7 clubs vs 3 balls

[Chris Noonan]

Some of you may have noticed the two opposing top comments on Vova's new
video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqYtPtfA1QI&feature=g-u
I'm reading some of the comments, and I'm becoming tempted to spam Vova's
awesome new video with my own opinions on the subject, so I thought it
might be better done here.
As I understand it, the basic argument thats arising is this: Is being the
best in the world at seven clubs more difficult than being the best in the
world at three balls?
What do you guys think?
(sorry if there has already been a thread about this, I thought I'd start
one in light of the new debate on Vova's video)

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

[Rhidders]

Some people would say 7 clubs are way more difficult to master than 3
balls. Basic pattern wise, most definately. However, personally with
regarding to invention of tricks both numbers and props can be as
difficult to master and be the worlds best at.

For example if you compare Vova to Michael Flakov. (ok maybe not the best
comparison but it may make my point) Vova has got 7 club cascade solid, 7c
5 up 360 and other tricks which to most jugglers would think are
impossible ish). Michael Falkov, the winner of the 3 ball freestyle at the
last WJF...in my opinion was doing things that my eyes couldnt follow and
hence my brain couldnt work out what he was doing. So in my opinion what
Falkov was doing was more difficult.

I hope that made some sense this early in the morning :D

[Scott Seltzer]

Just because you didn't understand it, doesn't mean that it's more
difficult. 1000 balls is easy to understand but hard to do. Magic tricks
are often hard to understand but easy to do.

I'd say that difficulty can best be measured by the amount of time
required to learn the skill. So, all other things being equal, any two
tricks that took 5 years to learn are equally difficult, regardless of the
number of objects.

-Scott

[Adam Rowney]

Agreed. And for Falkov, I imagine any trick he learnt, he did so in hours,
days or maybe weeks at the most. Learning 7 clubs takes many years of
practise, and few achieve decent runs even with all that practise.

But I think being a notable 3 ball juggler is being great at many tricks
put together, in groups and routines, and being consistent at doing so.
And this takes years.

Which is harder? I think physically 7 clubs is more difficult. And
mentally, complex 3 ball tricks are more difficult.

[David Cherepov]

> Just because you didn't understand it, doesn't mean that it's more
> difficult. 1000 balls is easy to understand but hard to do. Magic tricks
> are often hard to understand but easy to do.
>
> I'd say that difficulty can best be measured by the amount of time
> required to learn the skill. So, all other things being equal, any two
> tricks that took 5 years to learn are equally difficult, regardless of the
> number of objects.
>
> -Scott
>

There are some very technical things with 3 that do take very long amounts
of time to learn.

[Little Paul]

On 2011-12-12, David Cherepov <ali...@yahoo.com.nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> Just because you didn't understand it, doesn't mean that it's more
>> difficult. 1000 balls is easy to understand but hard to do. Magic tricks
>> are often hard to understand but easy to do.
>>
>> I'd say that difficulty can best be measured by the amount of time
>> required to learn the skill. So, all other things being equal, any two
>> tricks that took 5 years to learn are equally difficult, regardless of the
>> number of objects.
>

> There are some very technical things with 3 that do take very long amounts
> of time to learn.

I think that was Scotts point wasn't it?

You can't tell how difficult a trick is just by watching it, especially as
one hallmark of a really good juggler is that they make difficult tricks
look effortless, and that the years of practice required to make a trick
work are not always on display.

-Paul
--
http://paulseward.com

[Julius]

Scott Seltzer wrote:
> I'd say that difficulty can best be measured by the amount of time
> required to learn the skill. So, all other things being equal, any two
> tricks that took 5 years to learn are equally difficult, regardless of the
> number of objects.

Taking this for comparing the difficulty of two things, we can now try to
express the original question in other words:

"Is being the best in the world at seven clubs more difficult than being
the best in the

world at three balls?" - "Will it take more time to get the person that
has spended the most time practicing 7 clubs than to get the person that
has spended the most time practicing 3 balls?"
Again in other words: "What is practiced more? Balls or clubs?"

[Jason Lu]

I'll throw this in here too:
Being the unanimous best at 7 clubs requires a solid 7 club cascade and
several tricks.
Being the unanimous best at 3 balls requires you to master a lot of
different skills, which depending how far you want to go, includes body
throws, an uncountable number of patterns, some contact, some palm
spinning, lots of dance and spins, etc.
In some ways being the unanimous best at 7 is a more attainable goal than
being the best at 3, but I don't think that is what anyone meant in the
discussion anyway.

I would say being a "good" 7 club juggler is harder than being a "good" 3
ball juggler, though I'm liable to change my mind at any moment.

This I think is clear however, there isn't a very easy answer to this
question. Whoever wrote this should probably think twice to make this
statement next time.

J

[Rhidders]

I wasnt generalising. It was just an opinion based on how I learn the
principles of a trick or combos from a video.

I agree that difficulty should be measured in time to learn the skill.

[Rhidders]

You hit the nail on the head there! I accept that my comment on judging
difficulty by is wrong! That was just how my thought was rolling.

Apologies

Rhydian

[Brook Roberts]

This is precisely the way it should be looked at (if you take the comment
seriously) - how good are the best people in each area. It seems to be
indisputable that it is possible to do harder things with 3 balls than
anyone has done with 7 clubs and vice versa.

I suspect that to become the best with 7 clubs is harder because this is
the traditional route for professionals - doing tricks with large numbers
at the end of the routine. Since they are most likely to have but the
most effort in and train seriously (since they are practising for other
people's sake) I suspect they have achieved harder things.

But that's certainly not to say you couldn't change this.

[pumpkineater23]

I think anyone could be the best at seven clubs if they put their mind to
it/aim for it. You'd be the best if you're not too old when you start,
practice correctly and practice enough.

Not anyone could be the best 3ball juggler though I think. It requires the
necessities above and other things like intelligence, imagination and
creativity.



pete

[CamStradeski]

Well my opinion might be slightly biased since I'm a low numbers juggler,
but I think being the best at 3 balls is a harder goal to achieve. As
pointed out in some earlier posts, there is a much larger scope for tricks
with 3 balls as you aren't limited to the tight constraints of 7 clubs.

It's true that with 7 clubs you spend longer learning each trick, but
there are tricks with 3 balls that could take as long to learn as a 7 club
5 up 360.

Added to that fact that you have all the other types of body movements
with 3 balls like contortion, blind etc, and a larger scope for movements
in the pattern and, for example, on a stage, it makes it considerably more
difficult.

I think low number difficulty can be overlooked sometimes simply because
they are low numbers, doesn't, in my opinion, make it any easier.

Cheerios,
Cam

[Brook Roberts]

The large variety of tricks might make it hard to be unanimous best, or to
totally dominate (i.e. be better than everyone at everything involving 3
balls), but that wouldn't make it harder to be the best in some sense.

[CamStradeski]

Brook Roberts wrote:
> The large variety of tricks might make it hard to be unanimous best, or to
> totally dominate (i.e. be better than everyone at everything involving 3
> balls), but that wouldn't make it harder to be the best in some sense.
>

But that raises the question as what actually defines "the best", it's so
ambiguous. For me, "the best" at 3 balls is someone who has a well
rounded style and portfolio of tricks, the same as it is for 7 clubs, but
to be well rounded at 3 balls you need a much larger variety of difficult
tricks and transitions than you do for 7 clubs (because you're limited to
the constraints of the base pattern).

In any case, unless there is a clear way to define a standard that can be
labelled as "the best" (which will never happen as it's subjective) then
the discussion is somewhat irrelevant.

[JugglerPeter]

Adam Rowney wrote:
>
And for Falkov, I imagine any trick he learnt, he did so in hours,
> days or maybe weeks at the most. Learning 7 clubs takes many years of
> practise, and few achieve decent runs even with all that practise.
>

>

That is a very dismissive attitude toward the difficulty of 3 ball
juggling.

[Gravitas]

I think being the best in the world at three balls is much more difficult
than being the best in the world at seven clubs, for a couple of reasons,
mostly because of the number of people practicing each respective
discipline. The question isn't about which is more more difficult, but
rather about how difficult it would be to climb the mountain to be the
better than anyone else who does it. There must certainly be millions of
people who can juggle three balls at a reasonably high level, and many
thousands who are truly great, to the point that having a meaningful
conversation about who the best is becomes prohibitively difficult. The
pool of people juggling seven clubs is so much smaller that it does become
possible to talk about a theoretical "King of the Mountain." If I may be
allowed a musical analogy, it's like asking "Is it easier to be the best
piano player in the world, or the best bagpipe player in the world?"
Playing the bagpipe may be more difficult (I don't know myself, but I have
been told it is), but I would imagine that being acknowledged the "best
piano player in the world" would be much more difficult simply because of
the sheer number of people who can do it.

Also (and I am by no means a seven-club juggler, so if I am wrong about
this, please forgive me) it seems to me that the very act of juggling
seven clubs is so inherently difficult and physically demanding that it
becomes easier to use objective metrics to judge how good someone is at
it, like length of run doing a given trick, etc. Style doesn't enter the
equation as much, because (at least to my eyes), the physical performance
of the feat doesn't allow for it; it would be pretty difficult for me to
identify stylistic differences between one seven-club juggler and another,
whereas this is easy with three-ball jugglers. And when you get into the
realm of style, the judging becomes almost completely subjective (witness
the recent thread about best three-ball jugglers; everyone has their own
favorite, or set of favorites, but there was certainly nothing approaching
consensus about who was "best").

[lutkus]

pumpkineater23 wrote:
> I think anyone could be the best at seven clubs if they put their mind to
> it/aim for it. You'd be the best if you're not too old when you start,
> practice correctly and practice enough.
>
> Not anyone could be the best 3ball juggler though I think. It requires the
> necessities above and other things like intelligence, imagination and
> creativity.

Unfortunately, I think this is still all subjective. We need more
experimental data to prove this. Let's get two jugglers. Actually, let's
start before they realize they want to be jugglers - little kids. And for
the purpose of consistency, they should be genetically identical -- twins,
or clones. They will each be given a private coach, who will train
(coerce, force, etc.) them to learn juggling, one working towards the goal
of being best at 3 balls, the other working towards best at 7 clubs. Only
after we have done this experiment will we have an answer. (Though even
then, people will continue to debate what that answer actually is.)

[Lewis Kennedy]

> I think anyone could be the best at seven clubs if they put their mind to
> it/aim for it. You'd be the best if you're not too old when you start,
> practice correctly and practice enough.
>

Erm…… I think!!! you have to be very physically and mentally strong to be
able to juggling 7 clubs. I also think you have to be a intelligent
person. (well, that being said, I don’t know any un intelligent person). I
don’t think there really is anyone like that in the world. People just
think about things differently. Maybe me a lesbane and don’t understand.
But don’t get me wrong I think anyone can learn 7clubs, if they put there
mind to it and they get the right help on the way. its just mentally
DISABLED!!!!!!!!

> Not anyone could be the best 3ball juggler though I think. It requires the
> necessities above and other things like intelligence, imagination and
> creativity.
>
>

I don’t agree on this one, hope that’s ok. Sorry!!!
Im sure anyone can be the best with 3 balls. Everyone can be imaginative
and creative, if they want to be and think about it in the right way!!!
But! What does the BEST actually mean with 3 balls? Just a question for
everyone to think about it.

But then again. I shouldn’t really say anyone can do this and anyone can
do that. Cause if you don’t have the drive you don’t have the drive. Its
just the way it is. i should say, anyone who spends a lot of time trying
to master or achieve something, can do anything. Cause they have the
drive, if that makes any sence.

To tell you the truth I don’t really know what im talking about. Im just
bored at work.

This is one hell of a ponestar of a post chris. very cool question!!!

John Wayne

[JugglerPeter]

I disagree. I think that only a select few have the unique combination of
physical and mental skills necessary to be the best at any given thing.
Look at professional sports, how good someone is is not directly
proportional to the amount of training. Some people just seem to have
that perfect combination of physical and mental skills to excel in certain
areas.

I personally think it's just comparing apples and oranges. I'm happy that
Vova didn't focus on 3 ball patterns, and I'm also happy that Murakami
didn't focus on numbers jugging.

[lutkus]

Jason Lu wrote:
> Being the unanimous best at 7 clubs requires a solid 7 club cascade and
> several tricks.
> Being the unanimous best at 3 balls requires you to master a lot of
> different skills

I submit that being the unanimous best at either of these things is even
not that simple. For example: let's say that tomorrow, some
previously-unknown juggler posts a video of him running a 7 club cascade
for 30 minutes. He freely admits that he cannot do a single trick. Also,
in the video, he moves his feet quite a bit, when his clubs occasionally
stray.

Is he the best?

[JugglerPeter]

That's because your n is too small. Lets not use twins (too much
variation), lets use clones, and lets use 200 - 100 will be trained to
juggle 3 balls by Murakami, and Stefan Sing. The other 100 will be
trained to juggle 7 clubs by Vova and Anthony Gatto. I think after these
children have come to maturity there will be an end to the debate.

[Lewis Kennedy]

> lots of dance and spins, etc.

hahaha!!!

i agree with everything you said jason.
your da dawg

Lewis

[Little Paul]

On 2011-12-12, Gravitas <da...@gravitasjuggling.com.nospam.com> wrote:
> The question isn't about which is more more difficult, but
> rather about how difficult it would be to climb the mountain to be the
> better than anyone else who does it.

I think this sums up my thinking on the matter.

It's easy to be the best in the world at something if you're the only
one working on it.

If there are a few people working on it, it's harder to be the best, but
it's still possible to pick a "best"

If there are many thousands of people working on it, it becomes much
less clear who the "best" is and opinions are often subjective as a
result.

It doesn't mean that picking a "best" is any less fun though, if anything
the opportunity to argue over a small handful of exceptional individuals
is more entertaining.

-Paul
--
http://paulseward.com

[Little Paul]

On 2011-12-12, JugglerPeter <peter.b...@gmail.com.nospam.com> wrote:
>
> That's because your n is too small. Lets not use twins (too much
> variation), lets use clones, and lets use 200 - 100 will be trained to
> juggle 3 balls by Murakami, and Stefan Sing. The other 100 will be
> trained to juggle 7 clubs by Vova and Anthony Gatto. I think after these
> children have come to maturity there will be an end to the debate.

In my experience, you'll put all that effort in, train up all those
kids, come to a conclusion...

Then 2 days later some unknown 15 year old comes out of nowhere who
kicks everyones arse at 3 balls and 7 clubs and also happens to be
awesome with 4 diabolos

-Paul
--
http://paulseward.com

[JugglerPeter]

I think our experimental results will still be valid. our n will be large
enough that we can simply compare how close both our average clone, and
the best clone from each group come to the skill of the 15 year old kid to
determine which is more difficult.

[lutkus]

Actually, there remains one problem - the trainer. I don't know how
skilled the people you mentioned are at training. What if Murakami just
happens to be a more skilled teacher than Vova? We need a single teacher
to train everyone - someone who is just as good at teaching 3 balls are 7
clubs.

But then with such a large sample size of clones being trained, it
wouldn't be realistic to have a single teacher train all of them. We'd
want cloned teachers as well. But since experience can't be cloned, I
think we'll have to settle for some kind of cyborg instead.

Then, we will have our answer, and can finally move on to world domination
through a combination of juggling, eugenics and a cyborg hybrid of Nick
Gatto, Paul Cinquevalli, Stefan Sing and Alexander Kiss.

[Janion]

JugglerPeter wrote:
> lets use clones, and lets use 200 - 100 will be trained to
> juggle 3 balls by Murakami, and Stefan Sing. The other 100 will be
> trained to juggle 7 clubs by Vova and Anthony Gatto. I think after these
> children have come to maturity there will be an end to the debate.
>

Surely even this is flawed as the person they were cloned from may have a
naturally stronger ability to learn one or the other

[isaac]

I think an additional factor that needs to be taken into account is
the amount of time it takes one to begin down the path of being a 7-
club god, versus a 3-ball wizard.

To even get to the point of working with seven clubs as a serious
endeavor (i.e. having a very strong foundation on which to begin, not
just sloppily chucking up props) will take upwards of 3 years of
dedicated practice. Then another 3+ years is likely required to become
truly fluent with 7 clubs, the way that Vova and Gatto have become.
This is 3+ years even if you are a prodigy!

In contrast, one can begin learning a wide assortment of 3 ball tricks
as soon as they can juggle. The barrier to entry is lower, there isn't
a clear trick demarcating your success and you will build gradually
toward being the best. Whereas there are many routes to becoming one
of the best 3 ball jugglers in the world, there is really only one to
becoming a 7 club juggler - dedicated practice.

Now, I'm not saying that 3 ball juggling doesn't require dedicated
practice, just that it doesn't require dedicated practice towards one
singular accomplishment. I believe this fact in particular makes 7
clubs a more mentally taxing endeavor. Trying to learn 7 clubs is a
war of attrition fought against yourself day in and day out, you will
have off days, off weeks, perhaps, that you need to plow through in
order to succeed. With 3 balls, however, you can have an off day with
a trick, but this does not define your entire practice session the way
an off day with 7 clubs does, simply because you can work on one of
the hundreds of other 3 ball tricks you are aiming toward.

To the many people that say that 3 balls is more difficult than seven
clubs in that it requires the development of style (which I agree
with), I counter-argue that 7 clubs is more difficult than 3 balls
because it necessitates the development of boar-headed stubbornness in
the belief that someday, years down the line, you will be able to do
this one trick. In the same way that not everyone expresses the
ability to be a creative 3 ball juggler, not everyone expresses the
dedication needed to be a 7 club juggler. Neither trait is inherently
more difficult to possess than the other.

Finally, as an ex-beginner-7 club juggler and a decent enough 3 ball
juggler, I'm interested in learning some of these 3 ball tricks that
take enormous amounts of time to learn (comparable in some way to 7
clubs). What are some of them? (Hopefully they aren't all box-
variations, I'm a bit sick of seeing those)

- Isaac

[Poor-]

To find the answer you must first determine the best 7 club juggler and
the best 3 ball juggler and then determine how much practice and effort it
would take to surpass them.

[Marlon]

Maybe different teachers(A-G) each day.
So clones 1-30 get teacher A on monday, B on tuesday , C on wednesday ,...
clones 31-60 get B on monday, C on tuesday , .... A on sunday.

Also I suggest making 210 clones, not only are they easier to place in 7
groups we'll have some spares as well to get our 100 subjects for each
category.
Kids are fragile.

Then we just have to make sure that teacher F's performance doesn't drop
for clones 151-180 's classes just because he doesn't like teaching on
mondays.

[d_n_b]

Adam Rowney wrote:
>
> Scott Seltzer wrote:

> >
> > Rhidders wrote:
> > >
> > > Chris Noonan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Some of you may have noticed the two opposing top comments on Vova's
new
> > > > video:
> > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqYtPtfA1QI&feature=g-u
> > > > I'm reading some of the comments, and I'm becoming tempted to spam
Vova's
> > > > awesome new video with my own opinions on the subject, so I thought it
> > > > might be better done here.
> > > > As I understand it, the basic argument thats arising is this: Is being

> the
> > > > best in the world at seven clubs more difficult than being the best in
> the

> > > > world at three balls?
> > > > What do you guys think?
> > > > (sorry if there has already been a thread about this, I thought I'd
start
> > > > one in light of the new debate on Vova's video)
> > > >

> > > Some people would say 7 clubs are way more difficult to master than 3
> > > balls. Basic pattern wise, most definately. However, personally with
> > > regarding to invention of tricks both numbers and props can be as
> > > difficult to master and be the worlds best at.
> > >
> > > For example if you compare Vova to Michael Flakov. (ok maybe not the best
> > > comparison but it may make my point) Vova has got 7 club cascade solid,
7c
> > > 5 up 360 and other tricks which to most jugglers would think are
> > > impossible ish). Michael Falkov, the winner of the 3 ball freestyle at
the
> > > last WJF...in my opinion was doing things that my eyes couldnt follow and
> > > hence my brain couldnt work out what he was doing. So in my opinion what
> > > Falkov was doing was more difficult.
> >

> > Just because you didn't understand it, doesn't mean that it's more
> > difficult. 1000 balls is easy to understand but hard to do. Magic tricks
> > are often hard to understand but easy to do.
> >

> > I'd say that difficulty can best be measured by the amount of time
> > required to learn the skill. So, all other things being equal, any two
> > tricks that took 5 years to learn are equally difficult, regardless of the
> > number of objects.
>

> Agreed. And for Falkov, I imagine any trick he learnt, he did so in hours,

> days or maybe weeks at the most. Learning 7 clubs takes many years of
> practise, and few achieve decent runs even with all that practise.
>

> But I think being a notable 3 ball juggler is being great at many tricks
> put together, in groups and routines, and being consistent at doing so.
> And this takes years.
>
> Which is harder? I think physically 7 clubs is more difficult. And
> mentally, complex 3 ball tricks are more difficult.

In addition to the mental aspect, difficult 3-ball patterns are also about
precise arm, wrist, and hand orientations, micro-movements, and learning
unintuitive coordinations and throw/catch locations. While 7 clubs
requires a great deal of precision (obviously), I think the trade-off is
between stronger bulk movements vs. small scale micro-movements. They both
require many parameters to be in balance.

Your statement about Falkov is completely inaccurate. It takes years of
practice to build up the FOUNDATION that lets you do the very difficult
3-ball stuff. So, if you set out to learn (for example) an exceptionally
difficult box variation, it's going to take you several years to build up
the base necessary to run it. You generally can't pick an arbitrary
pattern out of thin air and learn it without learning many things that
come before it -- at least not without it looking like a pile of crap with
skewed shape and timing.

Dan

[pumpkineater23]

isaac wrote:
>

> To the many people that say that 3 balls is more difficult than seven
> clubs in that it requires the development of style (which I agree
> with), I counter-argue that 7 clubs is more difficult than 3 balls
> because it necessitates the development of boar-headed stubbornness in
> the belief that someday, years down the line, you will be able to do
> this one trick. In the same way that not everyone expresses the
> ability to be a creative 3 ball juggler, not everyone expresses the
> dedication needed to be a 7 club juggler. Neither trait is inherently
> more difficult to possess than the other.

That's a good point about stubbornness but I didn't understand what you
meant by 'express the ability to be a creative 3 ball juggler'? Do you
mean 'have the ability'?
Anyone can be a little bit creative but to be very creative requires
certain genetic settings - intelligent creativity of some kind. If you
don't have it you'll never have it no matter how hard you try or how
stubborn you are. If you were given a certain amount of time to be able
to juggle 7clubs, or loose both your arms, as difficult as it is, you
would probably learn to do it. But the same could not be said for really
creative 3ball juggling.

> Finally, as an ex-beginner-7 club juggler and a decent enough 3 ball
> juggler, I'm interested in learning some of these 3 ball tricks that
> take enormous amounts of time to learn (comparable in some way to 7
> clubs). What are some of them?

I'd like to know too, I have inquired but to no avail. 'Difficult 3ball
tricks' is a difficult area I think. Maybe it depends on factors like;
other tricks you already know leading up to learning the (difficult)
trick? Would you take that into account? Also there's a huge difference
between being able to do a trick and doing it very well, well enough to
utilize it (even more so with 7clubs I would think).


pete

[thatguy]

Chris Noonan wrote:
>
> Some of you may have noticed the two opposing top comments on Vova's new
> video:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqYtPtfA1QI&feature=g-u
> I'm reading some of the comments, and I'm becoming tempted to spam Vova's
> awesome new video with my own opinions on the subject, so I thought it
> might be better done here.
> As I understand it, the basic argument thats arising is this: Is being the
> best in the world at seven clubs more difficult than being the best in the
> world at three balls?
> What do you guys think?
> (sorry if there has already been a thread about this, I thought I'd start
> one in light of the new debate on Vova's video)
>

The answer seems relatively obvious to me. How many people do you know of
who can do a 3 up with 7 clubs?

How many people do you know who can do a 7 up with 3 balls?

3 balls is more difficult.

[pumpkineater23]

I suppose you could make any 3ball trick as difficult as you want.
Mills Mess BBB... with one hand? Or perhaps it's easier than it sounds!

[Brer Licky]

How many people who have replied here can juggle 7 clubs and can also
juggle 3 balls well? Such people do exist, even if they aren't the best
at either, and maybe their opinions would be enlightening.

Chris Noonan wrote:
>
> Some of you may have noticed the two opposing top comments on Vova's new
> video:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqYtPtfA1QI&feature=g-u
> I'm reading some of the comments, and I'm becoming tempted to spam Vova's
> awesome new video with my own opinions on the subject, so I thought it
> might be better done here.
> As I understand it, the basic argument thats arising is this: Is being the
> best in the world at seven clubs more difficult than being the best in the
> world at three balls?
> What do you guys think?
> (sorry if there has already been a thread about this, I thought I'd start
> one in light of the new debate on Vova's video)
>

[Guillermo Conde]

CamStradeski wrote:
>
> Chris Noonan wrote:
> >
> > Some of you may have noticed the two opposing top comments on Vova's new
> > video:
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqYtPtfA1QI&feature=g-u
> > I'm reading some of the comments, and I'm becoming tempted to spam Vova's
> > awesome new video with my own opinions on the subject, so I thought it
> > might be better done here.
> > As I understand it, the basic argument thats arising is this: Is being the
> > best in the world at seven clubs more difficult than being the best in the
> > world at three balls?
> > What do you guys think?
> > (sorry if there has already been a thread about this, I thought I'd start
> > one in light of the new debate on Vova's video)
> >
>
> Well my opinion might be slightly biased since I'm a low numbers juggler,
> but I think being the best at 3 balls is a harder goal to achieve. As
> pointed out in some earlier posts, there is a much larger scope for tricks
> with 3 balls as you aren't limited to the tight constraints of 7 clubs.
>
> It's true that with 7 clubs you spend longer learning each trick, but
> there are tricks with 3 balls that could take as long to learn as a 7 club
> 5 up 360.

Really?? Could you please tell us one, or even two?

[Guillermo Conde]

Gravitas wrote:

>
> Also (and I am by no means a seven-club juggler, so if I am wrong about
> this, please forgive me) it seems to me that the very act of juggling
> seven clubs is so inherently difficult and physically demanding that it
> becomes easier to use objective metrics to judge how good someone is at
> it, like length of run doing a given trick, etc. Style doesn't enter the
> equation as much, because (at least to my eyes), the physical performance
> of the feat doesn't allow for it; it would be pretty difficult for me to
> identify stylistic differences between one seven-club juggler and another,
> whereas this is easy with three-ball jugglers.
>

Style is certainly not as important for seven club jugglers as it is for
three ball ones. I would suggest you, however, to watch Vova Galchenko,
then Jon Brady, then Nikolay Gerasimov juggling seven clubs. There is, in
my opinion, a clear difference between all of them.

[Jason Lu]

d_n_b wrote:
>
> Your statement about Falkov is completely inaccurate. It takes years of
> practice to build up the FOUNDATION that lets you do the very difficult
> 3-ball stuff. So, if you set out to learn (for example) an exceptionally
> difficult box variation, it's going to take you several years to build up
> the base necessary to run it. You generally can't pick an arbitrary
> pattern out of thin air and learn it without learning many things that
> come before it -- at least not without it looking like a pile of crap with
> skewed shape and timing.
>
> Dan
>

The foundation required for 3 ball box tricks isn't as hard as you might
imagine, certainly not years that's for sure. People just don't work very
hard on 3, which gives the impression that the foundation would take years
to build up.
Each box variation can be picked up within a week if you some basic
foundation. Getting it solid on the other hand... That's what separates
Mura to a lot of the other 3 ball jugglers. But getting a run of maybe 10
sides isn't too hard.

[thatguy]

I have qualified both and I stand by my previous statement.

[d_n_b]

I am talking about getting them solid, throwing them with force, and
carving out a consistent and defined shape (hence the final sentence of my
post). Also I'm referring to box variations beyond what I think would be
considered easy by today's standards. That is, beyond upside down box,
N-box, broken box, all the basic hybrids, etc. I suppose it wasn't obvious
that when I said "difficult" it was not from a naive standpoint.

Dan

[Brook Roberts]

I would also definitely appreciate an example of an individual trick that
someone can do with 3 balls that would take a year or so to learn.

[Janion]

Guillermo Conde wrote:
> Style is certainly not as important for seven club jugglers as it is for
> three ball ones. I would suggest you, however, to watch Vova Galchenko,
> then Jon Brady, then Nikolay Gerasimov juggling seven clubs. There is, in
> my opinion, a clear difference between all of them.
>

This is true, but how much of that is style and how much is merely
slightly different technique?

[pumpkineater23]

I will never master two balls in one hand, controlled moving from one
column to another at various differing heights/rhythms. Even though I've
been doing it for twenty years in just a relatively small space in front
of me it always seems a long long way from finished.


pete

[pumpkineater23]

Janion wrote:
>
> Guillermo Conde wrote:
> > Style is certainly not as important for seven club jugglers as it is for
> > three ball ones. I would suggest you, however, to watch Vova Galchenko,
> > then Jon Brady, then Nikolay Gerasimov juggling seven clubs. There is, in
> > my opinion, a clear difference between all of them.
> >
>
> This is true, but how much of that is style and how much is merely
> slightly different technique?
>

Technique and style are often confused I think. Style is more individual,
sometimes a reflection of the juggler. Technique should come first I
think, then style.. is that right?


pete

[pumpkineater23]

There's almost a compressed power with box variations when it comes to
keeping the patterns flat, wide and in control. Keeping my hands still but
maintaining the power while keeping soft vertical throws in the right
column is really difficult I think. I've been practicing the technique
every day with some 'not too hard' variations for over three years and
none of them are solid yet.

pete

[Brer Licky]

You had a good answer. It just goes to show how wise it is to listen to
those who actually have the experience.

[Brer Licky]

How long would it take you to get that good at 7 clubs?

Not a serious question, but I think it points out the flaw in trying to
compare the absolute difficulties. Anything you can do with 3 you can do
with 7, it's just that much harder.

As others have pointed out, he didn't ask which is harder, 3 balls or 7
clubs, but which was harder to be the best in the world at. From my
position of inexperience, it seem obvious that 7 clubs is harder to juggle
than 3 balls, but likely that it's easier to be The Best In The World at 7
clubs.

1. Clubs light enough and small enough for a serious 7 are relatively
recent, while the props to do a great job with a 3 ball routine have been
around for a long time. Seems probable that 7 clubs hasn't been pushed as
far.

2. Since very little is done with 7 clubs (mostly the cascade), it is
fairly easy to compare skill to determine who is best, whereas 3 ball
juggling is so varied your margin of superiority would have to be
significantly higher to make a compelling case for Best.

3. Far fewer 7 club jugglers, so once again, easier to determine if you
are actually BEST.


Keep in mind, I don't mean to pass this off as an expert opinion. I'm a
terrible 3 ball juggler, and can't juggle 7 clubs at all.

[Brook Roberts]

Whilst your second and third points imply it is harder to determine who is
the 'best' in 3 ball juggling, that does it mean it is harder to be the
best. Only that it would be harder to determine who is the best under
some criteria, and that it is very likely that many people would be
determined best under slightly different criteria.

Point 1 is interesting, although I think with the advent of the internet 3
balls has probably been pushed far enough through collaboration and idea
sharing that it makes up for it?

[Michael Falkov]

Chris Noonan wrote:
>
> Some of you may have noticed the two opposing top comments on Vova's new
> video:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqYtPtfA1QI&feature=g-u
> I'm reading some of the comments, and I'm becoming tempted to spam Vova's
> awesome new video with my own opinions on the subject, so I thought it
> might be better done here.
> As I understand it, the basic argument thats arising is this: Is being the
> best in the world at seven clubs more difficult than being the best in the
> world at three balls?
> What do you guys think?
> (sorry if there has already been a thread about this, I thought I'd start
> one in light of the new debate on Vova's video)
>

Is it harder to be the best mental calculator in the world or the best at
conceptualizing reality mathematically?

Is it harder to be the best technician of a limited skill-set, or is it
more difficult to be master of the most possibilities within a skill
domain of indeterminate size and shape?

Is it harder to run the fastest, or to be the best dancer?

Is it harder to be the most productive research scientist in terms of
collecting the most data and drawing the most useful conclusions within
known models, or is it harder to conceptualize new models that provide
useful understanding of types unavailable in preexisting models?

Is it harder to be the fastest writer in the world, or to be the best at
conveying meaning through text (assuming the existence of a metric to
establish such a thing)?

Is it harder to be the most productive member of a society, or is it
harder to design and implement entirely new societies or society like
phenomena.

I think the best on either side of such dichotomies will likely have
unusually powerful and differently tuned minds (and bodies, if relevant).

Difficulty of becoming the best at anything could take into account things
like:

-Time
-Money
-Equipment
-Space
-Ambition
-Training methodologies used.
-Ability to dynamically adjust approach.
-Ability to approach maximum saturation of useful feedback as often as
possible.
-Ability of upper echelon candidates
-Number of participants in the same activity


Either side requires tremendous dedication and hard work (or, perhaps,
unimaginable genetic giftedness, or revolutionary learning strategies),
but for one side, the creative requirements are as high as they could be
for the task (at that point in time), while for the other, creativity
isn't required at all (though it can certainly help pretty much anything,
when combined with clear thinking).

Cultivation of creative ability isn't a well understood thing, hard work
and dedication can be forced on someone, even if they don't learn it
themselves.

FWIW, I think being among the top 1% of 3 ball jugglers is harder than
being among the top 1% of 7 club jugglers. I can also imagine someone
becoming the best 7 club juggler faster than they could become the best 3
ball juggler because of the situational advantage for isolated focus of
all resources toward this one thing which is easy to understand. Now, if
more people didn't believe that they could never juggle 7 clubs, though
they would like to, and instead worked on it, then the level at the top
would be much higher, and perhaps the situation would be different enough
to change my opinion.

I'm not really an 'Art vs Sport,' 'Science vs Speculation,' 'X is the only
true Way' kind of person. I like to use whatever works.

People who take sides on such issues can typically provide evidence of
their favored approach's superiority, which, to me, indicates that any of
them is incomplete without the others (barring redundancy).

In any case, I respect excellence independent of form.

Michael Falkov

[Jason Lu]

Maybe we mean different things by solid, but Mura solid is something a
step beyond. I've learned a few box variations and I still stand by that
nothing in there requires more than a week, even the more complicated
variations.

[Michael Falkov]

Every so often, a genius comes along and reframes some contentious issue
in an exceedingly clever manner which obviates the relevant essential
truth that all others were previously blind to, but which they can never
forget, once exposed.

Today, thatguy is that guy.

Also: lol ;P

Michael Falkov

[Peter K]

I am not sure how you are looking at the numbers. I would say that since
there are so many more 3 ball jugglers it is easier to be in the top 1% of
3 ball jugglers.

Overall I think that it would be harder to be the consensus best 3 ball
juggler, because people have different tastes and value different aspects
of 3 ball juggling. That being said, if I wanted to be considered by some
to be the best at one of the two, I would have a better chance at 3 balls.
I believe this despite the fact that I have already gotten 30 catches of
7 clubs and have spent very little time on 3 balls. Part of my thinking
is that I am in my mid-thirties and 3 balls in less taxing, also if I came
up with a different style even if it was not too difficult, I could be
considered by some to be the best at 3 balls (Chris Bliss).

Great thread!

Peter Kaseman

[Ben Thompson]

True - there may only be like...two people in the top 1% of the 7 club
juggler population just because there are so few of us. If Vova and
Anthony make up the whole top 1%, making it into that bracket is darn near
impossible. On the other hand, to make it into the top 1% in the 3 ball
juggling world you have to push through a field of thousands (not
necessarily any easier). Unfortunately, there's no easy answer to this
question.
For any of us to hope to be the best in either category is pretty much out
of the question anyway. Nobody will ever agree on who the best 3 ball
juggler is and running seven better than Anthony is safely out of reach
for any except maybe Vova. Personally, I'm closer to seven clubs than
three balls so that one seems more attainable to me. The goal that's
easier is the one that fits your style better.

[cheap159]

[url=http://www.cheaptnfsale.com/][b]Cheap north face jackets[/b][/url] is
a midweight fleece with excellent breathability. Finally, TKA 300 is a mid
to heavyweight, high performance fleece which can be worn all by itself
and still keep you warm and protected.There are many the north face
single track and I don’t blame you for feeling overwhelmed.

[url=http://www.thetruereligionoutlet.com/][b]true religion sale[/b][/url]
is very special kind of clothing, it is the main characteristics of life
is very long, and the value of the products with the increase of the life
also is increasing ceaselessly, that is the old jeans, is actually the
more valuable should, at the same time also jeans.

[Michael Falkov]

> >
> > FWIW, I think being among the top 1% of 3 ball jugglers is harder than
> > being among the top 1% of 7 club jugglers. I can also imagine someone
> > becoming the best 7 club juggler faster than they could become the best 3
> > ball juggler because of the situational advantage for isolated focus of
> > all resources toward this one thing which is easy to understand. Now, if
> > more people didn't believe that they could never juggle 7 clubs, though
> > they would like to, and instead worked on it, then the level at the top
> > would be much higher, and perhaps the situation would be different enough
> > to change my opinion.
>
> I am not sure how you are looking at the numbers. I would say that since
> there are so many more 3 ball jugglers it is easier to be in the top 1% of
> 3 ball jugglers.
>
> Overall I think that it would be harder to be the consensus best 3 ball
> juggler, because people have different tastes and value different aspects
> of 3 ball juggling. That being said, if I wanted to be considered by some
> to be the best at one of the two, I would have a better chance at 3 balls.
> I believe this despite the fact that I have already gotten 30 catches of
> 7 clubs and have spent very little time on 3 balls. Part of my thinking
> is that I am in my mid-thirties and 3 balls in less taxing, also if I came
> up with a different style even if it was not too difficult, I could be
> considered by some to be the best at 3 balls (Chris Bliss).
>
> Great thread!
>
> Peter Kaseman

Hi, Peter. :)

Ha! Yes, stupid error. Ironic, considering that I chose the range thinking
first of a top 100 > too easy for 7 clubs > 1%? > That fixes it. Print.

Of course, you're correct, learning something like 5 basic 3 ball patterns
[1] is trivial compared to even flashing 7 clubs, let alone being in the
top 1% of 7 club jugglers.

I'll say that I think becoming one of the 10 best 3 ball jugglers is
harder than becoming one of the 10 best 7 club jugglers [2].

I agree that being considered the best 3 ball juggler by some subset of
non-jugglers is easier than having the juggling community do the
considering.

I disagree that the added difficulty of being consensus best [3] is due to
varying personal interests re: 3 ball juggling.

For 7 club juggling, our metric is something like: consistent run length
of the cascade and maybe a few other patterns, including (or not)
transitions.

Using an analogous metric for 3 ball juggling, we wouldn't consider
non-technical factors. I suggest that there is one 3 ball juggler with
greater technical range and execution dynamics control than any other
contemporary 3 ball juggler [4] independent of a robust evaluation
metric's manifest existence or the number of jugglers assessed by one.

Regarding the physical taxation potential of 3 ball juggling, it is well
beyond human limits.

I am frequently covered in sweat and breathing heavy during my 3 ball
sessions, often having to take occasional breaks because some muscles are
so pumped that I start losing direct kinesthetic feedback from the
affected areas. I've brought my forearms, elbow flexors, hip flexors, and
calves to the point of cramping. I've brought my shoulders and foot
flexors to the point of searing burn. I've juggled 3 balls till I puked.
There are some techniques I work on that my shoulder can only power for a
few rounds, though I am in very good physical condition. I see many levels
beyond what I've done - far into the realm of
unsupportable-by-a-human-body - and I'm moving toward them. I've
occasionally been forced to stop training for a week or so due a shoulder
strain from pushing too hard without enough attention on my execution.

I like the thread too!

Michael Falkov

[1] An estimate based on the number of people I meet who can juggle 3
balls at all compared to the number of people I meet at
non-juggling-events who can juggle more than 5 patterns - well over 100:1.

[2] Decreasingly so as increasingly many people recognize 7 club juggling
as an attainable goal for themselves.

[3] I assume you mean the consensus to be coming from people who have
spent at least 10 hours (let's say) thinking about juggling, as would-be
Chris Bliss choosers likely outnumber jugglers. Serious 3 ball jugglers
would work well as a source of consensus too.

[4] As long as there is at least one. Also, equivalence is decreasingly
unlikely as the number of 3 ball jugglers decreases.

[Michael Falkov]

Rhidders wrote:
>
> Chris Noonan wrote:
> >
> > Some of you may have noticed the two opposing top comments on Vova's new
> > video:
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqYtPtfA1QI&feature=g-u
> > I'm reading some of the comments, and I'm becoming tempted to spam Vova's
> > awesome new video with my own opinions on the subject, so I thought it
> > might be better done here.
> > As I understand it, the basic argument thats arising is this: Is being the
> > best in the world at seven clubs more difficult than being the best in the
> > world at three balls?
> > What do you guys think?
> > (sorry if there has already been a thread about this, I thought I'd start
> > one in light of the new debate on Vova's video)
> >

> Some people would say 7 clubs are way more difficult to master than 3
> balls. Basic pattern wise, most definately. However, personally with
> regarding to invention of tricks both numbers and props can be as
> difficult to master and be the worlds best at.
>
> For example if you compare Vova to Michael Flakov. (ok maybe not the best
> comparison but it may make my point) Vova has got 7 club cascade solid, 7c
> 5 up 360 and other tricks which to most jugglers would think are
> impossible ish). Michael Falkov, the winner of the 3 ball freestyle at the
> last WJF...in my opinion was doing things that my eyes couldnt follow and
> hence my brain couldnt work out what he was doing. So in my opinion what

> Falkov was doing was more difficult.
>
> I hope that made some sense this early in the morning :D
>
>

Wow. Thanks! ^_^

It can be hard to understand unfamiliar juggling patterns or technique
sequences in real time, especially when they happen quickly and
immediately transition into other unfamiliar patterns. I independently
discovered a lot of what you saw in that routine, so likely unfamiliarity
may have played a significant role in it's incomprehensibility.

I'm happy to have triggered that experience in you, I love having it,
myself!

Michael Falkov

[Michael Falkov]

> Personally, I'm closer to [being the best at] seven clubs than

> three balls so that one seems more attainable to me.
>

You're even closer to being the best 8 or (closer still) 9 club juggler,
both of which sound substantially more impressive. ;D

How's that progressing? We're all waiting to congratulate you (though many
of us might not realize it yet)!

[Michael Falkov]

Adam Rowney wrote:

> > Just because you didn't understand it, doesn't mean that it's more
> > difficult. 1000 balls is easy to understand but hard to do. Magic tricks
> > are often hard to understand but easy to do.
> >
> > I'd say that difficulty can best be measured by the amount of time
> > required to learn the skill. So, all other things being equal, any two
> > tricks that took 5 years to learn are equally difficult, regardless of the
> > number of objects.
>
> Agreed. And for Falkov, I imagine any trick he learnt, he did so in hours,
> days or maybe weeks at the most. Learning 7 clubs takes many years of
> practise, and few achieve decent runs even with all that practise.
>
> But I think being a notable 3 ball juggler is being great at many tricks
> put together, in groups and routines, and being consistent at doing so.
> And this takes years.
>
> Which is harder? I think physically 7 clubs is more difficult. And
> mentally, complex 3 ball tricks are more difficult.
>

Adam Rowney wrote:

> > Just because you didn't understand it, doesn't mean that it's more
> > difficult. 1000 balls is easy to understand but hard to do. Magic tricks
> > are often hard to understand but easy to do.
> >
> > I'd say that difficulty can best be measured by the amount of time
> > required to learn the skill. So, all other things being equal, any two
> > tricks that took 5 years to learn are equally difficult, regardless of the
> > number of objects.
>
> Agreed. And for Falkov, I imagine any trick he learnt, he did so in hours,
> days or maybe weeks at the most. Learning 7 clubs takes many years of
> practise, and few achieve decent runs even with all that practise.
>
> But I think being a notable 3 ball juggler is being great at many tricks
> put together, in groups and routines, and being consistent at doing so.
> And this takes years.
>
> Which is harder? I think physically 7 clubs is more difficult. And
> mentally, complex 3 ball tricks are more difficult.
>

As Dan pointed out, you've overlooked the time it takes to develop the
foundation that allowed me to learn those things in those time periods. I
spend relatively little time directly working on patterns that I am
unlikely to make fairly rapid progress with, but I consistently cultivate
my foundation - pushing my boundaries and filling in the space.

I can usually imagine things to do in nearly any skill domain with
difficulty levels well beyond human capacity. So, difficulty and time to
learn are effectively infinite.

Juggling either 3 balls or 7 clubs can be as physically demanding as you
like, though it is much easier to approach your physical limit with 3
balls. The most advanced 3 ball juggling easily requires more cognitive
effort than 7 club juggling. Being a good 7 club juggler is mostly about
having exceptionally good control of tossing cascading 7s, especially
while holding other clubs [1], which requires a comparably insignificant
level of problem solving and conceptualization ability [2]. I want to
mention that I am in no way downplaying the difficulty or respectability
of juggling 7 clubs.

Michael Falkov

[1] You can be a good 7 club juggler with no tricks (these days), right?

[2] Though if those abilities are present as well, the learning rate may
be significantly accelerated.

[Little Paul]

On 2011-12-13, pumpkineater23 <pumpkin...@hotmail.com.nospam.com> wrote:
>
> Technique and style are often confused I think. Style is more individual,
> sometimes a reflection of the juggler. Technique should come first I
> think, then style.. is that right?

I think of technique as being internal to the juggling (it covers the
movements employed to make the trick work) and style as being external
(it covers the movements employed to make the trick look nice[0])

So technique is a fundamental upon which style can be built, but style[1]
can inform the choice of technique.

That's probably quite a subtle distinction, and I've struggled to put
it into words - but I know what I mean.

-Paul
[0] "flow" is an overused word, but is probably an apt one
[1] and prop choice, character
--
http://paulseward.com

[Guillermo Conde]

Just for the record, I know I should have said "I suggest you watch" or "I
suggest watching" instead, but it was late and suggest is one of those
tricky verbs :D

[pumpkineater23]

I wish I could say the same! I think I can feel when those box tricks are
solid. The most difficult aspect (for me) is keeping the horizontal and
diagonal throws wide and powerful enough to stay level and not sag. They
should 'ping' from hand to hand. The plain old inverted box, that many
jugglers will say is an easy one, gave me terrible trouble, I'm only just
starting to feel it, although I've been able to 'do it' for quite a long
time.

You do pick things up very quickly though Jason, quicker than most, and
far quicker than I've ever been able to do.


pete

[Paul Lind]

isaac wrote:
>
> I think an additional factor that needs to be taken into account is
> the amount of time it takes one to begin down the path of being a 7-
> club god, versus a 3-ball wizard.
>
> To even get to the point of working with seven clubs as a serious
> endeavor (i.e. having a very strong foundation on which to begin, not
> just sloppily chucking up props) will take upwards of 3 years of
> dedicated practice. Then another 3+ years is likely required to become
> truly fluent with 7 clubs, the way that Vova and Gatto have become.
> This is 3+ years even if you are a prodigy!
>
> In contrast, one can begin learning a wide assortment of 3 ball tricks
> as soon as they can juggle. The barrier to entry is lower, there isn't
> a clear trick demarcating your success and you will build gradually
> toward being the best. Whereas there are many routes to becoming one
> of the best 3 ball jugglers in the world, there is really only one to
> becoming a 7 club juggler - dedicated practice.
>
> Now, I'm not saying that 3 ball juggling doesn't require dedicated
> practice, just that it doesn't require dedicated practice towards one
> singular accomplishment. I believe this fact in particular makes 7
> clubs a more mentally taxing endeavor. Trying to learn 7 clubs is a
> war of attrition fought against yourself day in and day out, you will
> have off days, off weeks, perhaps, that you need to plow through in
> order to succeed. With 3 balls, however, you can have an off day with
> a trick, but this does not define your entire practice session the way
> an off day with 7 clubs does, simply because you can work on one of
> the hundreds of other 3 ball tricks you are aiming toward.
>
> To the many people that say that 3 balls is more difficult than seven
> clubs in that it requires the development of style (which I agree
> with), I counter-argue that 7 clubs is more difficult than 3 balls
> because it necessitates the development of boar-headed stubbornness in
> the belief that someday, years down the line, you will be able to do
> this one trick. In the same way that not everyone expresses the
> ability to be a creative 3 ball juggler, not everyone expresses the
> dedication needed to be a 7 club juggler. Neither trait is inherently
> more difficult to possess than the other.
>
> Finally, as an ex-beginner-7 club juggler and a decent enough 3 ball
> juggler, I'm interested in learning some of these 3 ball tricks that
> take enormous amounts of time to learn (comparable in some way to 7
> clubs). What are some of them? (Hopefully they aren't all box-
> variations, I'm a bit sick of seeing those)
>
> - Isaac
>
>

Hi Isaac,

Here are some examples for hard tricks with 3 balls:

One of my favorites possibilities to create a really hard trick is to take
a simple one and take it to the extreme.
One nice example is the trick where you do a cascade with one hand behind
the head throwing and catching. It's more or less simple if you do high
throws with the hand behind the head and the other hand is low and near
the body. It's much harder with lower throws. Finally it's an advanced
trick with both hands on the same height, one arm is straight, you throw
only with the wrist and the throws are nearly horizontal.

Other tricks for years are most of the more advanced bodycatches. In most
cases they are not so hard if you are doing these catches as a one or two.
But especially the fours are often very hard.

An nice one which looks not so extreme difficult is a two throw behind the
back and catch blind behind the shoulder. It’s not so hard to do it
several times but to do it safe is very hard. I don’t know any juggler who
has really mastered that throw.

Or other examples are all the variations with long throws behind the head,
where you don’t look on the side where you catch the ball.

Greetings Paul

[david leahy]

Lewis Kennedy wrote:

> Erm…… I think!!! you have to be very physically and mentally strong to be
> able to juggling 7 clubs. I also think you have to be a intelligent
> person. (well, that being said, I don’t know any un intelligent person). I
> don’t think there really is anyone like that in the world. People just
> think about things differently. Maybe me a lesbane and don’t understand.
> But don’t get me wrong I think anyone can learn 7clubs, if they put there
> mind to it and they get the right help on the way. its just mentally
> DISABLED!!!!!!!!

Really? Why do you think that? I think it's quite clear you don't have to
be physically strong to juggle 7 clubs. Take David Haslam as an example;
he's very skinny. Most people probably struggle due to the awkwardness of
the grip. Failing that, just go to the gym a little?

>
> I don’t agree on this one, hope that’s ok. Sorry!!!
> Im sure anyone can be the best with 3 balls. Everyone can be imaginative
> and creative, if they want to be and think about it in the right way!!!
> But! What does the BEST actually mean with 3 balls? Just a question for
> everyone to think about it.
>

I don't agree with you on this one either, Lewis. What makes you believe
anyone could become the best at 3 balls? How does 3 balls differ to 7
clubs? I believe due to the nature of how easy 3 ball cascade is, more
people will carry on to juggle 3. This means more people will be competing
for the "best". If more people are doing it, the skill level will rise. 7
clubs is so hard to start with that it puts people off even trying.

Going back to my previous point. There are many 3 ball jugglers who have a
far better aptitude than I do when it comes to 3 ball juggling. This means
no matter how hard I try, people with less practice than me will be able
to progress faster than I can. The same argument can be applied for 7
clubs but with fewer people it should, statistically, make it easier to
become the best (although, i think in our personalised case, this might
not be true due to how exceptional Anthony and Vova seemingly are).

Dave

[Little Paul]

On 2011-12-13, david leahy <dave_...@hotmail.co.uk.nospam.com> wrote:
>
> Take David Haslam as an example; he's very skinny.

skinny does not always equal weak

Some of the strongest people I know are stick thin, but can crank out
single handed chin ups using just two fingers.

So just because David isn't bulky, doesn't mean he's not strong.

-Paul
Why yes, they are climbers. Why do you ask?
--
http://paulseward.com

[david leahy]

Ok, take me for an example then. I'm not strong and I can do 7 clubs
fine(strength wise).

[jimhatfield]

That'll be 'coz they are stick thin ! Harder when your fat !

[Peter Bone]

I was going to give climbers as an example of skinny strong people as well
(Adam Ondra). I do think you do need to be strong to run 7 clubs. Firstly
Dave, you must be quite strong - you do ridiculously high throws with
balls. Secondly, if you can't run 7 clubs then how do you know you're
strong enough? It takes more strength than just being able to throw them
up to be able to control them well. I'd say that strength is the main
limiting factor for numbers juggling in general.
Pete

[pumpkineater23]

Would you say that other kinds of strength exercise (weights etc) are a
necessity, or advantage, for everyone who aims to be a top numbers juggler
or is the juggling practice enough?



pete

[Robin]

> > there are tricks with 3 balls that could take as long to learn as a 7 club
> > 5 up 360.

Guillermo Conde wrote:

> Really?? Could you please tell us one, or even two?

How about constant through the legs (the run) whilst standing in a free
balancing headstand? That's a 3 ball trick that's certainly possible and I
reckon would take a good few years to get solid. Or a 3up pirouette in a
headstand? Simply balance on your head whilst juggling an upside down (for
you) cascade, throw all three balls high, do a quick 360 headspin and then
catch the balls juggling again. How about a 2stage? or a whirlwind in the
same way? Three balls is often limited to your imagination. You can make
it as hard as you like.

Robin

[Robin]

Little Paul wrote:

>
> I think of technique as being internal to the juggling (it covers the
> movements employed to make the trick work) and style as being external
> (it covers the movements employed to make the trick look nice[0])
>
> So technique is a fundamental upon which style can be built, but style[1]
> can inform the choice of technique.
>
> That's probably quite a subtle distinction, and I've struggled to put
> it into words - but I know what I mean.
>
> -Paul
> [0] "flow" is an overused word, but is probably an apt one
> [1] and prop choice, character

I thought you expressed it wonderfully.

[david leahy]

Are my high throws due to my strength? I would have thought the speed of
my arms were the main factor (I'm aware this is proportional to strength
but less massive arms will lead to less force needed for the same
results). I have done 20 throws of 7 clubs and the effort required never
felt like much. Honestly, the effort needed for 7 clubs seems to be far
less than 9 balls. I don't believe there are many people born without the
chance to be strong enough to do 7 clubs.

I'm not certain if power is the main limiting factor for numbers. There
is clearly a trade off between power and speed. Then again, from my
experiences, it feels impossible to do 13 balls only using speed and power
feels a lot more useful.

Dave

[Adam Rowney]

Oh I agree that learning the foundation would take years. But learning the
foundation for 7 clubs would take years too (ie 3 clubs, 4 clubs, 5 clubs,
tricks, etc). I am talking strictly about the act of learning 7 clubs when
you are at that stage, and learning new 3 ball tricks when you are at that
stage. I would never expect someone who just learnt 3 ball cascade to
learn complex 3 ball tricks quickly, just as much as I would not expect
someone who just learnt 3 clubs to start attempting 7.

[Adam Rowney]

JugglerPeter wrote:

>
> Adam Rowney wrote:
> >
> And for Falkov, I imagine any trick he learnt, he did so in hours,
> > days or maybe weeks at the most. Learning 7 clubs takes many years of
> > practise, and few achieve decent runs even with all that practise.
> >
>
> >

> That is a very dismissive attitude toward the difficulty of 3 ball
> juggling.

Perhaps there is a single 3 ball tricks that takes many years to achieve
that I have never seen before? I don't think it is dismissive, just more
realistic in my opinion. The tricks I see juggled, I highly doubt those
person have spent many years on that single trick. This is why a 7 club
juggler could spend years on a single pattern, yet the great 3 ball
jugglers have many impressive 3 ball tricks.

[d_n_b]

I understand what you mean, and I agree. I would add that since 3-ball
patterns can be made arbitrarily difficult (while still remaining within
the range of "possible"), and that since 7-club cascade has a fixed
difficulty level, we could design a 3-ball pattern to be more difficult
than 7-club cascade. This says nothing of the overall difficulty of 3b vs
7c, only of the potential for 3 balls to range from arbitrarily easy to
arbitrary difficult -- and 7c cascade falls somewhere within that spectrum.

Dan

[Paul Lind]

I think the learning progress of hard 3 ball tricks and seven clubs are
more equal. By three balls you learn first a simple trick. Then some more
advanced variations of this trick. And then some more advanced variations
of the variations…
That means in the moment where you are able to learn that specific 3 ball
trick you have already spent years of juggling to learn it.
That’s obviously the same thing with seven clubs.

[Lewis Kennedy]

david leahy wrote:
>
> Lewis Kennedy wrote:
>
> > Erm…… I think!!! you have to be very physically and mentally strong to be
> > able to juggling 7 clubs. I also think you have to be a intelligent
> > person. (well, that being said, I don’t know any un intelligent person). I
> > don’t think there really is anyone like that in the world. People just
> > think about things differently. Maybe me a lesbane and don’t understand.
> > But don’t get me wrong I think anyone can learn 7clubs, if they put there
> > mind to it and they get the right help on the way. its just mentally
> > DISABLED!!!!!!!!
>
> Really? Why do you think that? I think it's quite clear you don't have to
> be physically strong to juggle 7 clubs. Take David Haslam as an example;
> he's very skinny. Most people probably struggle due to the awkwardness of
> the grip. Failing that, just go to the gym a little?

wow. lol dave im liking the anger. or maybe im just reading it wrong.
hahaha
I love to see gatto try and break his 4min 7 club record with arms like
david.
I love david, hes is ASTONISHING. but can he really juggle 7 clubs!!!
im not saying he crap, good god. hes bluddy 15 and the best technical club
juggler in Britain (except toby) and hes my main man!!!

also when I said you have to be ‘very physically and mentally strong’, I
wasn’t meaning just the arms. I havn’t seen a heavy main man juggle
7clubs. (this doesn’t mean I think my heavy main man can’t juggle 7c, if
you have the drive to juggle 7c, you will probably try a number of
different things to help, and one will probably be getting physically
fitter.)

I think you need to hav a certain amount of fitness, not just to keep 7c
in the air but the fitness to practice the amount u need to, to be able to
learn to juggle 7c.
if that makes any sence.

> >
> > I don’t agree on this one, hope that’s ok. Sorry!!!
> > Im sure anyone can be the best with 3 balls. Everyone can be imaginative
> > and creative, if they want to be and think about it in the right way!!!
> > But! What does the BEST actually mean with 3 balls? Just a question for
> > everyone to think about it.
> >
>
> I don't agree with you on this one either, Lewis. What makes you believe
> anyone could become the best at 3 balls?

because we r all the same in sooooooooooo many ways. some people might
find it easier than others though.

> How does 3 balls differ to 7
> clubs?

I believe I said anyone can learn to juggle 7 clubs or 3 balls with
practice and training. I don’t think 3balls differs to 7clubs.

> I believe due to the nature of how easy 3 ball cascade is, more
> people will carry on to juggle 3. This means more people will be competing
> for the "best". If more people are doing it, the skill level will rise. 7
> clubs is so hard to start with that it puts people off even trying.
>
> Going back to my previous point. There are many 3 ball jugglers who have a
> far better aptitude than I do when it comes to 3 ball juggling. This means
> no matter how hard I try, people with less practice than me will be able
> to progress faster than I can.

I think you can learn to get a better aptitude when it comes to 3 balls if
you put the time into it. then u will progress faster than the other 3ball
jugglers, cause you already have a high technical juggling skill (hope
that makes sence.)
maybe if u were brought into the juggling world differently or at a
different time. you will be the best 3ball juggler in the world and think
you will not every progress in spins or numbers as other might,
dave ur INSANELY TALENTED. u can do anything.

> The same argument can be applied for 7
> clubs but with fewer people it should, statistically, make it easier to
> become the best (although, i think in our personalised case, this might
> not be true due to how exceptional Anthony and Vova seemingly are).
>
> Dave
>

hope all this crap makes sense dave.
btw josh is back soon. defo come and juggle in leeds. ill get some courts
booked. tiffy, calum, benny the henny, maybe jason back. (if u read this
jason. let us know my main man).
video time maybe!!!

Louise

[Lewis Kennedy]

> I think you can learn to get a better aptitude when it comes to 3 balls if
> you put the time into it. then u will progress faster than the other 3ball
> jugglers, cause you already have a high technical juggling skill (hope
> that makes sence.)

maybe a good example of this would be harvaad.

[Jason Lu]

pumpkineater23 wrote:
> I wish I could say the same! I think I can feel when those box tricks are
> solid. The most difficult aspect (for me) is keeping the horizontal and
> diagonal throws wide and powerful enough to stay level and not sag. They
> should 'ping' from hand to hand. The plain old inverted box, that many
> jugglers will say is an easy one, gave me terrible trouble, I'm only just
> starting to feel it, although I've been able to 'do it' for quite a long
> time.
>
> You do pick things up very quickly though Jason, quicker than most, and
> far quicker than I've ever been able to do.
>
>
> pete
>

Actually, I think inverted box is one of the hardest box tricks, opposite
to what Dan thinks. It requires some quite awkward movement, and a lot of
practice to get as you mentioned, horizontal and powerful. Most of the
more complicated variations were quite easy to master. Once they clicked,
you could do it.

Keep at it Pete, I'm pretty sure you could pick them all up fairly quickly.

J

[d_n_b]

Jason Lu wrote:
>
> pumpkineater23 wrote:
> > I wish I could say the same! I think I can feel when those box tricks are
> > solid. The most difficult aspect (for me) is keeping the horizontal and
> > diagonal throws wide and powerful enough to stay level and not sag. They
> > should 'ping' from hand to hand. The plain old inverted box, that many
> > jugglers will say is an easy one, gave me terrible trouble, I'm only just
> > starting to feel it, although I've been able to 'do it' for quite a long
> > time.
> >
> > You do pick things up very quickly though Jason, quicker than most, and
> > far quicker than I've ever been able to do.
> >
> >
> > pete
> >
>
> Actually, I think inverted box is one of the hardest box tricks, opposite
> to what Dan thinks. It requires some quite awkward movement, and a lot of
> practice to get as you mentioned, horizontal and powerful.

You're right about upside down/inverted box; I don't think it's easy to
learn. It took me a long time to get extended runs, and even longer to
feel always comfortable with it. The muscle memory for the hand
orientation developed slowly, and during some practices I'd forget the
subtleties that made it work previously (e.g., turn left wrist outward
more to straighten left column; focus on unifying the movements in a
certain way; etc.).

I lumped that pattern into the "easy" category, because it's a vanilla box
variation where columns remain in fixed positions and hands don't switch
sides. Patterns meeting those criteria might be "Box Patterns, first
tier," or something like that, since they use more fundamental building
blocks and shapes than the weirder ones.[1]

I also called it "easy" because I see upside down box as a base pattern
now rather than a trick itself. This view is dependent on my own
experience with and awareness of patterns that use it as the base.

The most difficult variation of the basic box family might be reverse
slams on both sides, especially if you aim to keep everything in the same
plane and draw a coherent shape. In some ways it's like upside down box
with a pull-down added on the sides, although it feels quite different.

> Most of the
> more complicated variations were quite easy to master. Once they clicked,
> you could do it.

After getting the base patterns solid, it becomes fairly easy to string
them together in any order, and opens up access to many branches of
patterns (without restriction to box).

When I was thinking about complicated variations, I meant tiers well
beyond the first. The "one week to learn a box variation" statement led me
to ask the question:
Are there things you can do with siteswap (4,2x)* that will take virtually
anyone more than a week to learn? I think yes. (Here's a freaky thought:
Murakami patterns two years into the future.)

> Keep at it Pete, I'm pretty sure you could pick them all up fairly quickly.

Indeed. Even if progress seems slow, don't worry. I believe this is some
of the best stuff for the 3b brain. It forces you to really think about
the details of your movements, and iron out flaws you might otherwise not
perceive or which didn't manifest in less volatile patterns. Also: Timing!

Dan


[1] Although I had also mentioned broken box, which does not fall into
this category.

[Peter Bone]

I think it would be possible to become a top numbers juggler by just
juggling but you would have to do it a lot. There comes a point in all
sports when you start to reach the limit where just doing the activity
alone doesn't help and will lead to a plateau. Specific training done in
the correct way will help a lot. I've read quite a lot about this recently
relating to climbing.
I used to do some weights and simulated the kind of movements done while
juggling. You need to target the right muscles and the right kind of
activation. I think there are other options than weights. Alex Barron
seems to have benefited from rowing.
Pete

[Poor-]

thatguy wrote:
>
> Chris Noonan wrote:
> >
> > Some of you may have noticed the two opposing top comments on Vova's new
> > video:
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqYtPtfA1QI&feature=g-u
> > I'm reading some of the comments, and I'm becoming tempted to spam Vova's
> > awesome new video with my own opinions on the subject, so I thought it
> > might be better done here.
> > As I understand it, the basic argument thats arising is this: Is being the
> > best in the world at seven clubs more difficult than being the best in the
> > world at three balls?
> > What do you guys think?
> > (sorry if there has already been a thread about this, I thought I'd start
> > one in light of the new debate on Vova's video)
> >
>

> The answer seems relatively obvious to me. How many people do you know of
> who can do a 3 up with 7 clubs?
>
> How many people do you know who can do a 7 up with 3 balls?
>
> 3 balls is more difficult.
>

I would imagine it's just as easy as doing a Mountain Dew with 3 balls.

[David Cherepov]

Little Paul wrote:
>
> On 2011-12-12, JugglerPeter <peter.b...@gmail.com.nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> > That's because your n is too small. Lets not use twins (too much
> > variation), lets use clones, and lets use 200 - 100 will be trained to
> > juggle 3 balls by Murakami, and Stefan Sing. The other 100 will be
> > trained to juggle 7 clubs by Vova and Anthony Gatto. I think after these
> > children have come to maturity there will be an end to the debate.
>
> In my experience, you'll put all that effort in, train up all those
> kids, come to a conclusion...
>
> Then 2 days later some unknown 15 year old comes out of nowhere who
> kicks everyones arse at 3 balls and 7 clubs and also happens to be
> awesome with 4 diabolos
Screw 4 diabolos, he just went straight to 10 diabolos and 10 clubs, right
away

[Adam Rowney]

I must confess I disagree with this completely. If I was to learn a really
simple 3 ball trick or variation right now, which took me 1 minute to
learn, I would not say that the trick took me 5 years to learn, even if it
is a similar trick in many ways. The last 5 years of juggling will of
course have helped me learn that trick faster, but so has the last 26
years of using my arms.

[pjgpv]

I agree with Paul actually.
The very very difficult tricks to do with low numbers (I'm going to make a
move and include 4 balls into this, because though it's a minor moving of
the goal posts, it makes the point a little more relevant) that you see
Jon Peat, Dave Kelly, Michael Falkov, Murakami and all the rest of the top
level 'pure' jugglers (pure simply means straight toss juggling. No real
quantifiable dance influences, no balances or contact-y business) doing
are serious, painstaking, hour-consuming difficult tricks. They're
variations on variations and done with so much time and practice and, most
importantly for small numbers, creativity that you simply cannot ignore
the process of learning.

When looking at 7 clubs, all we see is a cascade. There's all the
complementary difficulties with that: how to hold and release that number
of clubs; the strength it takes to maintain that pattern or even start it
for long enough for it to be recognisable; the control of the spin to make
sure it's as simple as possible. But these are problems one has with a 3
club cascade, to a much lesser extent.

Learning 7 clubs is a process of learning a 3club cascade, then adding a
variation to a 5 club cascade (usually with the stepping stone of 4 club
fountain) and then making it harder still by going from 6 club to 7 club.
Nobody can (or possibly more accurately, will) learn 7 clubs without first
learning 3 clubs in the same way that nobody can (read as: will) learn
Rubenstein's revenge with penguin catches without first learning mill's
mess.

Also, I'm not sure I understood this point: "... which took me 1 minute to
learn, I would not say that the trick took me 5 years to learn..."
That's a tautology, surely?

I hope all that made sense.

[pjgpv]

That is the most efficiently and effectively I've heard the argument
summed up. Very good work.

[Adam Rowney]

learning the motor skills to feed themselves or scratch their own butt,
but I wouldn't count that as part of the learning curve of learning to
juggle 7 clubs. Extreme example perhaps, but I think valid.

> Also, I'm not sure I understood this point: "... which took me 1 minute to
> learn, I would not say that the trick took me 5 years to learn..."
> That's a tautology, surely?

No, not tautology, as the quote is referencing Paul's point that a new
complex trick, even if learnt in weeks, would be counted as having been
learnt in the years of build up on lesser variations.

[Paul Lind]

But if the stuff you learnt before doesn’t count, then it would be also
possible to learn seven clubs very fast. Imagine a juggler who never tried
seven clubs. But he learnt stuff like continuous 5 ups, 5 club snake and a
lot of other hard tricks with 5 or 6 clubs. And he has these tricks
really solid. In this hypothetical case I think it would be possible to
learn seven clubs in hours.
In reality we are all so extremely fascinated by high numbers that most
jugglers start with n+1 or even n+2 long before they have really mastered
n.
Once I saw a juggler who tried for his first time seven rings. Before his
first try he was already an extreme good seven ball juggler and did some
hard 5 ring tricks. His first try with seven was more a qualify... Does
this mean that seven rings are easy?

[Lewis Kennedy]

wow this is a interesting and cool topic.
good post Paul Lind!!!

[Adam Rowney]

You raise some good points, and I can see what you are saying. I must
admit, I still would see that person as having learnt 7 clubs in a few
hours as suggested above. I guess in this case, there is no real answer,
just matters of opinions. Certainly both arguments will play on my mind
for a while.

Oh, and regarding the last paragraph. In my opinion, that means that
single juggler is just extremely talented already, and the overall base
for jugglers (and their ability to juggle (or not juggle) 7 rings) proves
that it is indeed still difficult. Just because one person finds something
easy does not make it easy.

[Paul Lind]

You're right and he is also extremely talented. But the gist of the matter
is that he did the qualify with 7 rings so easily because he learnt so
much other hard stuff before.

I think that also not so extremely talented jugglers could learn seven
rings very fast. If they learnt first all the stuff which he mastered
before his first try of seven rings. Ok, you need perhaps a lot of talent
to learn stuff like 7 ball 7 up, 933... :)

[Reuben]

Brook Roberts wrote:
>
> Guillermo Conde wrote:

> >
> > CamStradeski wrote:
> > >
> > > Chris Noonan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Some of you may have noticed the two opposing top comments on Vova's
new
> > > > video:
> > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqYtPtfA1QI&feature=g-u
> > > > I'm reading some of the comments, and I'm becoming tempted to spam
Vova's
> > > > awesome new video with my own opinions on the subject, so I thought it
> > > > might be better done here.
> > > > As I understand it, the basic argument thats arising is this: Is being
> the
> > > > best in the world at seven clubs more difficult than being the best in
> the
> > > > world at three balls?
> > > > What do you guys think?
> > > > (sorry if there has already been a thread about this, I thought I'd
start
> > > > one in light of the new debate on Vova's video)
> > > >
> > >

> > > Well my opinion might be slightly biased since I'm a low numbers juggler,
> > > but I think being the best at 3 balls is a harder goal to achieve. As
> > > pointed out in some earlier posts, there is a much larger scope for
tricks
> > > with 3 balls as you aren't limited to the tight constraints of 7 clubs.
> > >
> > > It's true that with 7 clubs you spend longer learning each trick, but

> > > there are tricks with 3 balls that could take as long to learn as a 7
club
> > > 5 up 360.
> >

> > Really?? Could you please tell us one, or even two?
> >
>

> I would also definitely appreciate an example of an individual trick that
> someone can do with 3 balls that would take a year or so to learn.
>
>

Three ball triplex squeeze

Fastest trick in the world (done properly).

Drop throughs in 522 continuously.

[Brook Roberts]

Thanks! A 543 squeeze?
And what are drop throughs?

[Michael Falkov]

__________________________________________
--------------...and then...--------------
``````````````````````````````````````````

Before Dan responded to it,

Adam Rowney wrote:
>
> Oh I agree that learning the foundation would take years. But learning the
> foundation for 7 clubs would take years too (ie 3 clubs, 4 clubs, 5 clubs,
> tricks, etc). I am talking strictly about the act of learning 7 clubs when
> you are at that stage, and learning new 3 ball tricks when you are at that
> stage. I would never expect someone who just learnt 3 ball cascade to
> learn complex 3 ball tricks quickly, just as much as I would not expect
> someone who just learnt 3 clubs to start attempting 7.

IIRC, you're into pattern variety and numbers, so I figured that you
didn't not think the foundation for either would typically [1] take years
to develop.

Further thoughts...

The time when someone decides to start working on either 7 clubs, or one
of the most difficult 3 ball patterns done is a personal choice
independent of their level of technical ability - depending on how those
variables correlate, the task will be anywhere from ridiculously easy to
ridiculously difficult.

To illustrate for 7 clubs being easy:

Let' say that someone starts learning 7 clubs after becoming very
comfortable with 4 club in either hand flashes, a few each of both 5 club
siteswaps with three consecutive 7s or 9s and 6 club siteswaps with 3
consecutive 7s, 9s, or Bs (no, really), with and without all-prop-up
pirouettes. If this person were to start practicing 7 clubs, I think they
would progress with unheard of speed. Given sufficient juggling ability
and none involving >=7 clubs, 7 club patterns could be easy to play with
from the first day.

Someone at a level of relevant competency beyond that required to learn -
but unlearned of - some process within some skill domain will find doing
so easy relative to their peers who lack that degree of competency. If one
of their peers is unaware of this person's level of development prior to
quickly learning this process and is understandably awed by witnessing the
occurrence, that peer is misunderstanding the situation and their respect
is misdirected toward inherent ability and away from cultivated ability -
though both may be present.

An extreme example, yes - I'm just saying that prior experience and
ability level affect learning curves and can vary widely among people who
try to do stuff.

Let's try isolating technical foundation from relevance to the question.

Imagine an average non-juggler, 20 years old, with neither background in
physically coordinating their body nor analyzing patterns beyond what is
required for standard daily tasks which can be performed by nearly any
person in a modern area of a 1st world country. In one universe, this
person, using the most suitable standard prop, attempts to achieve a 7
club flash in quads and in an otherwise identical universe, attempts to
flash a 7 toss (excluding 2s and 0s) sequence with 3 similarly suitable
balls, requiring at least 7 changes in attention [2] with varied timing
and a high overall level of varied, subjective unintuitiveness.

Neither of this person learns any other juggling patterns or anything that
would improve their ability to learn any kind of jugglery - unless
emergent directly from their training - from the point of starting toward
their ambitious goal to the point of achieving it. The juggler works only
on the deconstructed elements of either goal and doesn't even think about
easier patterns which involve elements not part of their target pattern,
unless the element arises from a non-tossed 2 or a lack of elements
entailed by the goal [3].

If this person doesn't age and continues to train until they succeed, in
which universe will the success happen first, or at all?

The 3 ball pattern can be made to take this person an infinite amount of
time to reach given the constraints of its schema and their physiology -
all else being equal, the same is not true of 7 clubs. Once a quad 7 can
be consistently tossed and caught with sufficient accuracy for the
7cCascade from either hand while it holds 0,1, or 2 other clubs, and at
least one hand can do it while holding 3 other clubs, then it's just a
matter of learning a constant toss rate that will let the pattern form and
collapse uniformly - which will be easy due to their sufficient ability to
toss quad 7s.

[1] A task's difficulty seems to be a function of the doer's completeness
of understanding a an available process that will complete it. Many
patterns were incomprehensible to me at one point, became clear to me at
another, and grow increasingly obvious as my understanding of method and
model mature. I think I could guide most people from unfamiliarity to
unconscious competency in significantly less time than it took me to
arrive there if they wanted that. What the limits to learning speed might
be, are not clear to me.

[2] Attention toward things like: focal area; position and orientation of
prop to prop, prop to body, or body to body; rhythm; auditory cues (which
may be required practically, if not in principle).

[3] For example: Working on a flash of 7277207 - Not the siteswap, but
the sequence of tosses made via vanilla SS execution, starting with 3
clubs in one hand and one in the other. Non-7cCascade elements include an
initial release of a 7 from a hand holding fewer than 3 other clubs (2, in
this case), the later 7 made from the hand that starts with only 1 club,
and the timing issue due to the 2s and 0.

After Rowney wrote,
Dan responded thusly:

>
>Adam Rowney wrote:
> >
> > Oh I agree that learning the foundation would take years. But learning the
> > foundation for 7 clubs would take years too (ie 3 clubs, 4 clubs, 5 clubs,
> > tricks, etc). I am talking strictly about the act of learning 7 clubs when
> > you are at that stage, and learning new 3 ball tricks when you are at that
> > stage. I would never expect someone who just learnt 3 ball cascade to
> > learn complex 3 ball tricks quickly, just as much as I would not expect
> > someone who just learnt 3 clubs to start attempting 7.
>
> I understand what you mean, and I agree. I would add that since 3-ball
> patterns can be made arbitrarily difficult (while still remaining within
> the range of "possible"), and that since 7-club cascade has a fixed
> difficulty level, we could design a 3-ball pattern to be more difficult
> than 7-club cascade. This says nothing of the overall difficulty of 3b vs
> 7c, only of the potential for 3 balls to range from arbitrarily easy to
> arbitrary difficult -- and 7c cascade falls somewhere within that spectrum.
>
> Dan
>

(Hi. :)

Of course you knew what you beat me to:

Pointing out the ostensibly occult insight, that 3 ball patterns can made
ever harder - infinitely - and that we aren't even close to the limits,
while any 7 club pattern that has been done, will be done within a decade,
or at any point in time will only be possible. The same is true for 3
balls, of course, and 7 club patterns can even more easily be made as hard
as you want. The potential difficulty of either is whatever.

I want to add that within a distance of, say, arms reach, there are only a
limited number of significantly perceptible differences in ways that body
and standard props can fill the space or change relative to each other or
themselves within a given time period and with some fastest speed of one
or more part of either. A number - limited mostly by speed and the ability
of the involved materials to generate, respond to, and withstand it -
which is still !!!HUGE!!! well within the realm of possibility. As more of
the slower possibilities are discovered, further evolution will
increasingly involve an overall increase in speed and it's dynamic range
of expression.

If the accelerating trend of juggler population growth and rapidly
accelerating progress in increasingly many areas continues, then 3 ball
juggling will be pushed farther and in more ways, sooner than 7 clubs.
There are more juggling concepts and combinations than seem likely to ever
be explored, especially deeply and by any one person, and more of them are
accessible through 3 balls. The practical infinitude of styles (sub-styles
(recursive sub-ing of styles)) and difficulty implies the eventuality of
increasingly many man-hours poured into an unapproachably large (trying
seems appealing anyway) number of very specific and increasingly
sophisticated or extreme styles at a time when only a few jugglers have
ever run, lets say, 50 7 club patterns. While I think it will always be
possible for some person to stand out as clearly beyond everyone else in
some category, conceiving of how a person might actually do it becomes
difficult more quickly for 3 balls than for 7 clubs.

Michael Falkov

P.S. I'll show you my new boxes if you show me yours. :P

[Michael Falkov]

Whoops! What I meant to say was:

"Hmm, I think the foundation is too significant to downplay, but I don't
have much else to say."

Then I accidentally slipped and fell repeatedly on my keyboard, fingertips
first. It all happened in a flash and the original message must have been
lost in the chaos.

What a strange reality we are embedded in...

[Mats1]

Michael Falkov wrote:
>
> > Personally, I'm closer to [being the best at] seven clubs than
> > three balls so that one seems more attainable to me.
> >
>
> You're even closer to being the best 8 or (closer still) 9 club juggler,
> both of which sound substantially more impressive. ;D
>
> How's that progressing? We're all waiting to congratulate you (though many
> of us might not realize it yet)!
>

Is that really more impressive? I think long, solid runs of 7 clubs and
tricks with 7 clubs (crotch throws! 7 up 360s, backcrosses) is VERY
impressive stuff.

[Mats1]

Becoming the best at 7 clubs is obviously the most difficult because Gatto
juggles 7 clubs but never does 3 ball work and no-one is catching Gatto.

[Michael Falkov]

That depends on who the audience is. Let's say Ben is the first person to
flash 9 clubs, the most anyone has done. Then, he is the best and only 9
club juggler in the world, ever. To most people who don't know much about
juggling, that sounds better than a 7 club whatever. The same goes for for
Alex Barron vs Anthony Gatto to someone who doesn't know any better - 13
ball world record vs 9 ball world record.

I'd easily take a solid 7 club or 9 ball cascade over a 9 club flash or
new 13 ball record in terms of the positive effect I think either would
have on my overall juggling ability.

Still, what juggler wouldn't like to have the longest, and especially the
first run ever using the highest number of standard props? Maybe someone
wouldn't feel like spending the time on it, because it's too frustrating
to practice, or they just enjoy other things more - nearly every juggler -
but as desirable juggling achievements go, first to flash a number is more
historically historically epic than qualifying 7 club crotch madness.

[thegoheads]

Michael Falkov wrote:
> I am frequently covered in sweat and breathing heavy during my 3 ball
> sessions, often having to take occasional breaks because some muscles are
> so pumped that I start losing direct kinesthetic feedback from the
> affected areas. I've brought my forearms, elbow flexors, hip flexors, and
> calves to the point of cramping. I've brought my shoulders and foot
> flexors to the point of searing burn. I've juggled 3 balls till I puked.

I'm reminded of when you were obsessively running through your WJF 3 ball
routine last July :) You looked like you were about to drown in a pool of
your own sweat, I was exhausted just from watching!

-Steve

[Michael Falkov]

Lol, yeah. You've seen what I was talking about. My shirt was completely
drenched within 20-30 min of entering the gym.

There was a time when I was eating enough for an active athlete weighing
50 lbs more than me with 10% body-fat while I was maybe 4 or 5% bf with an
unflexed, visible 8-pack. My only training was (full body) juggling.

I think Peter has seen me expend a lot of energy via juggling too, though
maybe not to the same extent. If he hasn't spent much time doing or
thinking about 3 ball juggling, I understand what seemed to be a
misunderstanding of it's non-existant limits.

I think that I might come across sort of cold in text sometimes, without
my personality and body language indicating that despite my technical
lexicon and verbal style, I am not a hard nosed, judgmental pedant.

I want to throw some props at Peter (don't worry, I know he can catch
them) for being one of the best numbers passers alive. Also, IIRC, he is a
distance runner, so I bet he could handle relatively high energy 3 ball
juggling for at least as long (age/health-wise) as he can juggle 7 clubs.

:)

Michael Falkov