# Talk:Juggling

Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Games
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of game related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Circus (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Circus. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

## Five Balls

Love the photo of the five ball juggling. Never have been able to master that one! --Geezerpoop (talk) 04:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

## Removed Image

I removed this image from the article as I feel it does not portray juggling in the same way that the article does. This image depicts juggling and clowning. The two are clearly closely related arts, however this article describes juggling as an art in its own right. However, on skimming over this article again, it mentions very little of how juggling is closely related to circuses and clowning. --Colin E. 12:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree with your thinking on this. Juggling is juggling. If I had a picture of a child juggling, does that mean the page would need to mention children and juggling? An image serves two purposes: 1. It can describe the page; 2. It can add context to a page in its own right; or 3. It can be a source of information itself. Aerial views of cities give a different perspective of what a city looks like. I would never need a category on a page called "New York City by air" just to get an aerial view. This shot doesn't just show juggling, it shows multiple juggling, and how juggling is being done today, at least by this award-winning, government-funded performance. It's a little shocking it down for the reason you propose, because it is such a limited view. And it's a good photo. It needs to be resurrected. --DavidShankBone 19:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Another argument could be made that if you see that clowning and juggling are closely related but you don't see something written about it, the idea should be to write it yourself or put in a mention, not to remove value from the page, especially when it is obviously relevant (and high quality). --DavidShankBone 19:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that some would argue that "juggling done today" is more than circus juggling or clowning. Technical juggling and sport juggling is growing in popularity, and in my opinion the article should reflect that. That being said, however, I do think that there is still a place for your picture (as well as a textual mention of juggling as clowning) somewhere in a juggling article. Your picture is indeed a good quality picture and it is indeed a representation of how some types of juggling are done today. The place for your picture, however, in my opinion, is not at the top of the juggling article.
Perhaps your picture would go nicely with a picture of technical juggling, showing the various types of juggling practiced today. However, that picture on its own (just as a picture of technical juggling on its own) isn't a sufficient portrayal of juggling to be the one and only picture at the top of the page. For example, we could use a picture of one of Gatto's juggling shows, a picture of WJF competition, and your Circus Amok picture together to show the wide variety of facets of juggling that there are today. --Rahzel 01:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

First, don't revert again, because that's against policy. You don't get a revert to tear the image down with each response. Second, what you guys are arguing over is how juggling is presented, as opposed to WHO uses it. Entertainers. Which entertainers? Clowns. If this is a case of respect for juggling, I can tell you that you guys are being paranoid over a non-issue. Jugglers aren't disrespected because clowns juggle. Third, it's a good photograph, it demonstrates the art, and it shows it being used in an NEA and New York State Funded prodution that is a work of public theater. It has won awards. The photo stays. Stop being ridiculous. Out of all the people who have challenged my photographs, this is one of the silliest. --DavidShankBone 02:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I note that in the photo the first two jugglers passed the objects off to the other jugglers whilst juggling. How many people who fear for the respect of juggling can make that claim to have mastered technique when they want to take this juggling photograph off? --DavidShankBone 02:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Lastly, I note the second sentence in the article mentions "circus skills". It's annoying you all are wasting my time with this foolishness. I'll take it to the administrator level if I need to. --DavidShankBone 02:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I have not removed your picture from the article in my edit this time (though I'm not exactly sure what policy reverting questionable content is not covered under). I think that moving the picture down the article, perhaps to accompany other pictures of contemporary juggling later, is an adequate compromise. If you disagree, please respond directly to this comment as to why you disagree, without calling these arguments "one of the silliest" arguments you've ever seen or any other flaimebait-type comments. We can discuss this respectfully and without malice--in the long run, you're right, a picture isn't a lot to get worked over about, and at least in my comments I have tried to avoid disrespect or flamebait.
Once again, if you don't think that moving the picture down the page (to the section on juggling styles today) is an adequate compromise, please respond directly to these comments, without calling any naysayers against your photograph "ridiculous" or "paranoid".
It seems that I have started an edit war! In hindsight, I must admit that I was a bit hasty in removing this image. I am quite happy to see it alongside the section of the article which related to jugglig in the context of the circus. I still feel that it is not the bext image to represent juggling as a whole. In my opinion, such an image would depict juggling and only juggling. Not juggling together with clowning. I would add that I certainly respect clowning and see it as a very high form of art. I hope that DavidShankBone is happy with the current compromise. --Colin E. 10:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree to having it moved down but that doesn't change the fact that an image should be presented at the front of an article. I'll let you all who care more about this page than I do decide which image to choose. A photograph helps relate the idea of the article to the viewer. It's necessary for every article to have an image at the front. Thanks for the compromise. --DavidShankBone 14:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

If I was choosing the photo from the ones presented on that page, including mine, I would go with the Manuel and Christoph Mitasch. I also don't see their names Wikified--if there isn't an article on them, it might be a good idea to raise the profile of the sport by creating stubs on the masters of it. Otherwise, good page. I understand the passion behind wanting to protect it. --DavidShankBone 14:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, of the images currently on the page, I think that the Mitasch would be a good choice. I think that we also could consider finding a picture of Anthony Gatto doing one of his shows and putting that at the top of the page. Gatto's act combines superb technical juggling, entertainment, dazzling visual aspects, costumes, etc. I think that his shows represent to some degree many facets of juggling today, including juggling as art, entertainment, sport, even circus to a degree. Let me know what you think, and I'll try and find a suitable image that we can use. --Rahzel 16:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll put Gatto on my watchlist for the next time he comes through New York and I will try to get a photograph of him. The good thing about New York is that most people, especialy people of significance, seem to come through the city at least once in their lives. It's like Mecca in that way. --DavidShankBone 16:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

## photos, images, and animations

If you are going to add photos, images or animations to this page, make sure they are of a good quality. It really is no good to put a very, very poor quality gif animation at the top of the page, especially as it depicts a very unrealistic style of juggling. And it looks really, really bad. Please don't try to add it again.

I'm just curious about the picture labled as "Jay Gilligan and Kristen Wanvik" because in the article about types of juggling, it's labled as "Jay Gilligan and Jouni Temonen". Which is it?

I actually don't know the answer to your question myself, but I thought this might be a good place to drop a comment on the animation of the basic 3-ball pattern under the juggling notation section. Its a great animation which illustrates how to juggle very nicely - much easier than trying to explain it in words, or even pictures!
By the way, I'm glad you removed the poor quality animation which used to be at the top of the page (I never saw it, but from what you said it sounded pretty pathetic). My only suggestion would be to try to replace it with something better if possible. I don't have any suggestions, unfortunately, but I think a replacement would be nice. It always looks good to have a quality picture or animation at the top of an article - especially one of such importance. Happy Juggling! Danthur (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

## records

The numbers records I've listed are from the JIS Committee on Numbers as of September 2002, which are possibly not the most uptodate, but are at least solidly verifiable. I've reverted the ring record change that someone made from 11 to 10 as I've been unable to find any reference to anything better than Anthony Gatto's unverifiable personal records listing.

If you're going to update these records, please make reference to an independently verifiable source, preferably based on video. While Anthony Gatto's no doubt the best numbers juggler around, his personal training records do not constitute a primary source for world records. Also, make sure you know the difference between a flash and a juggle. Verifiable flashing records are 12 balls, 13 rings, and 9 clubs.user:oxymoron

Thank you oxy, well said. I second that.Pedant
I have extensively changed the records section, with added references to the JISCON as well as explaining the differences between flashing and qualifying runs. Also added are bounce records. Remember, we are editing an encyclopaedia here, not a how to page or a website of our personal views on what is or what isn't juggling.

"Modern independently verifiable records for the number of objects juggled (defined as at least two catches per object - a "qualifying run") are 10 balls, 10 rings, and 7 clubs. The less stringent requirement (at least one catch per object - a "flash") has been reached with 12 balls (beanbags), 13 rings, and 9 sticks (or 8 traditional clubs). It has been said that the limits of human ability lie around the 14-ball mark, though evidence to back this up is understandably scarce."

Tony Gatto is possibly not the best numbers juggler, he is just the best that I've seen on videotape. I've also seen fake footage of other numbers freaks that purport to be record breakers. So please verify and double check sources. I have a whole bunch of clips of video I wish we could add to this, but no permissions... if you can get GNU licenceable footage of some numbers jugglers, that would be great. I'm going to shoot some footage of 3-5 ball tricks and devilstick juggling, basic maneuvers, on up to 'hog wild', but again, some numbers footage would be supercool. BTW I've added Toss Juggling article, intending to make this a hub article that covers the entire sport of juggling in general, you might want to fiddle with it. And feel free if you can write a good nonstub article on any redlinked juggling forms. I'll be working on these articles daily this week, so don't freak out if it looks different next time you see it. I don't delete anything, if it's missing, its on one of the sub pages. Anyone know any cigar box manipulators or other less well-known forms? Pictures? Prop descriptions? More patterns? Hula hoops?Pedant 03:58, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)

## Questionable records

This 79 hour 3 ball record looks very questionable. Can anyone verify this? - Andrew Gradisher
Someone simply removed the above 3 ball record. I have replaced it with the last verified record as set by Terry Cole, and have done the same on the Juggling World Records page. I have also removed the 5 ball mills mess record because it does not fit well with the other records listed here which use a regular cascade or fountain pattern.--Colin E. 10:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
The edit was made by a user named Pedant. I asked him about his source on his user page a couple of weeks ago but as of yet he hasn't replied. I think the record is almost certainly untrue and I agree with its removal. Jason Quinn 18:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
While note actually questionable, the lists of records are confusingly out of sync in the various articles. For instance, the Juggling article, the Anthony Gatto article and the Juggling world records page lists three different records for nine balls. I didn't check the other records. 62.181.255.64 12:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
No it was not my edit, I don't edit rashly like that here is the reply on User:Jason Quinn's talk page, I just copied it from there... if you are gonna slander me, make sure you come back and unslander me when you find out you are wrong, please Jason.:
It was an honest mistake caused by this edit diff of one of your edits. There was no malice involved. It was a new editor mistake. So consider yourself "unslandered". Remember WP:Good Faith. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

juggling record What's your source for the 3-ball juggling record? It seems bogus to me. Jason Quinn 00:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long to get back to you, you left your message on my user page instead of 'talk', and my user page is one page I pretty much never see I guess. What record are you talking about? Pedant 20:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
If you can tell me what the text was that you are referring to I can find my source, I think... I'm not sure even which page it's on. If it was not googlable it was probably from Guinness World Records (Millenium Edition)... these are the ones I have handy:

Yuri Scherbina: One ball juggling 35 pound 4.5 oz ball 100 times (Mount Elbrus elev. 13,800 ft) July 1995 Ahmad Tajuddin: Foot juggling 3 hours nonstop, one ball made of cane (sepak takraw ball) 10,000 times with right foot without dropping the ball September 1996 Anthony Gatto: Most flaming torches Anthony Gatto, 7 torches International Jugglers Association Festival, Baltimore Maryland July 1989 Most objects juggled Aug. 7 1998: 1508 people juggled a total of 4,524 objects... European Juggling Convention at Edinburgh Scotland Pedant 18:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Juggling Record exposed

this is the edit where the bogus record came from, apparently the only edit from that ip address (213.78.56.215)

For what it's worth 68.183.79.42 is my current ip address, and it will mostly hover around that.

I think it was one of those "Wikipedia is so unscholarly that I myself have added false information to their articles" newbie tests that writers like to use to disparage wikipedia. Personally I would highly doubt any significant bump to that record, even 30 hours, since it is so inconvenient to arrange for witnesses. I once 'devilstick' juggled from 5:30 pm until lunchtime the next day, through the dark night at a Rennaissance Faire, and although there were dozens of witnesses, there was no continuous witness. I don't even think its a record, but my point is, you have to arrange a witness or several, and then you actually have to break the record, so I don't see anyone (with witnesses) going much over 30 hours without it being very easy to fact-check.

Anyway, it wasn't my edit and I'm really really dubious of 79 hours of juggling, witness or no witness, I couldn't even watch television for that long. Pedant 19:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

## Juggling tricks

I went ahead and added a small list of juggling tricks for expansion. Some of their names may need to be adjusted to not conflict with previously created articles. It also may be nice to create a whole seperate article to list and categorize the patterns. Ok bye!

Thanks, that works for me. If you know of any articles remotely related to juggling, feel free to link them at least to the Juggling article which I am considering a hub for the other articles. Might want to take a look at the (currently mostly lists) article at Circus and see if you can do anything on some of those redlinked references. If you feel like it. My goal is to bring Circus and Juggling up to featured article quality before the year ends. anyone up for that? Pedant 03:58, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)

## Jokes

This line:

"It has been said that jugglers are quite low down in the hierarchy of entertainment and performers... just below magicians but slightly above mimes. Jugglers, of course, disagree entirely. So do mimes, though their objections are rarely heard."

I like.

## Increasing the size of the brain

It has been "proven" to increase the size of your brain

Isn't it impossible to make your brain bigger just by engaging in a stimulating activity? And why put "proven" in quotes? Does anyone know what this is supposed to mean? --Gypsum Fantastic 19:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

To quote from the BBC, 2004-01-22:

"Juggling 'can boost brain power'

"The skills we learn may shape the structure of our brains"

"Learning to juggle can cause changes in the brain, scientists have found. Using brain scans, the researchers showed that in 12 people who had learnt to juggle, certain brain areas had grown. But three months later, during which time people stopped juggling, the brain had gone back to its normal size.

"Writing in Nature, the researchers from the University of Regensburg, Germany, say their findings challenge the view that experiences do not affect the brain."

It doesn't 'increase' the size of your brain. 'Boost brain power' is definately a better way of putting it. I have seen 'makes physical changes to your brain' used most, as saying it increased in size would persumable be suggesting that brain cells have been gained, which is rubbish.

## Gatto Photo

Hiya I'm not a member yet, but I notice that in the Gatto photo of "12 rings" I can count 13!!! Can someone please explain... preferably in the caption of the photo... or else fix it to say 13??

It is one of his holsters where he keeps a ring at the start of his juggling the 12, that can look as a ring in the picture. You can notice that it is only half.

In reference to Gypsum Fantastic's question for clarification, I have heard of research that confirms a link between juggling and an increase in the ability to sight-read in piano playing students. I note that a quick web search turned up the following reference to the Suzuki Piano school that states "Juggling classes which improve dexterity and coordination... ", but does not reference the study this information is gained from directly... http://core.ecu.edu/hist/wilburnk/SuzukiPianoBasics/News/PB22-Mar97.htm ...the statement seems to imply, although not directly state that they have access to such research...

...I tried a search at the JIS (http://www.juggling.org/) but they're busy right now...

I am not a comunity member as yet but I can be contacted at oz_juggla@yahoo.com

I would become a community member now, but I have programming homework, and have already used an hour on this :)

Cheers Monique 16/8/5 5.55pm Australian Eastern Standard Time

## Purist Question?

Since I've no idea where this comes from but I'm sure I've heard it somewhere, would anyone care to comment on the following statement?

Some purist insist that true juggling only begins when the number of objects in the air at any given time is greater than the number of hands juggling the objects. For example, the standard 5 ball cascade is true juggling as at any given point there are at least 3 balls in the air with only 2 hands manipulating the pattern.

Illiterate? Write for help ... P.O. Box ... Washington D.C. ...

visit me at http://tepy-at-houston-lake.blogspot.com/

Nope Absolutely untrue. Even assuming you mean Toss juggling, as opposed numerous forms of juggling where no objects are tossed at all, just about ANY juggler will agree that Mills Mess is juggling. Mills' mess doesn't fit your description. User:Pedant 17:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

## Double Lubman

The Help Desk received the following e-mail from Steve Mills of the Dazzling Mills Family.

Under patterns a trick is refered to as the double lubman known better as the mills mess. There is no such thing as a double lubman. This was submitted by a unknowlegable person. Please fix this. I am the inventor of this trick and the juggle.org will attest ot there being no mention anywhere else of this being called a double lubman.

Capitalistroadster 01:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

## Egyptian drawing... real or joke?

Is the Egyptian drawing serious, or some sort of in-joke? I followed the references to here [1], but the drawing shown on this page is not the same (similar, but clearly different). If this is a joke, I don't think it belongs on the page. If it's not a joke, why are there two versions of the drawing? --Allen 19:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It is serious. There is a real tomb, the Beni-hasan tomb, that has juggling depicted on the walls. I don't know why the two versions are different. There's an extra juggler in the Wikipedia one that's not in the other! Dunno. Jason Quinn 20:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I have always explained this to myself as being because they were pictures all the way round. If you think of how egyptian paintings were designed they were often done in stripps, with s scene circling the whole room. I don't know if this is true or not though...--Seonaidbeaumont 15:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The caption on the image "1794-1781"..I assume it denotes when it was discovered rather than when it was created? Its misleading as it stands.--Hooperbloob 17:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It's the 15th tomb in the Beni Hassan area of tombs, the date should read "1994-1781 B.C", I'll fix it. The image disparity is that one image is a cropped part of an earlier image.User:Pedant 18:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I have seen this line drawing of the "Egyptian wall painting" depicting juggling reproduced in many places but I have not been able to find an actual photograph of it anywhere. It seems certain that some juggler would have photographed it by now. Has anyone seen a photo or rubbing or anything but this line drawing? Oldhairface (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

## why was image inane?

P0lyglut, why do you think the fire image was inane? To me, it seemed like a great illustration of the basic figure eight pattern of toss juggling, which in my experience is a key insight for people who know very little about juggling, and who often imagine more of a circular pattern. --Allen 05:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, looking through the history of this article, I see that you've removed the picture at least twice before, both times with the same edit summary. Though you were reverted both times, you have still not explained what you think is wrong with this image. And if that weren't enough reason to expect that you won't respond on this talk page, I see from reading your own talk page that "chances are [you] don't give a flying fuck about [me], and also will not respond to whatever shit [I] might have to say." Therefore, I'm going to go ahead and just revert your last edit. --Allen 05:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
i think the image is inane because it is far removed as a picture of juggling. It is a fancy picture, and it's value is perhaps good as a extra image at the bottom somewhere illustrating juggling with fire torches, if one wishes that. A more proper image fit for the top of the article, would be a person juggling say 3 balls. If the cascade motion is desired, then perhaps finding a image with time-exposure is proper. Xah Lee 08:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. If you come across a good picture of someone juggling three balls, I agree that would be a fine image for the top of the article. --Allen 01:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

## Unique Interactive Juggling Simulation Program

An excellent juggling simulator can be found here. Three keys are used to control each hand. The user presses the keys in rapid succession rather like tapping fingers on a desk. The program is customisable allowing many different patterns. It is different from other juggling simulation programs in that each hand is controlled by the user. Instead of just watching the program juggle, the user is actually make the program juggle..

## and beat juggling?

86.213.15.234 14:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

## Juggling stubs

I think there are enough stubable articles relating to juggling for a 'Juggling Sutb' template to be made. Minglex 18:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Me too, but I would name it "Juggling Stub", if you are going to make one. Not me, I'll try to expand the stubs instead. User:Pedant 18:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

## Latin

"Ioculr" is not a Latin word. The word "ioculari" means to joke or jest. I've corrected this in the article.--68.250.176.85 03:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

## sociology and juggling?

"The majority of hobby jugglers can be split into one of two groups. The first are those who learned to juggle at university or college juggling clubs. These people are often mathematicians, scientists, and computer programmers. They like juggling because it can be very structured and it can be analysed and modeled easily by mathematics and physics. Juggling has established itself as a very useful model for researchers studying motor skills and learning techniques. The second group are from the counter culture or alternative culture scene. They enjoy juggling because, while it can be very structured, it can also be as free as you want it to be, with a virtually infinite scope for individual personal expression. Fire juggling is a common appeal."

Does that last sentence make sense or is it just me? Also - how relevant is this paragraph? I don't find the value judgements of why people like juggling (seemingly stereotypically based on their degree choices or lack of them) particularly helpful.

A more helpful breakup of jugglers would maybe include 'numbers' and 'technical' jugglers? Laurence9993 15:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

## Types of juggling

The article says that: "Ball juggling can be broken down into the following styles: Contact Juggling, Numbers Juggling, Pattern Juggling, Trick Juggling, Technical Juggling, Bounce Juggling and Football Juggling."

Is it just me or are pattern juggling, trick juggling and technical juggling all the same thing? I didn't want to go straight ahead and edit because there could well be some subtle difference I'm missing. Thanks! Ian F. 17:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

## Links and Resources

New links of dubious quality seem to get added to this page on a weekly basis, many of them are simple 3 ball tutorials. I have removed them all and replaced them with a single link to what I think is the best 3 ball video tutorial. I feel that one single link is enough. If anyone finds a better tutorial, feel free to replace this link, however I don;t think we need to link to every poorly written 3 ball tutorial with animated GIFs! --Colin E. 09:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you guys think about putting Juggling.tv inside the external links section ? It is the biggest and best quality video site on the net dedicated for juggling with over 2000 videos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.35.93 (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

## Dave Critchfield & John Jones image?

Clearly looks edited, the balls colors are too bright, the image motion paths, the illogical ball placement, all looks to be an obvious joke not meant for this article.

Nope, this image is real. Critchfield and Jones are two of the best bounce passers in the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juggling_World_Records (they hold the record for 18 bounce balls (30 catches), as well as http://www.bouncepage.com/records.htm (link to video of 18 balls being bounced for 30 catches). Please do 30 seconds of simple internet research before making a claim like this again. Regards, Rahzel 02:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I never said they don't have the record, those videos show it, just that picture looks to be an obvious edited one, thats all.
It does look quite unconvincing.Minglex 11:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

## Userbox

User:BradBeattie/Userboxes/Juggling

 This user enjoys juggling.

Enjoy! --Brad Beattie (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Great image, but the caption is wrong. That isnt a 3-D image! :-)

## Drummers

What about drum stick spinning? I think it's popular enough to deserve an own paragraph 88.73.4.152 04:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

## Removed link to giocoleria.org

http://www.giocoleria.org/ It seems to be a fine website, with up-to-date information and lively discussion taking place in Italian. However an English language encyclopedia page about juggling is not an appropriate place to advertise it. I am surprised that the site does not have a link from the Italian version of this page http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giocoleria Josephmcginley 15:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

## {{Juggling-stub}}

I've created {{Juggling-stub}} and tagged several stubs accordingly (see what links here). —KNcyu38 (talkcontribs) 04:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

## Juggling Clubs

Traverse City West Senior highschool has had an active juggling club. Presedents Ted and Andrew run the club. The meeting are every Tuesday. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nateisonsomething (talkcontribs) 16:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Congratulations on having an active juggling club - you should make sure it's listed at www.jugglingdb.com/clubs. I have removed your link from the 'organisations' section of this article since this is not an appropriate place to list it. Best of luck with the club, Josephmcginley 13:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

## Fame of the WJF

Does anybody have a citation for the alleged fame of the WJF? I hadn't heard of it until I read the article. Seems at risk of falling under WP:PEACOCK.

entering the most difficult kinds of juggling contests such as the famous WJF Competition

Johnjlee 14:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

## state-supported as high art on china

Please add on the XX century part of article: "the art of juggling is state supported as high art on the Chinese People's Republic" (citing a book from 1986) [2] --Enric Naval (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

## Merge juggling notation into this article?

It looks to me like a lot of the information in the juggling notation article is duplicated here, as well as in the additional siteswap page. Maybe the notation page should just be merged here? --Superfly Jon (talk) 14:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

## Sabre Dance

It's too bad that we can't make it so that the Sabre Dance from Katchaturian's Gayane automatically plays when one views this article (not to mention the one on plate spinning). --Modus Ponens (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

When Wikipedia merges with MySpace, we can have Sabre Dance, seventeen YouTube instructional videos, and that six minute video of the guy juggling along with Beatles songs, all playing automatically while a high-resolution background image of Anthony Gatto's smiling face loads. Let's enjoy the silence and hope that day never comes. ;) --Fullobeans (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

## Merge of two articles

I've proposed a merge of Juggling pattern and Juggling notation. Please discuss on the talk page. Fences&Windows 03:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

## Relevance

Is there any relevant, cited information for the infromation listed under the "Park" heading in this article? Seems mostly like pure opinion to me.

The text is: "Juggling can add a whole new dimension to a band performance in the park."

I've added a citation needed tag in the meantime but until someone can give a reference or a reason why this is relevant, I suggest removal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.12.14.250 (talk) 02:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

## XKCD Law of Wikipedia

This page appears to defy the XKCD Law of Wikipedia (mouseover bubble on http://xkcd.org/903/). A link for the word "Entertainment" in the first sentence would fix that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.95.68.62 (talk) 09:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

## dwell time

dwell time? dwell_time_juggling? dwell time_(juggling)? dwell time? .. sry .. I do'nt look through it anymore .. plz help!
(I was like shocked - moderately - to not find an existing article about dwell time for juggling .. alter it! .. do with what you want! .. but, please, make °°dwell time for juggling°° an existing article!

Help me to make an article for dwell time_juggling, this:

In juggling, the dwell time is an important parameter, meaning the time a so called 'prop', especially a ball, a ring, a club, or anything alike that are caught and thrown again, (.. not so much a diabolo, devil-stick or anything alike that are being handled with tools .. prop = requisite? propulsator? propulsion element? propelled thing?) stays in the hand that catches and throws it (respectively the time it is in contact with the tool handling it).

Juggling pingpong balls with pingpong rackets thus would give a dwell time near 0 or a minuscule fraction of a second, while a huge glass marble contact juggled by a contact juggler gives a dwell time of like upto minutes.

At juggling clubs, balls or rings, the dwell time is usually fractions of a second. It is - looked at it exactly - the time from contacting the prop when catching, unto leaving the hand when throwing.
It can be varied by the juggler, by using different techniques of catching and throwing: e.g.
A ball can be caught with the whole hand - like gripped entirely -, then thrown again = long, slow dwell time.
It can be caught using the hand or even only the fingers like as a basket - without gripping it entirely, only like braking it to catch it, then giving it its direction when throwing it = average dwell time.
The ball can be ticked or flicked by using the hand like as a racket to propulse the ball back into the air, without even seizing it in any way = shortest dwell time.
.. where these techniques in their definition transition rather fluently into one another.

The dwell time must not be confused with the juggling speed:
.. a certain juggling pattern juggled at a certain height with a certain speed can be achieved with small (short) or high (long) dwell time by using different of the above techniques.

Varying a 3-ball-cascade ( .. the article exists! ) or a 5-ball-cascade in speed or improving from 3b-casc to 5b-casc, will automatically improve a juggler's dwell time abilities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.143.233.97 (talk) 19:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

## Shannon equation + some theory

I think its useful like to add C.E. Shannon's juggling equation within a short theory section (its a very simple one!) [3][4]. There's aready lots of social and historical info (which is of course nessersary and good, I have no problems with what's in the article). It follows like this:

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

${\displaystyle (F+D)H=(V+D)N\,\!}$

where (in his notation):

• F = Flight time (time a ball is in the air i.e. out of hands),
• D = Dwell time (time a ball is in contact with hands),
• H = Hand number (total number of hands manipulating the pattern),
• V = Vacant time (time a hand is empty),
• N = Number of balls juggled.

Here is what the equation means.

H and N are dimensionless numbers. D, F, V are times, e.g. measured in seconds.

The total number of hands manipulating the balls is H, from any number of people contributing to the pattern. If one person juggles, H can be 1 or 2. If more people were to enter the pattern H can be greater than or equal to 2.

The total time taken for all balls to be in contact with all hands, and thrown up in the air, is F + D.

The total time taken for a ball to not be in contact with any hands and thrown up in the air, i.e. time taken when no hands are on any balls, is V + D.

If F + D > V + D, i.e. (subtracting D from both sides) F > V, the juggler has the ball in his/her hand for a longer time then when a ball is not in any hand, the pattern is slower. Likewise F < V implies the juggler has the ball in his/her hand for a shorter time then when a ball is not in any hand, the pattern is faster.

As the throw hieght inreases, F increases, the ball is in the air for longer.

As the pattern becomes faster, D decreases and V increases, the balls are in the hands less and not in the hands for longer. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

What do people think?

-- 15:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Reply Do you have a few references for this? Dennis Brown (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Those external links are the referances. One extra I didn't add is this one [5]. I havn't any books on this. Take it the answer is no, for inclusion to the article. =(

-- 17:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Wasn't saying that at all. Quite the contrary. I just don't know enough about the theory, and not sure how to work it in. What I was actually thinking is that if you know enough about the theory, it would not only make a decent paragraph, but if it has enough references (ie: more than one) it may actually be a good stand alone article. Good project to start in your own sandbox, create the article, then put a quick paragraph in this article that references the whole new article. Assuming this is a notable theory, which I was guessing is very possible. It is a bit technical to include too much in this general article (excepting a summary), but the stand alone article would allow the inclusion of all the technical data. Sounds like a good addition to Wikipedia if you are up for it. I don't know enough tech. data to be helpful in that area, but will help where I can, cleanup, format, etc. Leave a note on my talk page if you are interested. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Splendid! I was actually thinking the same about creating a new article for this, there is more mathematical theory to juggling as outlined in link [3]. Your point is fair eneogh, on second thought it does detract from the main topic of the article too much. Thanks for your offer to help wherever you can also.-- 09:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

## Removal of world records

I removed a large section of the article and wanted to explain why. The information is already covered in Juggling world records, which is noted in that section. This article really isn't the place for an exhaustive list of records, that article is. That article has the citations, this one didn't, which might explain concerns about vandalism on this page previously. Being that this is a general article on Juggling, this much detail is excessive, and either it needs to stay in the Juggling world records article, or the articles be merged. Since I don't think a merge is a good idea, I just removed the questionable and improperly referenced material here. In short, I think this article needs to focus on the concepts, types, influences and history of juggling, not the records. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

As an editor of the Juggling World Records page, I agree with Dennis. The records should be kept in only one location, to avoid duplicate work, and to ensure that records are properly sourced and kept up to date. The records previously listed here were not. Thanar (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
There is room here in the section to explain records better, perhaps expand the requirements to make a record official, etc. but again, keeping the actual records on the other page. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)