Hi everybody,

like many of you before I did the groundbreaking 100 catches with 7 balls,
and this took me
almost 29 months. For the 100 catches mark I needed with :

5 ball cascade = 4 months
6 ball wimpy = 12 months
6 ball halfshower = 18 months
6 ball asyn fountain = 22 months
6 ball syn fountain = 26 months

So it took me about 3 times longer with the 6 wimpy, than with the 5
cascade and
7 times longer with 7 balls than with 5 balls.

I don´t know but I guess that the 100 catches mark with 8 wimpy takes also
3 times
longer than the 7 ball cascade(like the jump from 5 cascade to 6 wimpy),
so for me it´s 3* 29
months = 87 months = 7 years+

I also guess 9 balls take 7 times longer than 7 balls so for me it´s 7* 29
months = 203 months =
almost 17 years - and that for fuckin`100 catches which is NOT solid -
I think a minute
with n balls is kind of solid, but 100 catches is more or less nothing,
only the base you need
for esthablish a pattern.

I don´t wanna hurt someone here, but I have never seen a good 8 or 9 ball
non-multiplex
pattern ( and Gatto doesn´t count ) without Sarafians 8 ball wimpy and
Thomas Dietz
8 ball halfshower - but these guys juggle 15 years+

What can you learn in 7 years+ which is more spectaculus than 7 balls + 1
ball ??

I hope none of you get me wrong (I really love juggling), I just want to
know some
( senceful / senceless / up on the roof / down in the cellar ) 8 and 9
ball stories/ expierences.

So, goin`for 8 or 9 balls ??

Lots of respect to everyone,
Christoph from Bremen.

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

From:	Adam
Subject:	Re:_7_balls_for_100_catches_-_goin´for_8_or_9_??
Date:	20 Jan 2005 19:09:09 -0800

I've seen the video before, I was just wondering how solid the flash
was since performing it made me think you might be able to break the 8
club/stick record. Thanks.

Adam

From:	David Cain
Subject:	Re:_7_balls_for_100_catches_-_goin´for_8_or_9_??
Date:	20 Jan 2005 10:31:03 -0800

I've been juggling for 23 years and perform an eight stick flash and a
six club juggle in my act, but I've never done 100 catches with 7
balls. Go figure. Good job with reaching your goal. I'd say that
there are about 1,000,000 other juggling tricks that you could learn in
the time that you would spend trying to get 100 catches with 8 and 9
balls. Just my opinion.

David Cain
www.christianjuggler.com

From:	David Cain
Subject:	Re:_7_balls_for_100_catches_-_goin´for_8_or_9_??
Date:	21 Jan 2005 05:23:34 -0800

Yup, the record is for performing it. I'm well aware of all the
current world records.
David Cain
www.christianjuggler.com

From:	FreeJuggler
Subject:	Re: 7 balls for 100 catches - goin´for 8 or 9 ??
Date:	21 Jan 2005 00:53:13 GMT

christoph wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> like many of you before I did the groundbreaking 100 catches with 7 balls,
> and this took me
> almost 29 months. For the 100 catches mark I needed with :

Wow, good job. I wish I could do 100 catches with 7.

> 5 ball cascade = 4 months
> 6 ball wimpy = 12 months
> 6 ball halfshower = 18 months
> 6 ball asyn fountain = 22 months
> 6 ball syn fountain = 26 months
>
> So it took me about 3 times longer with the 6 wimpy, than with the 5
> cascade and
> 7 times longer with 7 balls than with 5 balls.
> I don´t know but I guess that the 100 catches mark with 8 wimpy takes also
> 3 times
> longer than the 7 ball cascade(like the jump from 5 cascade to 6 wimpy),
> so for me it´s 3* 29
> months = 87 months = 7 years+

Well, I don't know about your estimate, but
as I start working on numbers a few things
become clear.
1) The physical demands become much
greater, weeding people out.
2) Throw accuracy becomes paramount.
3) Timing, and the problem of starting
a large number of objects with the correct
timing, becomes a big problem.

As there's really only one guy in the
world doing 100 catches with 9 when
he wants, you may work the rest of your
life on it without success.

> almost 17 years - and that for fuckin`100 catches which is NOT solid -
> I think a minute
> with n balls is kind of solid, but 100 catches is more or less nothing,
> only the base you need
> for esthablish a pattern.

With 9, 100 catches IS solid. When you
consider 9 it is like running a sprint.

You don't tell Carl Lewis he's not a good
runner because he only goes 100 meters
instead of a marathon. The physical
demands of going 100 with 9 are nothing
like the trivial physical demand of doing
100 with 3, 4, or 5.

> What can you learn in 7 years+ which is more spectaculus than 7 balls + 1
> ball ??

6-ball Mills mess.

> I hope none of you get me wrong (I really love juggling), I just want to
> know some
> ( senceful / senceless / up on the roof / down in the cellar ) 8 and 9
> ball stories/ experiences.

Huh?

> Lots of respect to everyone,
> Christoph from Bremen.

Lots of respect on 100 with 7.

FreeJuggler

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

From:	Peter Bone
Subject:	Re: 7 balls for 100 catches - goin´for 8 or 9 ??
Date:	21 Jan 2005 11:18:15 GMT

> With 9, 100 catches IS solid. When you
> consider 9 it is like running a sprint.
>
> You don't tell Carl Lewis he's not a good
> runner because he only goes 100 meters
> instead of a marathon. The physical
> demands of going 100 with 9 are nothing
> like the trivial physical demand of doing
> 100 with 3, 4, or 5.

I agree. Flashing 9 balls is relatively easy but to run it continuously is
much more strenuous because the optimum pattern has a wide hand position
in order to avoid collisions, which puts a lot more strain on the arms.
The other day I beat my 9 ball record by 2 catches (now 48 catches) and I
attribute it almost entirely to going to the gym a lot recently and using
heavier balls for 7.

> > What can you learn in 7 years+ which is more spectaculus than 7 balls + 1
> > ball ??

If you practiced several hours a day during that 7 years you could be
doing a lot more stuff. I've been juggling 7 years. I first got 100
catches with 7 after about 2 years. If you want to do 9 balls for over 100
catches then you'll have to work on your fitness and strength almost as
much as your juggling - like Gatto does.

Peter

p.s. Here's a video of (8x,6)(4,6x)(6,8x)(6x,4) I filmed the other day
that doesn't deserve its own thread.
http://atlas.walagata.com/w/peterbone/6ballsynch.wmv

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

From:	FreeJuggler
Subject:	Re: 7 balls for 100 catches - goin´for 8 or 9 ??
Date:	21 Jan 2005 22:29:19 GMT

Peter Bone wrote:
> > You don't tell Carl Lewis he's not a good
> > runner because he only goes 100 meters
> > instead of a marathon. The physical
> > demands of going 100 with 9 are nothing
> > like the trivial physical demand of doing
> > 100 with 3, 4, or 5.
>
> I agree. Flashing 9 balls is relatively easy but to run it continuously is
> much more strenuous because the optimum pattern has a wide hand position
> in order to avoid collisions, which puts a lot more strain on the arms.
> The other day I beat my 9 ball record by 2 catches (now 48 catches) and I
> attribute it almost entirely to going to the gym a lot recently and using
> heavier balls for 7.

What has always amazed me is how scrawny
Ben Beever and Lukas look on videos.
I know they compensate by using very light
props, but I can't help but think they'd be
better if they ate more and started lifting
weights.

In sprinting and baseball batting, athletes
are showing huge improvements by lifting
weights and in extreme cases supplementing
this with steroids. When starting 5 or
6 beanbags in a hand, the weight adds up
when you're trying to launch those at
twitch speed.

Just a little weight lifting has given me a
noticeable improvement working on 7.

> p.s. Here's a video of (8x,6)(4,6x)(6,8x)(6x,4) I filmed the other day
> that doesn't deserve its own thread.
> http://atlas.walagata.com/w/peterbone/6ballsynch.wmv

That's a nice looking trick, I've never seen
that before.

FreeJuggler

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

From:	Adam Chamberlain
Subject:	Re: 7 balls for 100 catches - goin´for 8 or 9 ??
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 01:27:05 +0000

>That's a nice looking trick, I've never seen
>that before.

yeh, neither me, that's really cool peter :)

out of curiosity - was that an average or maximum run of it? Also,
just wondering - has anybody seen gatto do synchronous tricks other
than (6,6) and (8,8) may be? I know i haven't, and I know that he's
not big on siteswap, so may be he doesn't know any and i can do some
tricks that gatto can't - yay me lol :)

Adam

From:	staticjuggler
Subject:	Re: 7 balls for 100 catches - goin´for 8 or 9 ??
Date:	22 Jan 2005 01:44:52 GMT

He does (6x,4)(4,6x) (<----did i get that right?) with 5 clubs, along with
a sync halfshower
and backcross stuff all sync, with added pirouettes and stuff in the middle

Static

www.staticjuggler.com

Adam Chamberlain wrote:
> >That's a nice looking trick, I've never seen
> >that before.
>
> yeh, neither me, that's really cool peter :)
>
> out of curiosity - was that an average or maximum run of it? Also,
> just wondering - has anybody seen gatto do synchronous tricks other
> than (6,6) and (8,8) may be? I know i haven't, and I know that he's
> not big on siteswap, so may be he doesn't know any and i can do some
> tricks that gatto can't - yay me lol :)
>
> Adam

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

From:	erik_jernqvist
Subject:	Re: 7 balls for 100 catches - goin´for 8 or 9 ??
Date:	22 Jan 2005 09:50:29 GMT

staticjuggler wrote:
> He does (6x,4)(4,6x) (<----did i get that right?) with 5 clubs, along with
> a sync halfshower
> and backcross stuff all sync, with added pirouettes and stuff in the middle

That would be (6x,4x). Both hands are throwing crossing throws (the x's)
and one hand is throwing higher throws (6x) than the other (4x). He also
does a couple of stuff with (6,6)(6,6)(6,0) (he calls this splits, no one
else does) and (8x,6x) "Revolving door" (high throws are flat fronts).

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

From:	erik_jernqvist
Subject:	Re: 7 balls for 100 catches - goin´for 8 or 9 ??
Date:	22 Jan 2005 09:55:15 GMT

According to Bone, Burrage, Bruce and Beever it's easier to flash 12 balls
(that would be saggy beanbags) than to juggle 9 for 100+ catches. But they
are using beanbags and not super pinkies.

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

From:	Adam
Subject:	Re:_7_balls_for_100_catches_-_goin´for_8_or_9_??
Date:	20 Jan 2005 15:44:42 -0800

David,

So do you drop a bunch with the 8 sticks and sell it as a hard, record
breaking trick, or can you really perform it like your other stuff?
Adam

From:	Brett Sheets
Subject:	Re: 7 balls for 100 catches - goin´for 8 or 9 ??
Date:	22 Jan 2005 17:38:34 GMT

Very nice job on the seven ball work. I really dont think your way of
calculating progress is acurate though. Their are way to many unknowns and
changing variables to have difinitive proof of how long things will take.
It mostly depends on how long to juggle each day. A 1 hour practice
schedule will progress a lot slower than a 3-4 hour one. Also it depends
if your tired, or its your on vacation, or you broke your arm or
something. I myself, nailed 5 balls solid in 1 and a half months, were it
takes others anywhere from 1 month to a year. I believe that progression
only works with slow and steady progress. I juggled three and four balls
(tricks) for about 9 months before even attempting five. In your case
though, you may be ready to move up. If you got 7 for 100, which is fairly
solid, then you could attempt eight. I really think what helps in the end
though is trying to qualify tricks with higher numbers. Maybe 6-7 ball
halfshower (if possible?). Unless you a hardcore numbers juggler...

As for my 8-9 ball experiences...well ill get back to you in 7 years.

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

From:	staticjuggler
Subject:	Re: 7 balls for 100 catches - goin´for 8 or 9 ??
Date:	20 Jan 2005 22:27:04 GMT

look, i see what you're saying but forget all the math crap. when you feel
ready to start
working on 8 and/or 9, then start working on it! it's not worth wasting
your time sitting
there with a calculator in hand and multiplying how many months it took
you to achieve
x trick vs. y trick.

yeah, that was a bit rough but i hope i helped (and i did).

Static

christoph wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> like many of you before I did the groundbreaking 100 catches with 7 balls,
> and this took me
> almost 29 months. For the 100 catches mark I needed with :
>
> 5 ball cascade = 4 months
> 6 ball wimpy = 12 months
> 6 ball halfshower = 18 months
> 6 ball asyn fountain = 22 months
> 6 ball syn fountain = 26 months
>
> So it took me about 3 times longer with the 6 wimpy, than with the 5
> cascade and
> 7 times longer with 7 balls than with 5 balls.
>
> I don´t know but I guess that the 100 catches mark with 8 wimpy takes also
> 3 times
> longer than the 7 ball cascade(like the jump from 5 cascade to 6 wimpy),
> so for me it´s 3* 29
> months = 87 months = 7 years+
>
> I also guess 9 balls take 7 times longer than 7 balls so for me it´s 7* 29
> months = 203 months =
> almost 17 years - and that for fuckin`100 catches which is NOT solid -
> I think a minute
> with n balls is kind of solid, but 100 catches is more or less nothing,
> only the base you need
> for esthablish a pattern.
>
> I don´t wanna hurt someone here, but I have never seen a good 8 or 9 ball
> non-multiplex
> pattern ( and Gatto doesn´t count ) without Sarafians 8 ball wimpy and
> Thomas Dietz
> 8 ball halfshower - but these guys juggle 15 years+
>
> What can you learn in 7 years+ which is more spectaculus than 7 balls + 1
> ball ??
>
> I hope none of you get me wrong (I really love juggling), I just want to
> know some
> ( senceful / senceless / up on the roof / down in the cellar ) 8 and 9
> ball stories/ expierences.
>
> So, goin`for 8 or 9 balls ??
>
> Lots of respect to everyone,
> Christoph from Bremen.
>
> ----== posted via www.jugglingdb.com ==----

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

From:	Naomi
Subject:	Re: 7 balls for 100 catches - goin´for 8 or 9 ??
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 07:33:29 GMT

"staticjuggler" wrote in message
news:41f03033$0$23058$bed64819@news.gradwell.net...
> look, i see what you're saying but forget all the math crap. when you feel
> ready to start
> working on 8 and/or 9, then start working on it! it's not worth wasting
> your time sitting
> there with a calculator in hand and multiplying how many months it took

No, I think it is worth while doing such maths, if only as a fun thing ,
but you cannot place much reliance on the results you gain from it. The
maths cannot take into account your experience gained en route. You may be
able to use your experience to pluck a guestimate from the air. Either way
100 catches of 9 is gonna be a pretty hot target, and no matter what the
calculator says it will not be quick, and not easy.

Nao.

From:	David Cain
Subject:	Re:_7_balls_for_100_catches_-_goin´for_8_or_9_??
Date:	20 Jan 2005 19:14:18 -0800

Adam,
I've never tried more than a flash. I think Chris Fowler has done
10 catches with 8 sticks, so he's the closest to tying Gatto.
David Cain

From:	Martin Richards
Subject:	Re: 7 balls for 100 catches - goin´for 8 or 9 ??
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:31:18 -0000

im interested in when you started timing the 29 months. I presume each of
the times you state overlapped. Did you practice consistantly with each of
these tricks or when learning 5 were you spending much longer?

Martin

"christoph" wrote in message
news:41efe703$0$23053$bed64819@news.gradwell.net...
> Hi everybody,
>
> like many of you before I did the groundbreaking 100 catches with 7 balls,
> and this took me
> almost 29 months. For the 100 catches mark I needed with :
>
> 5 ball cascade = 4 months
> 6 ball wimpy = 12 months
> 6 ball halfshower = 18 months
> 6 ball asyn fountain = 22 months
> 6 ball syn fountain = 26 months
>
> So it took me about 3 times longer with the 6 wimpy, than with the 5
> cascade and
> 7 times longer with 7 balls than with 5 balls.
>
> I don´t know but I guess that the 100 catches mark with 8 wimpy takes also
> 3 times
> longer than the 7 ball cascade(like the jump from 5 cascade to 6 wimpy),
> so for me it´s 3* 29
> months = 87 months = 7 years+
>
> I also guess 9 balls take 7 times longer than 7 balls so for me it´s 7* 29
> months = 203 months =
> almost 17 years - and that for fuckin`100 catches which is NOT solid -
> I think a minute
> with n balls is kind of solid, but 100 catches is more or less nothing,
> only the base you need
> for esthablish a pattern.
>
> I don´t wanna hurt someone here, but I have never seen a good 8 or 9 ball
> non-multiplex
> pattern ( and Gatto doesn´t count ) without Sarafians 8 ball wimpy and
> Thomas Dietz
> 8 ball halfshower - but these guys juggle 15 years+
>
> What can you learn in 7 years+ which is more spectaculus than 7 balls + 1
> ball ??
>
> I hope none of you get me wrong (I really love juggling), I just want to
> know some
> ( senceful / senceless / up on the roof / down in the cellar ) 8 and 9
> ball stories/ expierences.
>
> So, goin`for 8 or 9 balls ??
>
> Lots of respect to everyone,
> Christoph from Bremen.
>
> ----== posted via www.jugglingdb.com ==----
>

From:	David Cain
Subject:	Re:_7_balls_for_100_catches_-_goin´for_8_or_9_??
Date:	20 Jan 2005 18:50:01 -0800

Adam,
Well the 8 stick flash is presented as a record breaking / tying
trick and I certainly don't have it down solid. I invite two
volunteers from the audience to assist with picking up dropped sticks.
I've gotten it as quickly as the second attempt before and as late as
the tenth attempt. I tell the audience up front that I'll only attempt
it a maximim of ten times. Video of me performing it can be seen on my
website. I'll be performing it in some shows during the first two
weeks of February, so I need to practice it some in the coming weeks.
David Cain
www.christianjuggler.com

From:	jugglingeek
Subject:	Re: 7 balls for 100 catches - goin´for 8 or 9 ??
Date:	21 Jan 2005 11:48:44 GMT

David Cain wrote:
> Adam,
> Well the 8 stick flash is presented as a record breaking / tying
> trick and I certainly don't have it down solid. I invite two
> volunteers from the audience to assist with picking up dropped sticks.
> I've gotten it as quickly as the second attempt before and as late as
> the tenth attempt. I tell the audience up front that I'll only attempt
> it a maximim of ten times. Video of me performing it can be seen on my
> website. I'll be performing it in some shows during the first two
> weeks of February, so I need to practice it some in the coming weeks.
> David Cain
> www.christianjuggler.com

I hate to rain on your parrade but the world record is 9 sicks, not 8
sticks. Thats still 5 more than I can
manage but not quite a record. Don't get me wrong you are a fantastic
juggler (I saw your 36 different
ways video) but the record is 9 sticks or 8 clubs.

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

From:	Eccles
Subject:	Re: 7 balls for 100 catches - goin´for 8 or 9 ??
Date:	21 Jan 2005 12:55:31 GMT

jugglingeek wrote:
> David Cain wrote:
> > Adam,
> > Well the 8 stick flash is presented as a record breaking / tying
> > trick and I certainly don't have it down solid. I invite two
> > volunteers from the audience to assist with picking up dropped sticks.
> > I've gotten it as quickly as the second attempt before and as late as
> > the tenth attempt. I tell the audience up front that I'll only attempt
> > it a maximim of ten times. Video of me performing it can be seen on my
> > website. I'll be performing it in some shows during the first two
> > weeks of February, so I need to practice it some in the coming weeks.
> > David Cain
> > www.christianjuggler.com
>
> I hate to rain on your parrade but the world record is 9 sicks, not 8
> sticks. Thats still 5 more than I can
> manage but not quite a record. Don't get me wrong you are a fantastic
> juggler (I saw your 36 different
> ways video) but the record is 9 sticks or 8 clubs.
>
> ----== posted via www.jugglingdb.com ==----

But it is a record of sorts in that he is the only person to *perform* an
8 stick flash. Much like Gatto's "only person to perform 7 clubs on
stage" ( taken from TBTB so probably not true anymore! )

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

From:	iain duncan
Subject:	Re: 7 balls for 100 catches - goin´for_8_or
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:54:25 GMT

I'd like to defend the math here. Thinking about this kind of stuff is
important if you are actually trying to make serious decisions about
where you want your juggling to go. Bottom line is this, if you are
doing it to perform, then 9 balls is a SERIOUS commitment. I think it's
safe to say that if you decide that is what you are going to do with
your juggling, then you are also deciding to be a *numbers only* juggler.

There are many jugglers who have 7 locked down, and do a lot of unusual
choreography and artistic juggling. But how many people who perform nine
do anything except numbers? There's no time left to work on the other
stuff, your life is going to revolve around high numbers juggling. This
is meant as a put down to Anthony, et al. I think he's far and away the
best technical juggler ever. But that's not the kind of show I want to
do. I'd rather perform stuff like Victor Kee or Jay Gilligan. I'd rather
learn a higher number of simpler tricks ( like 5 club variants etc )
that I can actually work into routines.

So people who haven't got 7 up past 50 catches should stop saying "go
for it dude" 'cause they have no freaking idea of the commitment you are
contemplating. I haven't even broken 100 catches with seven yet, ( 74
though, getting there. ) and it's been years. The idea of nine balls
performable is serious.

iain

christoph wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> like many of you before I did the groundbreaking 100 catches with 7 balls,
> and this took me
> almost 29 months. For the 100 catches mark I needed with :
>
> 5 ball cascade = 4 months
> 6 ball wimpy = 12 months
> 6 ball halfshower = 18 months
> 6 ball asyn fountain = 22 months
> 6 ball syn fountain = 26 months
>
> So it took me about 3 times longer with the 6 wimpy, than with the 5
> cascade and
> 7 times longer with 7 balls than with 5 balls.
>
> I don´t know but I guess that the 100 catches mark with 8 wimpy takes also
> 3 times
> longer than the 7 ball cascade(like the jump from 5 cascade to 6 wimpy),
> so for me it´s 3* 29
> months = 87 months = 7 years+
>
> I also guess 9 balls take 7 times longer than 7 balls so for me it´s 7* 29
> months = 203 months =
> almost 17 years - and that for fuckin`100 catches which is NOT solid -
> I think a minute
> with n balls is kind of solid, but 100 catches is more or less nothing,
> only the base you need
> for esthablish a pattern.
>
> I don´t wanna hurt someone here, but I have never seen a good 8 or 9 ball
> non-multiplex
> pattern ( and Gatto doesn´t count ) without Sarafians 8 ball wimpy and
> Thomas Dietz
> 8 ball halfshower - but these guys juggle 15 years+
>
> What can you learn in 7 years+ which is more spectaculus than 7 balls + 1
> ball ??
>
> I hope none of you get me wrong (I really love juggling), I just want to
> know some
> ( senceful / senceless / up on the roof / down in the cellar ) 8 and 9
> ball stories/ expierences.
>
> So, goin`for 8 or 9 balls ??
>
> Lots of respect to everyone,
> Christoph from Bremen.
>
> ----== posted via www.jugglingdb.com ==----
>

From:	Steve Bennett
Subject:	Re:_7_balls_for_100_catches_-_goin´for_8_or_9_??
Date:	21 Jan 2005 01:05:22 -0800

Heh, here's a guy working out that it may take 17 years of serious
practice to achive something only a small number of people will
appreciate, and you're worried that spending 5 minutes on some maths
might be wasting his time? I wish my time was so valuable! :)