ContactJuggling.org

Howdy folk, I was thinking that there should be a place on .org where we can name new tricks, I know they don't come up to often, but I was thinking it would be good to have a place where we could discuss this sort of thing. I think that the community agrees that we don't want names that are hard to understand, or have nothing to do with what the trick really is. I know that we do have some of these, just because they have been passed down for so long which is why I think that in the future we should stick to names that either: 1) describe exactly what you are doing, ie. Palm Circle Isolation, Over the Head Roll, or 2) Build off of a name that is already in place, ie. Enigma, Butterfly or 3) is a combination of one and two. Hope anyone finds this useful, I just feel that it is a blind spot that the .org has had.

First thing I wanted to see if everyone would approve of the name bridgeterfly for a trick where you do a butterfly transfer above your head where a bridge would normally happen. I have heard no other name for it and think bridgeterfly does the job quite well.

_________________
I am a mother pheasant plucker.
I pluck mother pheasants.
I am the most pleasant mother pheasant plucker, to ever pluck a mother pheasant.

Ahahaha, if "Bridgeterfly" enters parlance, Kyle will hate you forever.

For those unclear, GJ is talking about the trick seen at 0:11 and 0:14 here:

_________________
http://www.gravitydefiance.net

Well does Kyle have a better name for it?

_________________
I am a mother pheasant plucker.
I pluck mother pheasants.
I am the most pleasant mother pheasant plucker, to ever pluck a mother pheasant.

Does it need a name? Does it exist without a name?

We have an immediate video reference for illustration so it is clearly something quantifiable, even without a codified name (A name that smells of fish )

Pros and cons of nomenclature: Pros:

Helpful for the first few months of learning with the current on-line teaching resources; you are very literally learning a new vocabulary, also aids stringing these separate 'isolated' techniques into short sequences.

'Easy' referencing and cross referencing of tricks.

Feel free to add more...

Cons:

Eventually limiting: If you know a move by its name 'x' then that move is a definite fixed thing without variation. Yours is a good example, the move you show is still a type of handifly-wiper but because that name is so connected to the auld favourite it seems wrong to call this variation by the same name. In my opinion that limits creativity and encourages thinking in terms of 'set' moves.

Not really applicable: Contact is way to huge and way to subtle to allow for this. How many ways can you perform an enigma? Do we need a name for every variation? (also by calling it an enigma and thinking only in terms of fingertip rolling you miss a lot of 2-point contact isolation...see above point ) Likewise chestrolls, inside, outside and then outside-inside path outside-outside path this leads to my next point:

It's silly: It is, it really is. Toss juggling realised this and now shy away from silly names in favour of very serious beard-stroking numbers

I'm sure I have more, but coffee is waiting

Contact is just too massive and too subtle; in the same way that notation never worked out, trying to codify a whole system with so many intricate varieties is verging on madness (not even fun madness).

However, certain key 'classes' or 'families' of techniques can be easily named with some use, we know that the handiwiper applies to the butterflip and all subsequent variations. Likewise enigma is shorthand for 2 point isolation etc. So I would say that this is the more useful angle to go for, but then the dilemma begins of what is the simplest unit in each case?

Is there a difference between palm circles and chestrolls?

No, there is not

Open for debate, what do people think?

_________________
Now all gatherymost to amuse it and have a tilty elbow or a nice cuffle-oteedee - Oh Yes!

"A little bit of neither..."

I think the chintzy names are inevitable really. It's because there are always more neophytes (like moi) in any skillform than there are professionals. It's like a pyramid ten times wider at it's base than at the pinnacle because people drop out for various reasons as they progress up the pyramid until an elite few achieve mastery. The thing about the neophytes is they're trying to make sense of overwhelmingly complicated things at the outset and "palm to cradle to b2b transfer to cradle to palm on the wall plane" is much harder to remember than "butterfly". The names help the neophytes, but don't really limit or affect the professionals because they are already thinking outside the convention of names and more along the lines of paths and points or whatever other enlightened perception of the art they've developed.

first person i can remember doing something like that was dawn. i vote it relates to her in someway. now granted i dunno if she was truly the first to work up that move.

_________________
much Love,
Dan

No-one thinks of it in terms like that, as I said certain categories have 'fixed' names (butterfly is a bad example because there are lots of interpretations as to what it actually refers to, behold problems in categorising) which is all groovy and often makes sense an arm roll is an arm roll, there are huge variations within that, which will never all be named.

I don't think a name like "Dawn's Dilemma" is going to help anyone...'Ungodly Jose" anyone?

As for 'enlightened perception' this isn't some elitist bullshit that I'm spouting because I've been juggling for a few years, far from it. This is how I teach from lesson one. A progressive building of TECHNIQUE as opposed to individual moves to be strung together.

It's just rolling a ball innit.

If I seem a little narked it's because I just twatted my hand on the stairway banister and my right index knuckle has swollen like a mother (to be)

_________________
Now all gatherymost to amuse it and have a tilty elbow or a nice cuffle-oteedee - Oh Yes!

"A little bit of neither..."

Hey Mark, I mostly agree with what Brine said. Richard is kinda right lol.

Giving names to different connections of existing tricks just gets so convoluted and plain unnecessary. Naming new techniques are a different story.

Also you need to look at where you end up after naming every connection you find... you end up with "The Dave"

Aye up, I think you might have taken that 'enlightened perception' statement the wrong way, Briney.

I didn't mean it in a derogatory or elitist manner. Quite the contrary... I meant that someone who's been rolling a ball all over their body for a decade is going to have an entirely different view and philosophy of the what, how, and why than someone who's only been doing it for a short time. The perception of CJ by, say, yourself or Ryan is going to be 'enlightened' (as in shifted to different, more encompassing levels by dint of the sheer time put in) as compared to the perception of relative newcomer like me, who's perception is usually going to be "and then I do this trick, and then I'll do that trick, and then I'll do that other trick..."

In fact, you have no idea how much of a revelation "it's just rollin' a ball innit' can be to someone like me.

Welllllll... I think the "it's all bodyrolling" perspective is a little obtuse... but I also agree that putting a name to every possible iteration of a thing is overkill.

I do think that sequences come from tricks in the same way sentences come from words... every trick is like a word, whereas what we call "good technique" has more to do with rules of grammar and communication: Slow down. Enunciate. Make eye contact.

I do think of sequencing like "Now I'm on the back of the hand, so I could go to locations A,B,C,D,E,F" and so on and so forth. As I grew more comfortable with the ball, that thought process shortens so as to become unconscious. The purpose is to get away from having your CJ look like "trick trick trick trick trick" and just blend together into the beautiful, thoughtful/thoughtless kind of just-so flow.

Also: THE DAVE!!

_________________
http://www.gravitydefiance.net

I certainly agree with this.

I'm intrigued by what Brine's saying on this, although I personally I am not quite so critical of names. The bit I'm not sure about, is the idea that giving tricks names makes us have an overly fixed idea of what a move is and so limits creativity. This may well be true, but I'm not sure. If it is not a tautology, couldn't you say that it is a lack of imagination and/or experimentation that limits creativity. I guess I'm trying to say that the more somebody is willing to play around with new ideas, the more new "moves" (for want of a better word) they'll come up with; the more somebody sticks to using established ideas (named tricks, if you will) the less they'll come up with stuff. I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself well. I guess what I'm trying to say is, isn't the persons attitude to playing with a ball and the not the names that are the issue. But, I don't know. I guess the names may affect the person's attitude, which was probably Brine's point...? Brine, do you have personal experience of this, i.e. did you go from thinking in terms of names, to not thinking in terms of names and find that it helped? Have other people found this?

Aside from this point, I think the idea that contact juggling is too subtled and infinitely variable to be comprehensively labelled is a true one. I'm pretty sure that a useful level of naminess will establish itself (infact, I think it has) and that superfluous/inhibiting naminess will naturally fall into disuse.

For me the naming of a move isn't that important. For someone who knows nothing about cj a butterfly or a bridge roll doesn't mean anything. It comes down to the description or the teaching methods. The names are handy for saying what your working on and communicating with other jugglers but at the end of the day it's just rolling a ball about the place using different techniques to achieve different effects.

Maybe this is a simplistic view but I'm not convinced that naming every variation of the same principle is beneficial.

_________________
http://brianojuggling.wordpress.com

New Blog Page... innit

If all the possible variations of the butterfly are named, they at LEAST have to be named after specific butterfly species.
Personally I can't keep up with the names as it is.

Nobody can be told what the matrix is. They have to see it for themselves.

Moves are labels are the way for this happen.
Slowly the attachment to the labels and moves and pedantries subsides, and you realise that everything is just different faces of the exact same thing.

It's to do with the whole left/right side brain interaction thing. The left side has to name stuff. it has to create time so it can think linearly. It doesn't directly experience the outside world, so it creates it's own expectation, or illusion. The right hand side knows everything. it feels it all and it experiences it. but it can't describe it. but it doesn't need to be on top, so it quietly keeps it's knowledge to itself. the knowledge of how your body and mind work, whilst the left hand side creates whatever you want, Ie names, labels, moves, individuals.

These labels are how we communicate with each other. then our right hand side interprets them, and makes them so. just gotta get the description right, which can only be done through experiencing.

So. in one way, labels limit one's self. but to ignore them is to limit the outside world, as you are unable to share your experiences and teach others.

it's the balance we need. and less of the silly names. or if they are silly, at least they should be funny.

Myself? it's all just holding a ball, innit. do what you like. I'm happy where i am

_________________
Z = Z^2 + C
Do it slowlier, Okido?
Installer of Warp Drive Technology. Sending out Ripples and making Waves.
Chin high, chest puffed, we step right to it. The choice is; there is no choice but to pursue it.

Ok well i am going to go with no new names then. You have persuaded me.

_________________
I am a mother pheasant plucker.
I pluck mother pheasants.
I am the most pleasant mother pheasant plucker, to ever pluck a mother pheasant.