christians do, in fact, have a sense of humor. At
>> least most of us do.
>
> You call that proof? We need more than that David.
> We want to see you dance!
-Paul
--
http://paulseward.com
Varkor
Jan 9, 2012, 12:44:53 PM1/9/12
to
On Jan 9, 8:25 am, tab.jugg...@gmail.com.nospam.com (TABjuggler)
wrote:
Thank you :)
@The people who continue the off-topic discussion - Isn't there
somewhere else you could do this?...
wrote:
@The people who continue the off-topic discussion - Isn't there
somewhere else you could do this?...
Mike Moore
Jan 12, 2012, 9:15:53 AM1/12/12
to
Robin wrote:
[stuff about how often juggling does not fit to a Cartesian unit vector]
We could always use Miller indices!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_index
Mike
[stuff about how often juggling does not fit to a Cartesian unit vector]
We could always use Miller indices!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_index
Mike
Varkor
Jan 12, 2012, 11:34:58 AM1/12/12
to
On Jan 12, 2:15 pm, mmoor...@uoguelph.ca.nospam.com (Mike Moore)
wrote:
I'm sure the jugglers of the world would find that a nice and easy way
to represent their throws... or not...
wrote:
> Robin wrote:
>
> [stuff about how often juggling does not fit to a Cartesian unit vector]
>
> We could always use Miller indices!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_index
>
> [stuff about how often juggling does not fit to a Cartesian unit vector]
>
I'm sure the jugglers of the world would find that a nice and easy way
to represent their throws... or not...
Ameron Rosvall
Jan 12, 2012, 12:22:44 PM1/12/12
to
and how much they spin (how I use it now) or how they were spun and then
caught? I believe backcrosses should be -xz (it says x-z in the document)
either way since the over-the-top example seems to describe the version
where you catch the throws early.
Any ideas on how to better write half spins yet?
Norbi
Jan 12, 2012, 1:29:22 PM1/12/12
to
Varkor wrote:
>
> I'm sure the jugglers of the world would find that a nice and easy way
> to represent their throws... or not...
>
>
No offence Varkor, but 30 seconds looking at the picture and I understood
>
> I'm sure the jugglers of the world would find that a nice and easy way
> to represent their throws... or not...
>
>
it more than reading your entire document.
Nor
Varkor
Jan 12, 2012, 3:31:50 PM1/12/12
to
On Jan 12, 5:22 pm, incontort...@hotmail.com.nospam.com (Ameron
You're completely right about the backcrosses - thanks for pointing
that out!
It's supposed to be how they are thrown and how much they spin - the
method you're using now.
I'll think about the half spins. You could shorten them slightly by
emitting the zero before the point, but it doesn't improve the issue
much. The easiest way to solve the problem is just to double spins (so
half a spin is 1, a whole spin is 2, etc.), but I feel that just
complicates things. I will come up with a better solution though,
hopefully very soon.
@Norbi - I think that's probably due to my explanations than my
notation. Pictures are often far more helpful than words at conveying
something. Maybe I should come up with a small chart of something to
explain it... Do you think that would help?
that out!
It's supposed to be how they are thrown and how much they spin - the
method you're using now.
I'll think about the half spins. You could shorten them slightly by
emitting the zero before the point, but it doesn't improve the issue
much. The easiest way to solve the problem is just to double spins (so
half a spin is 1, a whole spin is 2, etc.), but I feel that just
complicates things. I will come up with a better solution though,
hopefully very soon.
@Norbi - I think that's probably due to my explanations than my
notation. Pictures are often far more helpful than words at conveying
something. Maybe I should come up with a small chart of something to
explain it... Do you think that would help?
Varkor
Jan 12, 2012, 3:37:36 PM1/12/12
to
I just had this idea a few minutes after posting my reply, which is
why they are separate.
But anyway, my idea is this: throws with any half-rotations in (half
throw, one-and-a-half throw, etc.) can be shown by using the "h"
symbol. This is used with the spin.
For example, with a normal club throw, but with just half a rotation,
you would write: hzx. A one-and-a-half spin throw would be: 1hzx, and
so on. This means for half spins, you only need an extra character at
most.
What do you think?
why they are separate.
But anyway, my idea is this: throws with any half-rotations in (half
throw, one-and-a-half throw, etc.) can be shown by using the "h"
symbol. This is used with the spin.
For example, with a normal club throw, but with just half a rotation,
you would write: hzx. A one-and-a-half spin throw would be: 1hzx, and
so on. This means for half spins, you only need an extra character at
most.
What do you think?
Marlon
Jan 12, 2012, 6:14:51 PM1/12/12
to
so a half spin would be h1zx and one and a half spin would be h3zx.
This splits the letter h from the letters for the axes and it allows you
to think in half axes for patterns that contain different amounts of spin
on different throws. And it allows for an almost unlimited ability to
further subdivide f.e. q3xy could be a 3/4rd turn(270°) which might be
usefull for cigar box moves.
Although after rereading this I still think 0.75 or 0.5are easier as q3 or
h.
what's wrong with fractions?
Varkor
Jan 13, 2012, 11:50:01 AM1/13/12
to
On Jan 12, 11:14 pm, marlonva...@hotmail.com.nospam.com (Marlon)
wrote:
Almost every throw is either going to have an integer rotation or just
half a spin more or less. People don't (generally) throw 270 degrees.
If they did, I would agree that a decimal system would be easier, but
a single character allows for half spins, which are the only
fractional rotations you're going to need to use.
wrote:
half a spin more or less. People don't (generally) throw 270 degrees.
If they did, I would agree that a decimal system would be easier, but
a single character allows for half spins, which are the only
fractional rotations you're going to need to use.
Marlon
Jan 13, 2012, 12:40:39 PM1/13/12
to
options open as possible.
Clubs will probably only need half rotations.
Cigar boxes use quarter rotations, and those delta boxes[1] that were
mentioned not long ago could use even different fractions.
And maybe there could be some nice transitions between different planes
found by throwing pancakes with a certain fraction of spin f.e.5/4 spin
from the horizontal plane(xz?) would fall into the xy plane.
[1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCjH7k0PTo8&feature=youtu.be
Varkor
Jan 13, 2012, 2:24:40 PM1/13/12
to
like delta boxes) in the notation, I would completely agree with you.
However, I originally wrote the notation with toss juggling in mind,
in which you only need half at the most precise. There are
similarities between the two forms of juggling, but I feel expanding
the notation could make it more complex (namely in including other
sorts of rotations)...
However, if it is just that that makes it unsuitable for cigar boxes,
and everything else works correctly, perhaps it is worth including
them. In this case, I would use decimal rotations. However, with toss
juggling, "h" suffices.
Norbi
Jan 13, 2012, 2:36:26 PM1/13/12
to
Varkor wrote:
>
> a single character allows for half spins, which are the only
> fractional rotations you're going to need to use.
>
>
If your system is to be widely used in easing the explanation of juggling
>
> a single character allows for half spins, which are the only
> fractional rotations you're going to need to use.
>
>
tricks between people, then rotation is very important.
Examples include:
- Throwing to a balance (90°, 270°, etc..)
- Lazies could be 135° if being accurate
- Other weird stuff done by the new-school contemporary club juggling do
which may include funky rotations.
Nor
Varkor
Jan 13, 2012, 4:36:10 PM1/13/12
to
On Jan 13, 7:36 pm, no...@norbithejuggler.co.uk.nospam.com (Norbi)
wrote:
It'd be easy to add, but again, the simplest notation for that is
degrees or decimal, both of which are 3 (4 if you include the dot/
degree symbol) long, which is longer than I feel necessary. Perhaps
"h" could be shorthand for 180 degree throws, and you could use a
decimal system for other throws?
wrote:
degrees or decimal, both of which are 3 (4 if you include the dot/
degree symbol) long, which is longer than I feel necessary. Perhaps
"h" could be shorthand for 180 degree throws, and you could use a
decimal system for other throws?
Adrian G
Jan 13, 2012, 7:56:17 PM1/13/12
to
Colin E. wrote:
> It's a nice idea, but I doubt it will ever catch on. Every year someone
> posts a new idea that extends the basic siteswap in some way, adding
> spins, or hand positions - as far as I can tell, none of them have
> 'stuck', becoming a standard part of the juggling vocabulary.
I agree, if I want to notate a siteswap with 'extra stuff', I'll normally
just say "531 with the 5 a helicopter, the 3 under the leg and the 1
behind the back" it would be great to have another 'standard' way to
notate it but it would need to be very simple and unambiguous.
> Personally I think this boils down to one key feature of siteswaps that is
> absent in all of the other notations and extensions. Siteswaps are far
> more than just a notation, they have a set of rules associated with them
> that allow you to validate, permutate and modify them. This has lead to
> the discovery of new patterns, mathematical theorems, computer simulations
> and more.
The only reason those rules are there is because not every combination is
valid, however with stack notation, every combination is valid and you can
still work out new tricks by just finding all combinations of the numbers
1 to number of balls.
This would be the same for The Varkora's notation, you'd just generate
every possible combination then chuck it in a simulator to see if it looks
good.
> Unless you can come up with some non-arbitrary rules relating to your
> notation, I doubt it will catch on. Without this, the only thing that
> distinguishes your notation from any other is cosmetics.
I don't quite agree there, there are many ways of notating that are
actually different and not just using different symbols or writing it
slightly differently, the trick is finding one that is intuitive. For
example stack notation and siteswap notation notate the same pattern but
in completely different ways, siteswap is so much easier to visualise
which is why everyone uses it instead.
Adrian
> It's a nice idea, but I doubt it will ever catch on. Every year someone
> posts a new idea that extends the basic siteswap in some way, adding
> spins, or hand positions - as far as I can tell, none of them have
> 'stuck', becoming a standard part of the juggling vocabulary.
I agree, if I want to notate a siteswap with 'extra stuff', I'll normally
just say "531 with the 5 a helicopter, the 3 under the leg and the 1
behind the back" it would be great to have another 'standard' way to
notate it but it would need to be very simple and unambiguous.
> Personally I think this boils down to one key feature of siteswaps that is
> absent in all of the other notations and extensions. Siteswaps are far
> more than just a notation, they have a set of rules associated with them
> that allow you to validate, permutate and modify them. This has lead to
> the discovery of new patterns, mathematical theorems, computer simulations
> and more.
The only reason those rules are there is because not every combination is
valid, however with stack notation, every combination is valid and you can
still work out new tricks by just finding all combinations of the numbers
1 to number of balls.
This would be the same for The Varkora's notation, you'd just generate
every possible combination then chuck it in a simulator to see if it looks
good.
> Unless you can come up with some non-arbitrary rules relating to your
> notation, I doubt it will catch on. Without this, the only thing that
> distinguishes your notation from any other is cosmetics.
I don't quite agree there, there are many ways of notating that are
actually different and not just using different symbols or writing it
slightly differently, the trick is finding one that is intuitive. For
example stack notation and siteswap notation notate the same pattern but
in completely different ways, siteswap is so much easier to visualise
which is why everyone uses it instead.
Adrian
0 new messages