28 Sep 2004 03:48:41
Steve Bennett
Hard two ball siteswaps

Hi all,
Can anyone think of any really tricky two ball siteswaps? 1700 is
difficult for me, but ...? Hopefully there's something less lame than
a11111111, for example?

Steve


28 Sep 2004 12:28:48
Guy G
Re: Hard two ball siteswaps

804000 is quite tricky i suppose. Plus you've then got the variations
such as:
c040004000
g0400040004000
k04000400040004000
and so on...
You could also replace any of the "40004000" by a "80000000" and throw
it behind the back or something.
You can also replace the "40004000" with "60000011" which looks quite
nice, and quite hard.
On that note, 6011 is quite nice, but not that hard.
These are all pretty much one-handed ones though.
63001 and 8500001 look quite nice for two-handed ones.

Bear in mind that I haven't done many of these, I've just been playing
with a simulator, and they look nice.
Guy

Steve Bennett wrote:
> Hi all,
> Can anyone think of any really tricky two ball siteswaps? 1700 is
> difficult for me, but ...? Hopefully there's something less lame than
> a11111111, for example?
>
> Steve


28 Sep 2004 15:35:29
Lars Christian Jensen
Re: Hard two ball siteswaps


On Tue, 28 Sep 2004, Steve Bennett wrote:

> Can anyone think of any really tricky two ball siteswaps? 1700 is
> difficult for me, but ...? Hopefully there's something less lame than
> a11111111, for example?

501 is quite tricky, despite the fact that it is a two-ball siteswap with
length three.

--
Lars Christian Jensen


28 Sep 2004 13:59:57
Schwolop
Re: Hard two ball siteswaps

Steve Bennett wrote:
> Hi all,
> Can anyone think of any really tricky two ball siteswaps? 1700 is
> difficult for me, but ...? Hopefully there's something less lame than
> a11111111, for example?
>
> Steve

Try the equivalent of 501 as a two ball, two person passing pattern. It's
ridiculously difficult. About 100 times harder than just doing it with one
person...

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



28 Sep 2004 09:02:42
Eljoh
Re: Hard two ball siteswaps

Hi,

2 bad you've missed Luke Burrage's 'extreme 2 ball juggling workshop'
at the EJC 2004... I will never say any more 2 balls isn't juggling :)

So, here's a small rip-off of Luke's tricks.

31 is a very nice one, it actually looks lika a 3ball cascade... start
with both balls in the same hand ;)

of course, 411, 5111, 61111 etc... make it difficult to yourself by
passing some of the 1's behind the back!
or under the leg, begind the head...


another one... [1,1]
something I do in crowded places... your ball's don't fly off that
often :) this also gets extremely difficult (I can't do it, of course,
Luke can) when you put 1 hand behind the head, under the leg, around
the chest...

difficult to explain in text: hold one hand above the other in a
vertical line, and throw [4,4]. Now, the lower ball will hit the upper
hand so... turn that hand over, and just hold the ball a brief moment
at íts highest point. then, release, turn back the upper hand to cath
the upper ball... catch both balls at the same time.
Also, this can be made more difficult, by moving the lower hand to
catch the upper ball at it's highest point...

last one I can remember... hold your hands crossed, with 1 ball in
each hand.
now throw the lower ball up, and catch it with the same hand over the
other, eg make it the higher ball. Repeat with the other hand... or do
it in reverse: higher ball = > catch low...

THANKS, LUKE!!

Oh by the way, if you want all the tricks, explained and shown by a
professional.... go and ask luke ;)

gg@stevage.com (Steve Bennett) wrote in message news:<78d069a0.0409280248.2b245a83@posting.google.com >...
> Hi all,
> Can anyone think of any really tricky two ball siteswaps? 1700 is
> difficult for me, but ...? Hopefully there's something less lame than
> a11111111, for example?
>
> Steve


28 Sep 2004 10:02:57
Brian Louisos
Re: Hard two ball siteswaps

Well, if no one's mentioned it yet, there's always {501}, which can be
done with overthrows, back crossed 5's, back-passed 1's. Uhmm did you
want 2 ball in one hand variations as well? Back crosses, back
catches, though these are all shape transformations of the same
pattern... Uhmmmm Ok, got it. {8140001} Kind of 2/3 of an extended
box. That looks pretty hard.

---Brian Louisos


29 Sep 2004 03:59:32
juggling jacko
Re: Hard two ball siteswaps

Here are some 2 ball siteswaps, also try them with clubs and rings for a
challenge!
41131
700140
314202
52012
123
5201
Try some of these with behind the back throws, penguin catches, crossed
arms etc.
Also try to include some pauses and balances!
A 3 ball hard pattern is 801 (it is not an extended 441, it is harder)


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



29 Sep 2004 07:34:51
Steve Bennett
Re: Hard two ball siteswaps

Hi,
Hey nice ideas everyone...I forgot that one I do a bit of is fast
(2x,2x) - the only pattern I can juggle blind.

One trouble with patterns like 804000 is it's really only 40 with some
arbitrary half-throw. 501 could be fun though.

Oh...just remembered another one I saw once. Basically just 40 but
with your other arm slicing back and forth across the pattern, without
hitting the balls.

Or how about 4112, or (4,2x)(2x,0) (half-box). Or hell, why not
[15]4000 - with pirhouettes? Or similar, [39]00150000 or something...

Actually even 4040303 is pretty hard with all outside throws (for me).


04 Oct 2004 18:40:45
Luke Burrage
Re: Hard two ball siteswaps

Steve Bennett wrote:
> Hi all,
> Can anyone think of any really tricky two ball siteswaps? 1700 is
> difficult for me, but ...? Hopefully there's something less lame than
> a11111111, for example?
>
> Steve

Ok, I know I have mentioned this before but how about "The Hardest Pattern
Ever" , a two person, four handed, two ball trick.

I would go into describing it throw for throw but siteswap can do that for
me. Just start with one juggler holding a ball in each hand and, starting
this siteswap from the left hand and working anticlockwise around the
other hands, juggle:

31

That is it. Nice, eh? Maybe slightly confusing. If you want to know what
each hand is doing on each beat, try to work out this:

(cD,0,0,0)(0,4C,0,0)(0,0,cB,0)(0,0,0,4A)

Where the hands are labled ABCD, again starting from a left hand and
working anticlockwise. Just remember, there are 4 beats to every count, so
a 4 lands on the next count and a c lands three counts later. So just 31
again. Ho hum.

Creativity note: What other 2 ball siteswaps can be juggled as a 4 handed
pattern and what would they look like?

Luke

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



05 Oct 2004 22:34:33
JAG
Re: Hard two ball siteswaps

lukeburrage@yahoobutnospamthanks.com.nospam (Luke Burrage) posted the stuff
preceded by a " >" in article <4161992d$0$94921$bed64819@news.gradwell.net>
dated 04 Oct 2004 18:40:45 GMT

>Steve Bennett wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> Can anyone think of any really tricky two ball siteswaps? 1700 is
>> difficult for me, but ...? Hopefully there's something less lame than
>> a11111111, for example?
>>
>> Steve
>
>Ok, I know I have mentioned this before but how about "The Hardest Pattern
>Ever" , a two person, four handed, two ball trick.
>
>I would go into describing it throw for throw but siteswap can do that for
>me. Just start with one juggler holding a ball in each hand and, starting
>this siteswap from the left hand and working anticlockwise around the
>other hands, juggle:
>
>31

I misread this a bit. I thought you said EACH juggler holding a ball in
each hand. Thus, a 4 ball trick, which would still work:

{3p|3p}{1|1}
or {3|3}{1p|1p}

Not having 4 hands handy I haven't actually tried, but it doesn't look too
exciting. Since you said two ball trick I suspected something was wrong
and re-read it, noting my error. So then I tried:

{3p|0}{1|0}{3p|0}{0|1}{0|3p}{0|1}{0|3p}{1|0}

Looks even less exciting. But maybe you meant passing the 1's:

{3|0}{1p|0}{0|3}{1p|0}{0|3}{0|1p}{3|0}{0|1p}

A little better, but not much. I dunno, maybe I'm missing the point here.
Or maybe it's just harder to do than to conceptualize?
...JAG


06 Oct 2004 16:48:28
Arachnoid
Re: Hard two ball siteswaps

i came up with 41401 yesterday, only to be told by the i'd been shown that
years ago.

it feels kinda like 441 or a very easy 66161

hth

russ


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



11 Oct 2004 23:25:44
félix
Re: Hard two ball siteswaps

Luke Burrage wrote:
> Steve Bennett wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > Can anyone think of any really tricky two ball siteswaps? 1700 is
> > difficult for me, but ...? Hopefully there's something less lame than
> > a11111111, for example?
> >
> > Steve
>
> Ok, I know I have mentioned this before but how about "The Hardest Pattern
> Ever" , a two person, four handed, two ball trick.
>
> I would go into describing it throw for throw but siteswap can do that for
> me. Just start with one juggler holding a ball in each hand and, starting
> this siteswap from the left hand and working anticlockwise around the
> other hands, juggle:
>
> 31
>
> That is it. Nice, eh? Maybe slightly confusing. If you want to know what
> each hand is doing on each beat, try to work out this:
>
> (cD,0,0,0)(0,4C,0,0)(0,0,cB,0)(0,0,0,4A)
>
> Where the hands are labled ABCD, again starting from a left hand and
> working anticlockwise. Just remember, there are 4 beats to every count, so
> a 4 lands on the next count and a c lands three counts later. So just 31
> again. Ho hum.
>
> Creativity note: What other 2 ball siteswaps can be juggled as a 4 handed
> pattern and what would they look like?
>
> Luke
>
> ----== posted via www.jugglingdb.com ==----

The first obvious "harder" pattern I can think about is a 501 juggled by 2
persons.

There's naturally different ways of juggling this, but here are a few
ideas I
had (using a slightly different notation than Luke)(and also, dashes are
0's,
I thought it would make the whole thing easier to read):

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Juggler A Juggler B
( 20Bx , - | - , - ) + ¦
( - , - | - , - ) + ¦
( 4Bx , - | - , - ) + ¦
( - , - | - , 20A ) + ¦ Jugglers A & B face to face
( - , - | - , - ) + ¦
( - , - | - , 4A ) + ¦ Juggler A makes straight
passes
( - , 20Bx | - , - ) + ¦ all the time
( - , - | - , - ) + ¦
( - , 4Bx | - , - ) + ¦ Juggler B makes crossing
passes
( - , - | 20A , - ) + ¦ all the time
( - , - | - , - ) + ¦
( - , - | 4A , - ) ¦

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Juggler A Juggler B
( 20x , - | - , - ) + ¦ Jugglers A & B face to face
( - , - | - , - ) + ¦
( 4x , - | - , - ) + ¦ Self 4x's passed behind the
( - , 20B | - , - ) + ¦ back
( - , - | - , - ) + ¦
( - , 4B | - , - ) + ¦ Variation: straight passes
( - , - | - , 20x ) + ¦ instead of crossing passes,
( - , - | - , - ) + ¦ sometimes or all the time
( - , - | - , 4x ) + ¦ (notation needs to be
( - , - | 20A , - ) + ¦ slightly modified, but
( - , - | - , - ) + ¦ hopefully you get the idea)
( - , - | 4A , - ) ¦

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¦ Jugglers A & B are standing
Juggler A Juggler B ¦ back to back
( 20x , - | - , - ) + ¦
( - , - | - , - ) + ¦ The passed 4's might be
outrageously
( 4x , - | - , - ) + ¦ difficult unless the two jugglers
( - , 20xB | - , - ) + ¦ are in direct physical contact,
( - , - | - , - ) + ¦ have around the same height and
( - , 4xB | - , - ) + ¦ are used to juggle together (I
must
( - , - | 20x , - ) + ¦ say that I've never tried it).
( - , - | - , - ) + ¦
( - , - | 4x , - ) + ¦ Also, this was meant as a hard
( - , - | - , 20xA ) + ¦ pattern, not as a nice looking
one.
( - , - | - , - ) + ¦ It might have some utility for
( - , - | - , 4xA ) ¦ strictly technical purpose, but I
¦ don't think people would ever want
¦ to juggle this for its magnificent
¦ beauty.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There could be variations juggled by 3 persons using only one hand each
that
might be sorta cool... I'm thinking of a figure where every juggler would
extend the unused arm to the next juggler's shoulder and where the three
arms
used for the figure would be in the middle of the closed figure.
I don't know, maybe this idea is slightly stupid too, but I would probably
enjoy doing it with two girls... if only there were girls juggling in my
little and remote community in Canada's arctic :-( :-( :-( Well,
maybe I'll get my girlfriend into it one day...

Anyway, enough complaining, let's keep going...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I also thought about some squeeze patterns that can be pretty tricky using
only two balls and without necesserily having dementially high throws:

[53]0080150000 --- (85) squeeze
[63]0080050000 --- (85) squeeze again, but coupled with a [63] multiplex

These two patterns come to a complete stop at the instant of the squeeze.
In order to keep them going, a third ball would be needed, but it doesn't
make
them easy for that. If you have any success with them, why not try it as a
four-handed pattern. Planning to throw a squeeze into your partner's hand
requires quite a bit more accuracy/precision than throwing it to yourself
(I
haven't tried it, but I doubt I'd be able to do it in passing at this point
more than every once in a while, mainly by luck).

The second pattern mentioned just above brought my thoughts to another
really hard two-ball exercise: a [93] multiplex throw. Well, the full
pattern would be [93]00202020, but it's not the point I wanted to make, I
just wanted to say that a highly contrasted multiplex throw is hard to do
and
is valid pratice for learning a specific multiplex throw that you might
want
to incorporate later in a 3-, 4-, 5-, ... ball pattern.


That's it for now and I wish you all a good day,

Félix.



I hope the way I noted the pattern is not too personal and is still
readable,
let me know if you're having problems.


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